Get ready for a doing.

[craigjm]

I read somewhere on that subject that one of the schemes under consideration is to get rid or yearly VED and replace it with a lump sum paid when the car is new. They can fook off with that idea because it will basically mean those of us buying new cars are the only ones paying road tax!

[Phil1]

c7xlg said:

"Trains and public transport are non-viable for any journey that isn't city centre to city centre"

cars ARE the best, and often only, viable option for long trips that are not a city centre to city centre. People who live in a big city and don't like stepping off tarmac/concrete often forget this!

For example I used to have to commute from a village near basingstoke to Solihull. 90 mins by car, as compared to public transport which would be at leasdt 3 hours door to door (taxi/cycle 2 miles, train to basingstoke, change train, train to leamington, change train, train to solihull and then 10 mins walk.) That is not a viable option if you are trying to do close to a full working day in the office.

Cars are the best option, and only viable option for taking kids 2.5 miles down a busy A road with no pavement to the school in my village.

So why do you think you should get off free and I should pay extra?

[singlecoil]

Sometimes the topic of commuting comes up, people offering examples of long journeys that they need to undertake. But do they really need to? Do they really need to live umpteen miles from where they work? Some will argue that yes, they do need to, and maybe they do. But there will be others who maybe could do something about that long journey, especially if they received the encouragement of a fuel tax increase.

[MiseryStreak]

[Otispunkmeyer]

DonkeyApple said:

I've never seen the point of road tax other than to create jobs and waste time it is a tool to steer people in favoured directions.

The purpose I see it serving is that it works to generate new car sales but that element has clearly slowed down but also been extremely successful as people have sold perfectly good cars to buy new ones with lower tax.

But, in all honesty, am I missing something? Does the VED actually serve an important function that I have over looked?

With regards to petrol being the logical tax, how much do we estimate would need to be added to a litre? 5p, 10p?

In my car at least... 10p would be fine (break even).

1600L of fuel a year (petrol) and £170 Tax Disc. So just over 10.5p per liter.

And agree that it is fairer... I can do 10 miles a year and still pay the 170 which is gash.

But then again maybe thats what they want to avoid. Scrapping VED and lumping it on petrol may sound like it'll balance out but essentially its now giving people a choice. Currently you dont have a choice if you need to drive a car you must have a valid tax disc so thats £xxx guaranteed. Without that I can chose to walk everywhere and only use my car for a sunday blast and never make up the "lost" £170 by paying for more heavily taxed fuel.

Suppose it may be balanced out by the high milers and low milers though.

[Fatboy]

Otispunkmeyer said:

DonkeyApple said:

I've never seen the point of road tax other than to create jobs and waste time it is a tool to steer people in favoured directions.

The purpose I see it serving is that it works to generate new car sales but that element has clearly slowed down but also been extremely successful as people have sold perfectly good cars to buy new ones with lower tax.

But, in all honesty, am I missing something? Does the VED actually serve an important function that I have over looked?

With regards to petrol being the logical tax, how much do we estimate would need to be added to a litre? 5p, 10p?

In my car at least... 10p would be fine (break even).

1600L of fuel a year (petrol) and £170 Tax Disc. So just over 10.5p per liter.

And agree that it is fairer... I can do 10 miles a year and still pay the 170 which is gash.

But then again maybe thats what they want to avoid. Scrapping VED and lumping it on petrol may sound like it'll balance out but essentially its now giving people a choice. Currently you dont have a choice if you need to drive a car you must have a valid tax disc so thats £xxx guaranteed. Without that I can chose to walk everywhere and only use my car for a sunday blast and never make up the "lost" £170 by paying for more heavily taxed fuel.

Suppose it may be balanced out by the high milers and low milers though.

You're forgetting the huge costs of collecting VED though (DVLA isn't exactly efficient), compared to fuel tax, which is virtually free to collect...

[Puggit]

Fatboy said:

You're forgetting the huge costs of collecting VED though (DVLA isn't exactly efficient), compared to fuel tax, which is virtually free to collect...

Which is exactly why, in this topsy-turvy world, it won't be changed.

Socialists love hiring people for jobs they don't need to do.

[johnfm]

c7xlg said:

I have a different view on VED.

I think there are a lot of people who have a car and pretty much only use it for short trips (1 mile to the shops, 0.5 miles to drop the kids at school as it is raining etc etc). These are the journeys that do not need to happen.

But they are so short that fuel costing £1 a litre, £2 a litre or even £5 a litre doesn't really matter as you are using so little.

Conversly the people doing big mileages normal have little choice, other than not getting to where they need to go at all. Trains and public transport are non-viable for any journey that isn't city centre to city centre. Cost of fuel hurts people doing these trips but they can't do much other than 'suck it up'. They probably have pretty efficient cars already.

So my plan is to get rid of VED brackets (as they don't make sense) and increase the cost. Say £1000 or even £2000 a year. Then virtually scrap fuel duty.

Bingo, people who just have cars to do short trips and don't care about fuel costs get rid of their cars and walk to work/school. People who need a car as they do lots of miles probably end up paying about the same due to lower fuel costs. Roads are a lot emptier and 'real' petrol heads will happily pay the extra VED for their fleets of cars as the pay back of cheaper fuel and empty roads are worth it. (and all the pretend petrolheaders in their 1.6TDI pretend hot hatches get to winge and complain and not get in our way as they can't afford a car any more...)

Edited by c7xlg on Friday 1st June 10:08

Says fking who? You?

I tell you what - I think I will determine which of MY car journeys need to happen.


Feel free to move to the totalitarian state over there somewhere ===============>

[DonkeyApple]

Fatboy said:

You're forgetting the huge costs of collecting VED though (DVLA isn't exactly efficient), compared to fuel tax, which is virtually free to collect...

From a commercial perspective as far as govt cuts are concerned, ditching the VED will save money and dispose of a chunk of govt expense and switch from an inefficient collection of revenue which has to be policed to one that as you say effectively is outsourced for free.

In addition you go from a published tax to a masked one which means you can jack it up more easily.

You'd need to protect relevant businesses by allowing a claim back of much of the tax or they will be screwed.

But unless the VED serves some other purpose that I've over looked it would be far more efficient to bin it.

[NorthernBoy]

c7xlg said:

I have a different view on VED.

I think there are a lot of people who have a car and pretty much only use it for short trips (1 mile to the shops, 0.5 miles to drop the kids at school as it is raining etc etc). These are the journeys that do not need to happen.

Why should these journeys not happen?

Why would you like to see pensioners carrying heavy shopping home in the rain, while you get to swan around to your heart's content?

[skinley]

NorthernBoy said:

Why should these journeys not happen?

Why would you like to see pensioners carrying heavy shopping home in the rain, while you get to swan around to your heart's content?

Until.

[loafer123]

NorthernBoy said:

c7xlg said:

I have a different view on VED.

I think there are a lot of people who have a car and pretty much only use it for short trips (1 mile to the shops, 0.5 miles to drop the kids at school as it is raining etc etc). These are the journeys that do not need to happen.

Why should these journeys not happen?

Why would you like to see pensioners carrying heavy shopping home in the rain, while you get to swan around to your heart's content?

I'm guessing c7xlg is a "green socialist" who thinks he knows better about how other people should live their lives.

[NorthernBoy]

loafer123 said:

I'm guessing c7xlg is a "green socialist" who thinks he knows better about how other people should live their lives.

There're certainly a lot of them about.

"how dare you burn 200 gallons a year in your V8? You should save the earth, like me, burning 1,000 gallons a year in my Prius. I have to do that many, you know, I simply couldn't dream of living in a terrible city."

[alfaman]

craigjm said:

I read somewhere on that subject that one of the schemes under consideration is to get rid or yearly VED and replace it with a lump sum paid when the car is new. They can fook off with that idea because it will basically mean those of us buying new cars are the only ones paying road tax!

be grateful you don't live here in Singapore :

License to put a car on the road for 10 years - approaching $100k

road tax $1000 to $4000/annum (on top of license

import duty : 135%

congestion charging

and petrol prices around 1.1 GBP / litre.

BUT - public transport is excellent and cheap , as are taxis.