Stop road tax & insurance evasion - add the cost onto fuel
Discussion
jamieduff1981 said:
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.
Why would it make public transport less attractive?At the moment you pay a huge latent cost (RFL and Insurance) for you car each year. This means that every trip you do in it brings down the latent cost per mile.
If you had no latent costs, but instead had a higher per-trip cost, you would look at alternative transport methods for each journey, some of which may be by bike/bus/train.
Whilst it seems like a good idea on the face of it (and it does have some good points in terms of fairness) governments just cannot be trusted with an idea like this.
If VED was transferred to fuel. they would be likely to introduce an annual registration requirement, to keep DVLA records up to date. at first this might be a few pounds a year, but would then be increased to reflect increases in administration charges etc.
Before long, motorists would be paying VED on fuel, AND a hefty annual registration charge.
If this was adopted however we could possibly have a visible insurance disc (instead of a tax disc and instead of a certificate of insurance) issued by the insurance companies, so instant checks on whether a vehicle is insured or not could be made.
If VED was transferred to fuel. they would be likely to introduce an annual registration requirement, to keep DVLA records up to date. at first this might be a few pounds a year, but would then be increased to reflect increases in administration charges etc.
Before long, motorists would be paying VED on fuel, AND a hefty annual registration charge.
If this was adopted however we could possibly have a visible insurance disc (instead of a tax disc and instead of a certificate of insurance) issued by the insurance companies, so instant checks on whether a vehicle is insured or not could be made.
Whist this might work for tax I can't see it being viable for insurance, even then the cost implications for haulage firms etc. may be too great. I've always liked the idea of charging a base rate for CO2 emissions and that all cars regardless of age should have a yearly MOT. The test centre records your mileage from the past year and then enters this into a database that only registered test centres have access to. This ties together your mileage from the last year to your VRN - and thus the manufacturers official CO2 emissions figures - and then calculates the tax you owe from a fixed charge per gram of CO2. You either choose to pay the amount there and then by card over the web or at a later date at somewhere like the post office.
Lets say we were charged at £0.00005/gram of CO2; you drive a BMW 320D which emits 109g/km of CO2 and you arrive at the test centre having covered 15,000 miles in the last year. If my maths serves me correctly you'd end up having to pay £131.50 for the privilege of using the road for the past 12 months.
Businesses such as haulage firms, transport companies etc. get a discounted rate and electric vehicles have a different base rate calculated as well. Everyone pays RFL which would surely make a larger, fairer contribution to the treasury and help improve road quality. I know this doesn't really address this issue of evasion, but right now the money lost from those who don't pay for RFL is probably a tiny fraction of the short fall incurred by allowing people with economical cars to use the roads whilst making very little or no contribution to the pot.
Lets say we were charged at £0.00005/gram of CO2; you drive a BMW 320D which emits 109g/km of CO2 and you arrive at the test centre having covered 15,000 miles in the last year. If my maths serves me correctly you'd end up having to pay £131.50 for the privilege of using the road for the past 12 months.
Businesses such as haulage firms, transport companies etc. get a discounted rate and electric vehicles have a different base rate calculated as well. Everyone pays RFL which would surely make a larger, fairer contribution to the treasury and help improve road quality. I know this doesn't really address this issue of evasion, but right now the money lost from those who don't pay for RFL is probably a tiny fraction of the short fall incurred by allowing people with economical cars to use the roads whilst making very little or no contribution to the pot.
Some excellent replies on here with comments that I had never considered, so I think that insurance can be knocked on the head, though I do think that the road tax disc is an antiquated and inaccurate way to extract money from the motorist and is so unfair to low mileage users.
So why can't road usage be charged on a 'pay as you go' basis simply by adding a few pence on a litre of fuel, instead of introducing hugely expensive tolls and other complex IT systems when the simplest solution is the meter, or petrol pump. You use more, you pay more. OK, I forgot, it's too simple for the average politician to comprehend!
Surely putting a few pence on a litre of fuel is a good incentive to either live closer to work and/or buy a more economical car, or to those with a passion for their car and enjoy a large driving at least they know where they stand as regards running costs and can drive when they want to, rather than constrained by the rigid 6 or 12 month system as currently used.
This silly CO2 banding is a right con because no sooner has the car manufacturer released a more efficient model to meet the current regulations then the government lowers the limit. Surely if politicians wanted to reduce CO2 levels by any noticeable amount they would stop flying abroad for all these overseas jollies and use a broadband enabled video link. Its a big tax scam. If it wasn't CO2 it would be something else, like the window or bedroom tax!
The thing is that adding the road fund license onto fuel is simple, it stops road tax evasion dead in its tracks which is surely a good thing because more motorists will be contributing into the central coffers and less driving around for free, and it reduces inefficient jobsworths that contribute nothing to the wealth of the country - it's no wonder this country is up to its neck in debt!
Slightly off-topic and talking of the national debt, take a look at this video 'Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story' which is a bit of an eye-opener and film maker Martin Durkin explains the full extent of the financial mess we are in: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v205926104rd9GssB?h1=Bri... Especially the bit at the end demonstrating how John James Cowperthwaite boosted the economy of Hong Kong by reducing taxation.
And the reason for me posting it on here is because this is a well visited car forum for enthusiastic car owners and drivers, and I'm pretty sure some of the comments here will be passed onto the powers to be for their perusal - whether they like the comments is debatable, but at least it gets them thinking.
So why can't road usage be charged on a 'pay as you go' basis simply by adding a few pence on a litre of fuel, instead of introducing hugely expensive tolls and other complex IT systems when the simplest solution is the meter, or petrol pump. You use more, you pay more. OK, I forgot, it's too simple for the average politician to comprehend!
Surely putting a few pence on a litre of fuel is a good incentive to either live closer to work and/or buy a more economical car, or to those with a passion for their car and enjoy a large driving at least they know where they stand as regards running costs and can drive when they want to, rather than constrained by the rigid 6 or 12 month system as currently used.
This silly CO2 banding is a right con because no sooner has the car manufacturer released a more efficient model to meet the current regulations then the government lowers the limit. Surely if politicians wanted to reduce CO2 levels by any noticeable amount they would stop flying abroad for all these overseas jollies and use a broadband enabled video link. Its a big tax scam. If it wasn't CO2 it would be something else, like the window or bedroom tax!
The thing is that adding the road fund license onto fuel is simple, it stops road tax evasion dead in its tracks which is surely a good thing because more motorists will be contributing into the central coffers and less driving around for free, and it reduces inefficient jobsworths that contribute nothing to the wealth of the country - it's no wonder this country is up to its neck in debt!
Slightly off-topic and talking of the national debt, take a look at this video 'Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story' which is a bit of an eye-opener and film maker Martin Durkin explains the full extent of the financial mess we are in: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v205926104rd9GssB?h1=Bri... Especially the bit at the end demonstrating how John James Cowperthwaite boosted the economy of Hong Kong by reducing taxation.
And the reason for me posting it on here is because this is a well visited car forum for enthusiastic car owners and drivers, and I'm pretty sure some of the comments here will be passed onto the powers to be for their perusal - whether they like the comments is debatable, but at least it gets them thinking.
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.
N
And of course the tax collection system is already in place and working reasonably well, They are called petrol stations.
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.
N
And of course the tax collection system is already in place and working reasonably well, They are called petrol stations.
Rich, I take it you drive less than 5k miles a year and your post is purely a selfish one? What about all those that cannot afford to live in places like London so buy a house an hour or so away and commute, they do 30-40k miles per annum for work reasons, their costs will rocket but yet the spotty 18yr old kid that has just got away with the £25k annual premium on his Nissan GTR gets to spend that instead on booze and birds? How's that fair? What about those that will deliberately crash their cars (Think return to invoice GAP insurance here) without being penalised, over and over again, crash as many times as they like, put in injury claims, financial suicide for the industry. How about drink drivers or those that continually push up points? What about cars in high risk theft areas like Liverpool or Bradford? Car thefts would go up, claims would rise 10 fold. In summary, you must have been half pis*ed when you thought up that idea 
As to road tax, again, no! If I had just forked out £20k on a a <100g/gm CO2 car that enabled me to a zero rate of road tax, I would be extremely pis*ed that I was then having to pay an extra 50p per litre so the guy sitting next to me at the traffic lights in his big 8 litre V12 monster didnt need to fund his £500pa road tax bill.
And then haulage and transport costs, MASSIVE knock on effect, your milk will rise, your bread will rise, everything around you will rise. Public transport costs.
Sorry 2 very silly ideas. We have a choice about road tax already, buy a car that emits a low rate and you pay none. Simples. Higher mileage drivers already pay more, they use more fuel.
As to road tax, again, no! If I had just forked out £20k on a a <100g/gm CO2 car that enabled me to a zero rate of road tax, I would be extremely pis*ed that I was then having to pay an extra 50p per litre so the guy sitting next to me at the traffic lights in his big 8 litre V12 monster didnt need to fund his £500pa road tax bill.
And then haulage and transport costs, MASSIVE knock on effect, your milk will rise, your bread will rise, everything around you will rise. Public transport costs.
Sorry 2 very silly ideas. We have a choice about road tax already, buy a car that emits a low rate and you pay none. Simples. Higher mileage drivers already pay more, they use more fuel.
Edited by MitchyRS on Thursday 17th April 09:06
MitchyRS said:
Rich, I take it you drive less than 5k miles a year and your post is purely a selfish one? What about all those that cannot afford to live in places like London so buy a house an hour or so away and commute, they do 30-40k miles per annum for work reasons, their costs will rocket but yet the spotty 18yr old kid that has just got away with the £25k annual premium on his Nissan GTR gets to spend that instead on booze and birds? How's that fair? What about those that will deliberately crash their cars (Think return to invoice GAP insurance here) without being penalised, over and over again, crash as many times as they like, put in injury claims, financial suicide for the industry. How about drink drivers or those that continually push up points? What about cars in high risk theft areas like Liverpool or Bradford? Car thefts would go up, claims would rise 10 fold. In summary, you must have been half pis*ed when you thought up that idea
As to road tax, again, no! If I had just forked out £20k on a a <100g/gm CO2 car that enabled me to a zero rate of road tax, I would be extremely pis*ed that I was then having to pay an extra 50p per litre so the guy sitting next to me at the traffic lights in his big 8 litre V12 monster didnt need to fund his £500pa road tax bill.
And then haulage and transport costs, MASSIVE knock on effect, your milk will rise, your bread will rise, everything around you will rise. Public transport costs.
Sorry 2 very silly ideas. We have a choice about road tax already, buy a car that emits a low rate and you pay none. Simples. Higher mileage drivers already pay more, they use more fuel.
Whilst I would end up paying more there does seem to be an element of fairnes in placing VED on fuel, (provided for the average motorist the cost placed on each litre would work out to be cost neutral compared to the current set up, i still don't trust governments to treat motorists fairly. We have some stupid s*d politicians bleating on about road pricing, and this on top of paying VED. As to road tax, again, no! If I had just forked out £20k on a a <100g/gm CO2 car that enabled me to a zero rate of road tax, I would be extremely pis*ed that I was then having to pay an extra 50p per litre so the guy sitting next to me at the traffic lights in his big 8 litre V12 monster didnt need to fund his £500pa road tax bill.
And then haulage and transport costs, MASSIVE knock on effect, your milk will rise, your bread will rise, everything around you will rise. Public transport costs.
Sorry 2 very silly ideas. We have a choice about road tax already, buy a car that emits a low rate and you pay none. Simples. Higher mileage drivers already pay more, they use more fuel.
Edited by MitchyRS on Thursday 17th April 09:06
The bottom line is that they treat motorists as a cash cow, and where politicians and money are mixed we can never ever trust politicians to do the decent fair thing.
Wouldn't a professional driver be claiming VAT or something back annually anyway? So they could have a bigger tax rebate than usual so it sort of evens out?
For the day to day car user its a no-brainer. You INSTANTLY get the benefit of choosing to walk to town or catch a lift to work. At the moment it's "the car's taxed, I'm getting my moneys worth from it!"
Providing professional drivers have some sort of mechanism to even their costs out, I really can't see a downside.
For the day to day car user its a no-brainer. You INSTANTLY get the benefit of choosing to walk to town or catch a lift to work. At the moment it's "the car's taxed, I'm getting my moneys worth from it!"
Providing professional drivers have some sort of mechanism to even their costs out, I really can't see a downside.
DKS said:
Wouldn't a professional driver be claiming VAT or something back annually anyway? So they could have a bigger tax rebate than usual so it sort of evens out?
For the day to day car user its a no-brainer. You INSTANTLY get the benefit of choosing to walk to town or catch a lift to work. At the moment it's "the car's taxed, I'm getting my moneys worth from it!"
Providing professional drivers have some sort of mechanism to even their costs out, I really can't see a downside.
VED is an immaterial factor in that decision. The vast majority of cars on the road are charged less than £300 per year so the cost per day is less than £1. For the day to day car user its a no-brainer. You INSTANTLY get the benefit of choosing to walk to town or catch a lift to work. At the moment it's "the car's taxed, I'm getting my moneys worth from it!"
Providing professional drivers have some sort of mechanism to even their costs out, I really can't see a downside.
The savings on fuel by walking or catching a lift are just as valid under the current arrangement.
Insurance is another matter but it is an absolutely mad idea to try to fund the country's car insurance through fuel tax.
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.
ks when the government claim that privatising anything reduces costs. Only if you reduce the labour to minimum wage (and the bosses get huge salaries). Name one nationalised industry that’s been improved by privatisation?MitchyRS said:
Rich, I take it you drive less than 5k miles a year and your post is purely a selfish one? What about all those that cannot afford to live in places like London so buy a house an hour or so away and commute, they do 30-40k miles per annum for work reasons, their costs will rocket but yet the spotty 18yr old kid that has just got away with the £25k annual premium on his Nissan GTR gets to spend that instead on booze and birds? How's that fair? What about those that will deliberately crash their cars (Think return to invoice GAP insurance here) without being penalised, over and over again, crash as many times as they like, put in injury claims, financial suicide for the industry. How about drink drivers or those that continually push up points? What about cars in high risk theft areas like Liverpool or Bradford? Car thefts would go up, claims would rise 10 fold. In summary, you must have been half pis*ed when you thought up that idea
As to road tax, again, no! If I had just forked out £20k on a a <100g/gm CO2 car that enabled me to a zero rate of road tax, I would be extremely pis*ed that I was then having to pay an extra 50p per litre so the guy sitting next to me at the traffic lights in his big 8 litre V12 monster didnt need to fund his £500pa road tax bill.
And then haulage and transport costs, MASSIVE knock on effect, your milk will rise, your bread will rise, everything around you will rise. Public transport costs.
Sorry 2 very silly ideas. We have a choice about road tax already, buy a car that emits a low rate and you pay none. Simples. Higher mileage drivers already pay more, they use more fuel.
I wish I did drive less than 5K per year but unfortunately that isn't the case and nor do I live in London, I have one eco friendly car to keep my day-to-day running costs down to a minimum, and a good old-fashioned V8 for the summer months, so no I don't think my post is down to selfish reasons, is more common-sense than anything, though do accept that the insurance proposal seems to be a bit of a disaster so will write off that idea.As to road tax, again, no! If I had just forked out £20k on a a <100g/gm CO2 car that enabled me to a zero rate of road tax, I would be extremely pis*ed that I was then having to pay an extra 50p per litre so the guy sitting next to me at the traffic lights in his big 8 litre V12 monster didnt need to fund his £500pa road tax bill.
And then haulage and transport costs, MASSIVE knock on effect, your milk will rise, your bread will rise, everything around you will rise. Public transport costs.
Sorry 2 very silly ideas. We have a choice about road tax already, buy a car that emits a low rate and you pay none. Simples. Higher mileage drivers already pay more, they use more fuel.
Edited by MitchyRS on Thursday 17th April 09:06
As far as paying out £20k for a sub 90g/gm CO2 car to benefit from the zero rate of road tax, well the owner must have more money than sense because the depreciation on a £20K car would kill off any meaningful savings on the road fund license. Besides which, the average Toyota IQ or Fiat 500 costs substantially less than £20K to purchase, I should know because I've owned both of them. Besides which, if the 8 litre V12 monster did pull alongside me doing 9mpg, I would assume he would be paying more for the privilege. Would prefer it if it was an Aventador or Countach which should be given free fuel for life
Which brings me back to the argument over whether to do away with the road fund license or not. Well why shouldn't high mileage users pay more, and yes they are already purchasing more fuel so all is good in that respect, so why add another layer of pen-pushing to administer the road fund license considering that this road tax add on is so easy to avoid paying for and must cost a fortune in bureaucracy to process when it cost all so easily be absorbed into a small increase on the price of a litre of fuel. Pay per mile is by far the simplest and easiest way to pay tax via the petrol-station and apart from driving off without paying, is extremely difficult to avoid paying the tax.
Be honest, everything else you do you pay as you go, you buy a sandwich or a pint of beer at the pub and you pay for it, it's your choice whether to eat or drink more or less. I accept that my V8 will drink more fuel so I pay for it through the pump, if I do less miles then I can afford to run it. It's an incentive to run a more economical car or to live closer to work. As for commuting into London from a long distance, it is your choice to work in London when there are plenty of other places to work in the UK.
As regards to haulage companies paying more at the pumps, as I already mentioned, a system should be put in place to ensure that all UK registered vehicles should receive a rebate on their fuel purchases. I totally agree with you that increasing haulage costs will kill the economy through increased prices of everything that is transported by road. Incidentally, the reason that vehicles are registered abroad is to avoid paying the road fund license in the first place, and the same reason the lorries fill up in France or Spain is because it's cheaper due to the silly levels of UK tax imposed on a litre of petrol or diesel. I would recommend you watch this video http://www.veoh.com/watch/v205926104rd9GssB?h1=Bri... entitled 'Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story' which will open your eyes, I doubt it will be available for viewing very long because of the contents which cannot be brushed aside by any of the main three political parties whom are ruining this once great country.
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
braddo said:
The savings on fuel by walking or catching a lift are just as valid under the current arrangement.
No they're not, or perhaps I didn't explain my point. If I tax a car for six months or a year, that's the money committed to that cause. Yes I can get a refund but you ultimately lose out. So if my car is road legal, I'm going to use it, especially as a full tank at £65 will get me 300 odd miles of convenient travel.If I don't need to tax the car I don't feel I 'have' to get value from the tax I haven't bought, so I'm more inclined to go out of my way not to use it the car, especially if fuel is half as much again to buy with the tax added on. The saving is instant the second you decide not to use/ fill the car. Now, yes fuel is cheaper, but you have to commit to the tax disc purchase which is at least spread over a month, hassle of buying it, sending it back etc. Of course I'm (we're) not the typical car owner and deciding when to tax the 5 cars in the house is a game unto itself; trying to predict how often I'll want to use each car, whether one's likely to undergo some work which will leave it undriveable long enough to SORN it etc.
Maybe I'm missing something but it's definitely the easier option for me.
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.
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.
ferrariF50lover said:
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.
We have that system now, you work harder, earn more and the government starts to get 2/3rds of what you get to take home instead of a 1/4.Simon.
I can see your thinking and it is an interesting take which I can appreciate, I might even agree if car tax was not linked to emissions.
I work reasonably hard and walk to work btw.
Yes but Steve the marketing manager probably has a company car and/ or fuel allowance from his job. If not, it's simply his fault for living too far away from his place of work. I now live 50 miles from my 'office' and it was my choice not to relocate. It applies even more to 'Steve' - every day he can avoid his commute (flexi hours maybe), or share it he instantly saves money. If Doris can't afford to use the car that day she doesn't.
Business will simply change its practices to adapt. For example, if you increase haulage costs, supermarkets with highly centralised warehousing will rearrange their supply chains to re-optimise their costs by reducing food miles. Steve The Marketing Manager may find he does more business over the phone or over Skype, or he may find that the train is now cost effective or that it makes more sense to group his client visits and have an overnight stay, or he may prioritise winning business closer to home. Actually, the effect of shifting VED onto fuel would probably not be enough to make much difference to Steve at all.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff