Stop road tax & insurance evasion - add the cost onto fuel
Discussion
OK then, have been thinking about how to reduce the overall costs for the average motorist per year, whilst increasing road tax revenue for the chancellor.
Here's my plan:
Road tax evasion and car insurance avoidance costs the government millions in terms of lost revenue, plus the grief to the motorist when an accident is caused by an uninsured driver, so why not change the system to prevent this from happening in the first place, and the benefit is that tax revenue will rise for the government and the benefit for the average motorist is that his year on year costs should drop because everyone is now paying into the system plus it and will be based upon a genuine pay per mile basis, where more economic cars pay less, and fuel guzzlers pay more. And it should work unless the government gets greedy in its tax take - as if - ouch!
So how does this simplified system work:
Well all governments always seem to ignore the obvious and look towards hugely expensive and complex to operate pay per mile ANPR systems to combat road users not paying their road fund license or their car insurance, yet there is no need for all this complexity when you consider that if you drive you buy fuel, if you drive fast you buy more fuel, and if you have a gas guzzler you buy even more fuel, so add the cost of the road fund licence and insurance into the price of a litre of fuel. Those that drive less pay less, and those that drive more pay more.
Now surely the more simple route to stop road tax evasion and lack of insurance is to do away with the road fund licence and car insurance, and bundle the whole cost into a litre of fuel which is effectively pay per mile in that the more miles you drive, the more fuel you buy, and the more economic the car, the less fuel you buy.
By doing this whole chunks of the pen-pushing DVLA could be removed, saving millions in departmental costs, along with the need for costly ANPR systems and road checks for road tax.
Now take this one step further and do away with vehicle insurance and add the cost of the insurance onto the price of a litre of fuel.
When you look at how many insurance companies are replicating admin staff across the country to provide a statutory product, perhaps the whole car insurance industry should be reviewed, doing away with tens of thousands of jobs when the cost of insurance could be averaged across the whole UK car user base, and in order to stop inexperienced drivers from killing themselves change the driving license to prohibit certain classes of vehicles to be driven by inexperienced drivers until a reasonable number of years has been accrued. Will stop wealthy parents from killing off their over-enthusiastic off-spring when they unleash them in the latest Lamborghini Aventador.
And how to deal with the haulage companies running costs, well perhaps a reduction could be made at either the pumps they fill up at, or more efficiently to stop fraud, using a RMC (Road Mileage Charge) for all registered hauliers to recoup their costs. This would help to stop cowboys from entering the market because fuel costs would be too expensive for then to compete compared to legitimate haulage businesses.
Surely pay per mile taxes and insurance when absorbed into a litre of fuel is the simplest and most efficient way forward, doing away from endless reams of paper and inefficient departments in the public and private sector.
Anyone care to comment on the positive or negative aspects of introducing 'Pay Per Mile' road fund licence and insurance on a litre of fuel, whilst doing away with the road fund license and vehicle insurance?
Here's my plan:
Road tax evasion and car insurance avoidance costs the government millions in terms of lost revenue, plus the grief to the motorist when an accident is caused by an uninsured driver, so why not change the system to prevent this from happening in the first place, and the benefit is that tax revenue will rise for the government and the benefit for the average motorist is that his year on year costs should drop because everyone is now paying into the system plus it and will be based upon a genuine pay per mile basis, where more economic cars pay less, and fuel guzzlers pay more. And it should work unless the government gets greedy in its tax take - as if - ouch!
So how does this simplified system work:
Well all governments always seem to ignore the obvious and look towards hugely expensive and complex to operate pay per mile ANPR systems to combat road users not paying their road fund license or their car insurance, yet there is no need for all this complexity when you consider that if you drive you buy fuel, if you drive fast you buy more fuel, and if you have a gas guzzler you buy even more fuel, so add the cost of the road fund licence and insurance into the price of a litre of fuel. Those that drive less pay less, and those that drive more pay more.
Now surely the more simple route to stop road tax evasion and lack of insurance is to do away with the road fund licence and car insurance, and bundle the whole cost into a litre of fuel which is effectively pay per mile in that the more miles you drive, the more fuel you buy, and the more economic the car, the less fuel you buy.
By doing this whole chunks of the pen-pushing DVLA could be removed, saving millions in departmental costs, along with the need for costly ANPR systems and road checks for road tax.
Now take this one step further and do away with vehicle insurance and add the cost of the insurance onto the price of a litre of fuel.
When you look at how many insurance companies are replicating admin staff across the country to provide a statutory product, perhaps the whole car insurance industry should be reviewed, doing away with tens of thousands of jobs when the cost of insurance could be averaged across the whole UK car user base, and in order to stop inexperienced drivers from killing themselves change the driving license to prohibit certain classes of vehicles to be driven by inexperienced drivers until a reasonable number of years has been accrued. Will stop wealthy parents from killing off their over-enthusiastic off-spring when they unleash them in the latest Lamborghini Aventador.
And how to deal with the haulage companies running costs, well perhaps a reduction could be made at either the pumps they fill up at, or more efficiently to stop fraud, using a RMC (Road Mileage Charge) for all registered hauliers to recoup their costs. This would help to stop cowboys from entering the market because fuel costs would be too expensive for then to compete compared to legitimate haulage businesses.
Surely pay per mile taxes and insurance when absorbed into a litre of fuel is the simplest and most efficient way forward, doing away from endless reams of paper and inefficient departments in the public and private sector.
Anyone care to comment on the positive or negative aspects of introducing 'Pay Per Mile' road fund licence and insurance on a litre of fuel, whilst doing away with the road fund license and vehicle insurance?
Completely agree on the tax front. The cost of administering it alone would be a massive saving. Why don't they do it ? I think simply because we would lose jobs and it wouldn't look good statistically/politically.
On the insurance front, it would be totally unworkable I think. And the jobs lost wouldn't even be public sector so doubly bad...
On the insurance front, it would be totally unworkable I think. And the jobs lost wouldn't even be public sector so doubly bad...
nickfrog said:
Completely agree on the tax front. The cost of administering it alone would be a massive saving. Why don't they do it ? I think simply because we would lose jobs and it wouldn't look good statistically/politically.
On the insurance front, it would be totally unworkable I think. And the jobs lost wouldn't even be public sector so doubly bad...
I completely agree with you.On the insurance front, it would be totally unworkable I think. And the jobs lost wouldn't even be public sector so doubly bad...
The other benefit is the less you use your car, the less you pay. This is fantastic for people who have a hobby or sports car for occasional use who pay exorbitant amounts of money for road upkeep relative to the miles they drive.
GavinPearson said:
nickfrog said:
Completely agree on the tax front. The cost of administering it alone would be a massive saving. Why don't they do it ? I think simply because we would lose jobs and it wouldn't look good statistically/politically.
On the insurance front, it would be totally unworkable I think. And the jobs lost wouldn't even be public sector so doubly bad...
I completely agree with you.On the insurance front, it would be totally unworkable I think. And the jobs lost wouldn't even be public sector so doubly bad...
The other benefit is the less you use your car, the less you pay. This is fantastic for people who have a hobby or sports car for occasional use who pay exorbitant amounts of money for road upkeep relative to the miles they drive.
Doing away with the 6 or 12 month road fund license and adding the cost of the road fund license onto fuel is in my humble opinion a much fairer system, and it stops nearly everyone from evading paying for the license, does away with complex ANPR systems and layer upon layer of bureaucracy both in terms of the manpower, departmental costs and complex and expensive IT systems set up to handle the road tax and catching offenders, plus it makes it cheaper for those road users that don't use their cars very much. Those owning an inefficient gas guzzler or large vehicle will simply pay more tax into the system because they will be putting more fuel in on a weekly basis. This wouldn't impact on the running costs of efficient low emission cars which currently pay zero road tax because these cars are by their vary nature extremely economical to run.
One major benefit would be to users of classic cars who don't want to tax their cars for 12 months because they only do a few hundred miles a year, so the vehicle is SORN for six months a year when it is not driven even on those brief hot sunny days when they could have gone for a run but can't because the car isn't taxed - all lost tax revenue when the car is parked up in the garage or off-road.
This simple system could be carried across onto electricity ahead of the massive switch from petrol and diesel driven cars to electric in the near future.
So to Cameron and Osborne, stop squandering huge amounts of taxpayers money on overly complex ANPR systems and layer upon layer of departmental pen-pushers to catch out road fund license offenders, and just average the cost out across the UK and add a few pence onto petrol and diesel - and don't forget to cancel the road fund license in the meantime!
No thankyou - purely from a selfish reason. As one of the few people who is perfectly happy driving a 90s car on a daily basis I am very happy with being able to drive any engine size I like on £230 per year!
In any case, changing the way the system is administered will only ever result in the overall tax going up, and more people being employed in the process - turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
In any case, changing the way the system is administered will only ever result in the overall tax going up, and more people being employed in the process - turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
So your solution is to put thousands of people out of work and massively increase the cost of a litre of petrol?
I can see any government putting forward that proposal not getting anywhere near re-election for the next decade.
Regardless of whether it seems sensible or not, it's political suicide.
I can see any government putting forward that proposal not getting anywhere near re-election for the next decade.
Regardless of whether it seems sensible or not, it's political suicide.
Putting it on fuel would not be popular with the haulage industry, putting up retail prices for everyone ultimately. It would also make public transport even less attractive than it already is for the same reason.
The only people it would suit would be low milage casual drivers.
I'm a medium milage driver. I doubt it would affect me much.
The only people it would suit would be low milage casual drivers.
I'm a medium milage driver. I doubt it would affect me much.
rich888 said:
OK then, have been thinking about how to reduce the overall costs for the average motorist per year, whilst increasing road tax revenue for the chancellor.
Here's my plan:
Road tax evasion and car insurance avoidance costs the government millions in terms of lost revenue, plus the grief to the motorist when an accident is caused by an uninsured driver, so why not change the system to prevent this from happening in the first place, and the benefit is that tax revenue will rise for the government and the benefit for the average motorist is that his year on year costs should drop because everyone is now paying into the system plus it and will be based upon a genuine pay per mile basis, where more economic cars pay less, and fuel guzzlers pay more. And it should work unless the government gets greedy in its tax take - as if - ouch!
So how does this simplified system work:
Well all governments always seem to ignore the obvious and look towards hugely expensive and complex to operate pay per mile ANPR systems to combat road users not paying their road fund license or their car insurance, yet there is no need for all this complexity when you consider that if you drive you buy fuel, if you drive fast you buy more fuel, and if you have a gas guzzler you buy even more fuel, so add the cost of the road fund licence and insurance into the price of a litre of fuel. Those that drive less pay less, and those that drive more pay more.
Now surely the more simple route to stop road tax evasion and lack of insurance is to do away with the road fund licence and car insurance, and bundle the whole cost into a litre of fuel which is effectively pay per mile in that the more miles you drive, the more fuel you buy, and the more economic the car, the less fuel you buy.
By doing this whole chunks of the pen-pushing DVLA could be removed, saving millions in departmental costs, along with the need for costly ANPR systems and road checks for road tax.
Now take this one step further and do away with vehicle insurance and add the cost of the insurance onto the price of a litre of fuel.
When you look at how many insurance companies are replicating admin staff across the country to provide a statutory product, perhaps the whole car insurance industry should be reviewed, doing away with tens of thousands of jobs when the cost of insurance could be averaged across the whole UK car user base, and in order to stop inexperienced drivers from killing themselves change the driving license to prohibit certain classes of vehicles to be driven by inexperienced drivers until a reasonable number of years has been accrued. Will stop wealthy parents from killing off their over-enthusiastic off-spring when they unleash them in the latest Lamborghini Aventador.
And how to deal with the haulage companies running costs, well perhaps a reduction could be made at either the pumps they fill up at, or more efficiently to stop fraud, using a RMC (Road Mileage Charge) for all registered hauliers to recoup their costs. This would help to stop cowboys from entering the market because fuel costs would be too expensive for then to compete compared to legitimate haulage businesses.
Surely pay per mile taxes and insurance when absorbed into a litre of fuel is the simplest and most efficient way forward, doing away from endless reams of paper and inefficient departments in the public and private sector.
Anyone care to comment on the positive or negative aspects of introducing 'Pay Per Mile' road fund licence and insurance on a litre of fuel, whilst doing away with the road fund license and vehicle insurance?
There are so many reasons why this is tosh, all of which could be explained by a first year economics student...Here's my plan:
Road tax evasion and car insurance avoidance costs the government millions in terms of lost revenue, plus the grief to the motorist when an accident is caused by an uninsured driver, so why not change the system to prevent this from happening in the first place, and the benefit is that tax revenue will rise for the government and the benefit for the average motorist is that his year on year costs should drop because everyone is now paying into the system plus it and will be based upon a genuine pay per mile basis, where more economic cars pay less, and fuel guzzlers pay more. And it should work unless the government gets greedy in its tax take - as if - ouch!
So how does this simplified system work:
Well all governments always seem to ignore the obvious and look towards hugely expensive and complex to operate pay per mile ANPR systems to combat road users not paying their road fund license or their car insurance, yet there is no need for all this complexity when you consider that if you drive you buy fuel, if you drive fast you buy more fuel, and if you have a gas guzzler you buy even more fuel, so add the cost of the road fund licence and insurance into the price of a litre of fuel. Those that drive less pay less, and those that drive more pay more.
Now surely the more simple route to stop road tax evasion and lack of insurance is to do away with the road fund licence and car insurance, and bundle the whole cost into a litre of fuel which is effectively pay per mile in that the more miles you drive, the more fuel you buy, and the more economic the car, the less fuel you buy.
By doing this whole chunks of the pen-pushing DVLA could be removed, saving millions in departmental costs, along with the need for costly ANPR systems and road checks for road tax.
Now take this one step further and do away with vehicle insurance and add the cost of the insurance onto the price of a litre of fuel.
When you look at how many insurance companies are replicating admin staff across the country to provide a statutory product, perhaps the whole car insurance industry should be reviewed, doing away with tens of thousands of jobs when the cost of insurance could be averaged across the whole UK car user base, and in order to stop inexperienced drivers from killing themselves change the driving license to prohibit certain classes of vehicles to be driven by inexperienced drivers until a reasonable number of years has been accrued. Will stop wealthy parents from killing off their over-enthusiastic off-spring when they unleash them in the latest Lamborghini Aventador.
And how to deal with the haulage companies running costs, well perhaps a reduction could be made at either the pumps they fill up at, or more efficiently to stop fraud, using a RMC (Road Mileage Charge) for all registered hauliers to recoup their costs. This would help to stop cowboys from entering the market because fuel costs would be too expensive for then to compete compared to legitimate haulage businesses.
Surely pay per mile taxes and insurance when absorbed into a litre of fuel is the simplest and most efficient way forward, doing away from endless reams of paper and inefficient departments in the public and private sector.
Anyone care to comment on the positive or negative aspects of introducing 'Pay Per Mile' road fund licence and insurance on a litre of fuel, whilst doing away with the road fund license and vehicle insurance?
I agree with what is been said in ragrds to road tax / VED put it on fuel, if the haulage firm want an exemption then that is ok with me.
Insurance wise - would the simpler approach be for all drivers to have 3rd part insurance automatically paid for (back by the government) though our normal taxes and then should we wish we can "upgrade" to fully comp ?
Insurance wise - would the simpler approach be for all drivers to have 3rd part insurance automatically paid for (back by the government) though our normal taxes and then should we wish we can "upgrade" to fully comp ?
richs2891 said:
I agree with what is been said in ragrds to road tax / VED put it on fuel, if the haulage firm want an exemption then that is ok with me.
Insurance wise - would the simpler approach be for all drivers to have 3rd part insurance automatically paid for (back by the government) though our normal taxes and then should we wish we can "upgrade" to fully comp ?
No, because that leads to increases in taxes everywhere to fund 20 million people's basic insurance. Including people who don't drive. Not everyone carries the same risk even with 3rd party only either.Insurance wise - would the simpler approach be for all drivers to have 3rd part insurance automatically paid for (back by the government) though our normal taxes and then should we wish we can "upgrade" to fully comp ?
-edit- wrong statistic
Edited by zeppelin101 on Wednesday 16th April 08:21
Edited by zeppelin101 on Wednesday 16th April 08:22
1. Petrol is not used just by cars used on the public highways. For example I buy in the region of £3000 worth of fuel a year used on track days. Are you suggesting it covers those as well?
2. high risk drivers getting cheap insurance or indeed those that should not be driving claiming they are insured because they had fuel in their car?
3. Claims for non events would go skywards.
4. There would still need to be specialist insurance for goods in transit or high risk drivers/vehicles.
Theres nothing wrong with the way it is now, as someone else pointed out hauliers would oppose it. Not to mention the insurance companies. You would still need the same number of people running it as there are millions of claims being processed, if the gov took that on it would be a bloody shambles - look at the DVLA!
2. high risk drivers getting cheap insurance or indeed those that should not be driving claiming they are insured because they had fuel in their car?
3. Claims for non events would go skywards.
4. There would still need to be specialist insurance for goods in transit or high risk drivers/vehicles.
Theres nothing wrong with the way it is now, as someone else pointed out hauliers would oppose it. Not to mention the insurance companies. You would still need the same number of people running it as there are millions of claims being processed, if the gov took that on it would be a bloody shambles - look at the DVLA!
DaveH23 said:
For the everyday man this is a brilliant idea but think of the haulage industry.
Their costs will increase drastically, this will be passed on to the retailers who in turn will pass it on to the consumer.
Spot on. I know of hauliers putting in 1200 litres every 3 days. It would be a complete disaster for the economy.Their costs will increase drastically, this will be passed on to the retailers who in turn will pass it on to the consumer.
And govt run third party insurance. Do f
k off! Having to claim of a govt run department, I don't think so. It's one of those ideas that sounds good on paper but in reality would be a total catastrophe. 
It's the insurance aspect that worries me. There needs to be a way to deal with high risks and encouraging safe and responsible driving. Imagine a vehicle equivalent to the NHS, "free repairs at the point of delivery". Interestingly the youngest drivers in my family are aware that if they transgress once more they may be unable to drive, not through bans but prohibitive insurance costs. I doubt whether either would object to black boxes in their cars now as they have felt the pain of avoidable additional fixed costs of motoring.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff