Motor Taxes

[manshimajin]

Ballaghbiker: The vehicle excise duty isn't road tax, and doesn't directly pay for the roads. The engine size proportionate to the vehicle makes perfect sense, it encourages smaller more efficient vehicles.

Do away with the road tax and put extra on a litre of fuel, you would then only pay for what you use...you have pay per view and so the tv license fee should be scrapped and you would have pay per drive and have the VED scrapped

Incorporating excise duty and third party insurance costs into the tax on fuel would be a sensible way to go to encourgae smaller engined cars, use of public transport and lower costs for tax collection. Of course we have to realise that Governments don't ACTUALLY want people to reduce fuel consumption as this would hit a major revenue source very hard indeed. So we will not see this logical solution to the issues raised here.

 

But if we did, high mileage drivers and large engine car owners (both of whom contribute the most to CO2 emissions) would pay proportionately a lot more for their driving than owners of fuel efficient cars who drive low mileages. And of course you would not need the whole administrative costs of collecting and policing licensing and third party insurance, ANPR etc etc. It could also be an incentive for some owners to move from 'gas guzzlers' to fuel efficient cars.

[Slim]

I have read your assertion that the annual tax disc is not road tax many times and I agree with you that its not spent on roads. However, here and the in the UK, if you don't use the vehicle on public roads you don't have to buy a disc and vice versa. With that in mind its very hard to argue its not a tax for using the road whatever you call it and whatever its spent on.

 

No, the key part of 'public roads' isn't the 'roads', it's the 'public'. You're licensing the vehicle to be used in public, for all the various reasons that it's sensible to have all owners licensed and the number of vehicles controlled.

 

In my previous example I was only considering europe. I was not aware that Spain had an annual tax disc but what's this buying a vehicle licence when your purchase a car new in France then? Not sure about that.

 

Do French cars have a registration plate? If so, that's a one off vehicle license.

 

I maintain that the only fair way is extra tax on fuel instead of this annual disc. Its fairer in every respect and would encourage the right sort of vehicle ie something that's economical. Engine size is not necessarily an accurate prediction of economy either. I have been using my son's modern 1.4i jap thing for the past few weeks and it does exactly the same mpg as my old 2.5. In fact at higher speeds its worse despite me paying about another £46 per year to tax it. This annual tax disc is a mad system and I can see any good reason to perpetuate it.

 

The manx systems flawed because it's just based on engine size, which is out of date. We should definitely change to the UK system which isn't perfect but is a lot closer to encouraging more efficient cars.

 

 

A small car is more efficient no matter how many miles you do.

Not so. Our 1.9 TDI diesel gets better MPG than our 1.2 petrol. But costs more for the paper disc.

It also has a lot to do with how you drive. I drive with a mental eye on the rev counter. Taxing fuel rewards (??? I hate reward schemes) thinking about how you drive.

 

Yeah, like I said the manx system based on cc alone is flawed and should be replaced with the uk system rather than removed. But generally a smaller engine car is more efficient than a bigger one, despite the odd example like yours. Even in that case, I'm guessing the emissions on the 1.2 petrol are much less than the dirty diesel.

[Slim]

Absolutely no problem with pedestrians. I'm one myself. "Juvenile road race". Is that directed at myself? I am a responsible road user (unlike the majority of free loading cyclists) . And I do qualify to join the human race by virtue of being human.

 

Cyclists are free loaders? Have you seen the costs that vehicles weigh on our economy? The whole traffic system that's required, the police, the hospital treatment for injuries, the public damage, the criminal system. Cars cost society a fortune, cyclists are not freeloaders.

[jonnyrotten]

Couple of things.

 

First, the Conservatives already (early 80's) introduced an extra tax on fuel which was intended to operate for a year with a view to replacing the Road Fund Licence if sufficient revenue was raised in this way. So much was raised with so little protest that they decided to keep both.

 

Second, if you have any doubt at all about the intentions of Government in the UK, you may like to know that early this month Highway Agencies were given permission to introduce "Green Wave" traffic light systems, under which a driver travelling at or below the local speed limit will be confronted by a wave of green traffic lights operated under computer control, thus easing traffic flow and of course saving lots of fuel and the extra pollution created by the stop-start cycle at red lights. This has always been possible (introduced in Slough in the sixties) but until now it has been Government policy not to allow it in order to INCREASE fuel consumption by motorists, and of course add to pollution. The reason - the extra revenue generated by all those cars waiting in traffiuc queues, burning fuel but going nowhere. Government POLICY...

 

And while the UK Government (and Livingstone's London in particular) rants about 4x4 users and penalises the drivers of "gas guzzlers" as a means of raising stealth tax without protest by the old divide and conquer maxim (making everyone hate SUV's and glad to see them taxed) - while that ploy has worked out perfectly (see anti-SUV vitriol on this site for confirmation) - while everyone hisses and boos at SUV drivers, more people in London die from air pollution than are killed on the roads each year by car accidents in the whole of the UK. The source of the pollution? Diesel engines, mostly buses and taxis, the public transport system being promoted as an alternative to your nice clean petrol SUV. This situation is so bad that the UK is now the subject of legal action by the EU, along with other filthy-air third-world* countries like Slovenia, Coatia etc.

 

So yes, all Governments see motorists as a nice fat tax target. But that's ALL motorists, and you smug chappies with the tiny Polos and Clios etc (some of which pollute worse than SUV's because their engine technology is so old but that's another story) - you boys can wipe the smug smile off your faces because when they've finished taxing SUV's they'll be looking for some more cash, and you're next. Followed by a tax on those unhealthy lithium batteries in hybrids of course. And a special tax on hydrogen vehicles because of their nasty carbon composite storage tanks...

 

 

 

 

* with respect to air pollution only of course

[triskelion]

I don't agree that placing taxes purely on fuel is inherently more fair than any other system.

 

The most obvious flaw in that assertion is that the one of the biggest contemporary justifications for fuel duty is that it will penalise consumption. Of course, there is the counter-argument that using road fuel is anti-social, but I don't think there is much substance to the idea that cars have made society worse. Yes, yes rush hour congestion, but anyone who has travelled on South-West Trains, or our own number 5 bus during the same time period will know that public transport is far from a utopian wonderland.

 

Secondly, has car use risen or fallen during the last 30 years? There may hve recently been drop-off due to high oil prices, but really this is very little to do with regulatory regime in place.

 

Thirdly, taxing fuel only takes no account of need. Some people need to drive, and often a small, low-consumption car just won't cut it - whether we are talking about a young family, a parent with a disabled child or a German photographer.

 

I'm tending towards the opinion that the most equitable system would be to retain VED and tier it to promote reduced consumption, and alongside this tax based on the number of miles driven.

[Albert Tatlock]

Couple of things.

Oh yes - summed it all up - though don't forget the speed cameras and parking fines which are now also a major source of (now relied upon) income. Motorists are being sucked dry whilst BS excuses abound.

[Slim]

Triskel, great post, agree!

 

Regarding Greenwave, yes it wasn't implemented in the past because it reduced fuel tax revenue. But now it is. The environmental considerations weren't there in the past, now they are. What's the point of raising it? It's been changed, and it's a change for the better.

 

Oh yes - summed it all up - though don't forget the speed cameras and parking fines which are now also a major source of (now relied upon) income. Motorists are being sucked dry whilst BS excuses abound.

 

 

Motorists are sucking the public dry. 3,000 deaths a year in the UK caused by cars, 30,000 pedestrians injured annually in motor accidents. Cars costs our society an absolute fortune and yet most of this goes un-checked because getting around by car is simply considered normal now. Just look at the vitriol towards cyclists, who don't kill anything like that number of people, but may occasionally jump up on a pavement. They're not normal! They're not like us! Cast them out!

[Albert Tatlock]

Motorists are sucking the public dry. 3,000 deaths a year in the UK caused by cars, 30,000 pedestrians injured annually in motor accidents.

Everybody dies eventually. According to the office of National Statistics, in the UK 2,074 people died of 'Malignant neoplasm of the rectosigmoid junction, of the rectum and anus' - so obviously you especially need to be more careful talking out of your arse so frequently.

 

Cyclists slow things down. They probably cost the economy £trillions and even £squillions every year just slowing people's journey's to work. FFS! buy a cycling or rowing machine like everyone else - and get off the road.

[WTF]

Couple of things.

Oh yes - summed it all up - though don't forget the speed cameras and parking fines which are now also a major source of (now relied upon) income. Motorists are being sucked dry whilst BS excuses abound.

 

 

those two only get you if you speed or illegally park/stay too long. both are avoidable by obeying the law..

[WTF]

'They' should scrap road tax and the cost of administering it and put the charge on fuel.

 

This would mean, in simple terms, that those who use the roads most in the least fuel efficient vehicles would pay the most.

 

looks like you all be paying a hell of a lot more for all your goods u buy then!!!!

good point. back in the day 70's/early80's.diesel was cheap compared to petrol. lorrys/goods vehicles were diesel, so cheap running costs. cars were petrol, reasonable public transport back then so a premium for private vehicles was maybe ok. by the late 80's ford introduced the diesel fiesta and not far away from that was the diesel diahatsu charade@100+ mpg. diesel cars became more prevelent, less petrol getting sold, less duty in!! stick more duty on diesel!! cost of delivering goods goes up. more people get diesel cars etc etc. nowadays the cost of disel car is as was more expensive than a petrol car, but fuel costs are close so you have to do serious mileage for diesel to be an advantage. couple to that modern petrols are a lot closer to diesels on mpg, that it is barely worth it ,if at all??. we will see the same thing happen to electric vehicles running costs when they become mainstream. free vehicle licence at present, electric ( despite the rip off from the mea! ) does work out at around 1/10th the cost per mile of a petrol car, and if you can live with 35mph and a range of 60 - 80 miles on a charge, then good for you. but eventually electric cars will have to bring in revenue.

[pongo]

nowadays the cost of disel car is as was more expensive than a petrol car, but fuel costs are close so you have to do serious mileage for diesel to be an advantage. couple to that modern petrols are a lot closer to diesels on mpg, that it is barely worth it ,if at all??

 

On the plus side modern diesel cars retain their value better. A modern diesel car is just nicely run in @ 70K where as a petrol car is getting long in the tooth. Diesels are keepers.

[BigDave]

I'm tending towards the opinion that the most equitable system would be to retain VED and tier it to promote reduced consumption, and alongside this tax based on the number of miles driven.

I too think that this would be a fairer system, but it has a major flaw highlighted by the 'pay as you drive' proposals in the UK. The main problem being that keeping track of who's doing what milage would involve a massive amount of administration, so charges would have to be higher to cover it and the whole system would be very inefficient, plus there will be many who may seek to pay less by fiddling the system, so the admin side is enlarged further by the requirement of an enforcement element.

 

If the extra duty were added to fuel instead, the government simply gets a cheque from the fuel companies, they don't have to do anything - in fact they'd be able to do less than they do now, and there's no way of avoiding paying unless you're stealing fuel - something that the average guy down the road wouldn't consider where he may think about fiddling his mileage for the year.

[WTF]

nowadays the cost of disel car is as was more expensive than a petrol car, but fuel costs are close so you have to do serious mileage for diesel to be an advantage. couple to that modern petrols are a lot closer to diesels on mpg, that it is barely worth it ,if at all??

 

On the plus side modern diesel cars retain their value better. A modern diesel car is just nicely run in @ 70K where as a petrol car is getting long in the tooth. Diesels are keepers.

 

the engine may be ok at 70k, but the gearbox, suspension and the rest of the 'moving' parts have had their day. new bushes and bearings allround along with UJ's and ball joints may get you back on side, but the cost maybe not worth it. if you are only doing 4 or 5k a year and intend to keep it 8 years then maybe it's a good investment. if you're doing 15k + then the numbers may not be so good.

[WTF]

I'm tending towards the opinion that the most equitable system would be to retain VED and tier it to promote reduced consumption, and alongside this tax based on the number of miles driven.

I too think that this would be a fairer system, but it has a major flaw highlighted by the 'pay as you drive' proposals in the UK. The main problem being that keeping track of who's doing what milage would involve a massive amount of administration, so charges would have to be higher to cover it and the whole system would be very inefficient, plus there will be many who may seek to pay less by fiddling the system, so the admin side is enlarged further by the requirement of an enforcement element.

 

If the extra duty were added to fuel instead, the government simply gets a cheque from the fuel companies, they don't have to do anything - in fact they'd be able to do less than they do now, and there's no way of avoiding paying unless you're stealing fuel - something that the average guy down the road wouldn't consider where he may think about fiddling his mileage for the year.

 

 

an easy mileage fiddle is disconnect the speedo and use a cheapo GPS as a speedo instead, they all display MPH.

[Max Power]

Why did the government increase the tax for hybrid vehicles to the same level as their equivilant capacity? In the UK there are huge concessions for running hybrids

Also cars such as the Toyota IQ have free UK road tax due to their low emmissions!

 

Our road tax system is generally more expensive in a lot of cases than the UK, we have less road network, generally poor roads and traffic management!