Stop road tax & insurance evasion - add the cost onto fuel

[rich888]

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?

[rich888]

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.

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.

I initially thought that adding in vehicle insurance would be unworkable, but the more I think about it, the more I think it might be possible, just so long as insurance assessors are employed to examine the accidents to see who is to blame in much the same way as it works now. It must be remembered that most, if not all insurance policies are ultimately underwritten by members of Lloyd's of London. Am sure this is a complex subject but even so, it should be considered before being written off. Am damn sure one country provides in-built vehicle insurance to their population.

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!

[rich888]

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.

[rich888]

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.

Edited by MitchyRS on Thursday 17th April 09:06

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 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

[rich888]

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!

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?

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]

irocfan 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.