Stop road tax & insurance evasion - add the cost onto fuel
Discussion
Pan Pan said:
If as the ecomentalists are quick to point out VED IS a tax on `emissions' then adding VED onto the price of litre makes some sense.
Those who do high mileages (like me) who use the roads more, would end up paying more, but that at least seems to be a fair proposition. It would encourage many to buy smaller cars.
Rich driver driving a high mpg barge? then he pays more VED, Struggling family who can only afford a small car , would pay relatively less.
Those who use a petrol lawn mower will be paying their share on the emissions it produces.
The little old couple who live away from suitable public transport, but need a car to get to the shops / doctors / friends - social activities, would pay a fair amount of VED for their use of the roads.
People with `other' cars of which PH members might number a few would only pay for the vehicle they were actually using at the time.
It would encourage drivers to be a bit more careful with their fuel usage, and possibly avoid some unnecessary journies. It acts as an automatic congestion charge without expensive equipment such as used in London to monitor road users. (and would possible give local authorities a boot up the backside in sorting out poor road junctions e.g The Dartford crossing. No expensive intrusive black boxes in cars, or overhead ANPR systems needed.
If a vehicle is moving (even a stolen one) it is paying VED without the need for checks and checking personnel.
And of course the tax collection system is already in place and working reasonably well, They are called petrol stations.
You are quite right with the comments you have made. Unfortunately governments cannot be trusted to do anything competent at the moment because all three of the major political parties are going through the phase of self-serving parasites, and until there is a major change in UK politics, or we have a military coup and they are burned at the stakes we are stuck with the clowns!Those who do high mileages (like me) who use the roads more, would end up paying more, but that at least seems to be a fair proposition. It would encourage many to buy smaller cars.
Rich driver driving a high mpg barge? then he pays more VED, Struggling family who can only afford a small car , would pay relatively less.
Those who use a petrol lawn mower will be paying their share on the emissions it produces.
The little old couple who live away from suitable public transport, but need a car to get to the shops / doctors / friends - social activities, would pay a fair amount of VED for their use of the roads.
People with `other' cars of which PH members might number a few would only pay for the vehicle they were actually using at the time.
It would encourage drivers to be a bit more careful with their fuel usage, and possibly avoid some unnecessary journies. It acts as an automatic congestion charge without expensive equipment such as used in London to monitor road users. (and would possible give local authorities a boot up the backside in sorting out poor road junctions e.g The Dartford crossing. No expensive intrusive black boxes in cars, or overhead ANPR systems needed.
If a vehicle is moving (even a stolen one) it is paying VED without the need for checks and checking personnel.
And of course the tax collection system is already in place and working reasonably well, They are called petrol stations.
ferrariF50lover said:
I think there's an angle here which many are referencing but that no one is picking up on.
Why would we want to charge people per mile?
These days, startlingly few people do startlingly few miles simply to 'go for a little drive'. Miles today are, for the vast majority of the time, productive miles. By this, I mean that they are miles travelled to achieve something or to go somewhere useful. Someone said it earlier in this thread, he travels 40,000 miles a year to get to work. Do we really want to 'punish' him for that, but let Wayne, the unemployed 18 year old hooligan get a reduction on his tax liability because he only does 500 miles a year going to and from drug deals?
If I go out in my car, I'm going somewhere (it's hard to go for a blast in a A3 TDi
). If I'm going somewhere, chances are, it'll involve my doing something which benefits the country as a whole. I don't see why I should be punished for benefiting the country more by paying more to do so.
Take little old Doris - she pays £280 in road tax (yeah, you're right, that isn't its official name. I don't care), she does 1500 miles a year pootling to the shops to buy cat food and the TV Times. She contributes very, very little to the economy by doing this. Accordingly, her price per mile in road tax is relatively high, to go some small way to make up for this.
Now, Steve, the marketing manager - he pays the same £280 in road tax, but he does 20,000 miles a year, split between going to work (a job at which he earns a salary, on which he pays £10,000pa in tax and NI). He goes to the supermarket and other shopping activities where he pays 20% VAT on everything he buys. He takes the kids to the theme park and the zoo and aquarium and the dentist etc. At all of these places, he contributes usefully to the economy by paying VAT and by utilising services which, if left unused would render the workers there unemployed. Accordingly, the cost per mile of his road tax is much lower, as some sort of very minor reward for the manner in which he uses his car.
This is much more true, as has been mentioned already, in terms of haulage firms, cab drivers, travelling salesmen and the like. We'd be punishing them for doing their jobs by charging them more for the privilege. We develop a system where, even more so than today, the harder you work, the more it costs you. Is that really the situation we want to encourage?
Simon.
You are quite right with some of your observations, but why should the state subsidise your driving habits, someone has to maintain the roads. If you drive more miles you pay for the tyres, exhaust and servicing of your car, so why should the upkeep of the roads you are driving along be any different?Why would we want to charge people per mile?
These days, startlingly few people do startlingly few miles simply to 'go for a little drive'. Miles today are, for the vast majority of the time, productive miles. By this, I mean that they are miles travelled to achieve something or to go somewhere useful. Someone said it earlier in this thread, he travels 40,000 miles a year to get to work. Do we really want to 'punish' him for that, but let Wayne, the unemployed 18 year old hooligan get a reduction on his tax liability because he only does 500 miles a year going to and from drug deals?
If I go out in my car, I'm going somewhere (it's hard to go for a blast in a A3 TDi
). If I'm going somewhere, chances are, it'll involve my doing something which benefits the country as a whole. I don't see why I should be punished for benefiting the country more by paying more to do so. Take little old Doris - she pays £280 in road tax (yeah, you're right, that isn't its official name. I don't care), she does 1500 miles a year pootling to the shops to buy cat food and the TV Times. She contributes very, very little to the economy by doing this. Accordingly, her price per mile in road tax is relatively high, to go some small way to make up for this.
Now, Steve, the marketing manager - he pays the same £280 in road tax, but he does 20,000 miles a year, split between going to work (a job at which he earns a salary, on which he pays £10,000pa in tax and NI). He goes to the supermarket and other shopping activities where he pays 20% VAT on everything he buys. He takes the kids to the theme park and the zoo and aquarium and the dentist etc. At all of these places, he contributes usefully to the economy by paying VAT and by utilising services which, if left unused would render the workers there unemployed. Accordingly, the cost per mile of his road tax is much lower, as some sort of very minor reward for the manner in which he uses his car.
This is much more true, as has been mentioned already, in terms of haulage firms, cab drivers, travelling salesmen and the like. We'd be punishing them for doing their jobs by charging them more for the privilege. We develop a system where, even more so than today, the harder you work, the more it costs you. Is that really the situation we want to encourage?
Simon.
If you have an F50 Ferrari and do regular burn-outs do you expect the state to pay, OK, perhaps some politicians might say yes at this point, but surely you should be responsible for the miles you drive and the way you drive - and pay at the pump is so simple, if you want to drive fast your car consumes more fuel so you buy more fuel, more tyres and probably work your way through a few clutches, if you drive a small eco friendly car and drive economically you buy less fuel. Surely it's a bit of a no-brainer.
And the icing on the cake is that if the road fund license is cancelled the DVLA can reduce the number of people it employs to issue and enforce the road fund license, so a little bit of the parasitic government department is reduced in size. It's a small start, but savings have to be made if this country is to survive the global recession. Alternatively we could just set up businesses with loads of staff passing paper from one to another whilst all being paid loads of money. Just like government and council departments are currently doing to justify their existence.
If this country is going to reduce it's national debt it needs to stop wasting money and the only way to do that is to to run the country more efficiently, the way forward isn't to tax everyone to death, the way forward is for government departments to reduce expenditure and increase income, and if that means sacking a few pen-pushing jobsworths then that is the way forward. This country is not guaranteed its standard of living and unless the politicians wake up, we may end up worse off than many third world countries. Look at Greece to realise what happens when the credit stops.
Watch the video link I posted earlier, it's definitely a bit of an eye-opener.
rich888 said:
Incidentally, the only place I know where all the food and drink is subsidised is one of the many subsidised bars in the the Houses of Parliament, where incidentally they are also allowed to smoke indoors, apparently passive smoking doesn't kill off employees in these government buildings like it does in every other pub and restaurant in the UK, am sure health and safety ought to stick their oar in on this one and stop this vile practice. No wonder so many stupid decisions are being made when they are all pissed as newts. All said in jest 
why all in jest? They're a bunch of thieving, duplicitous 
sirocfan said:
why all in jest? They're a bunch of thieving, duplicitous s
Well said, but why do I say in jest, well because a few years ago I received a knock on the door at 10pm by an off-duty firearms officer who had been sent round to have a chat with me by the chief constable to discuss my attitude.sGassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff