What is the point in Road Tax
Discussion
Just thinking in this day and age why do we have road tax. The can be just added to the pump price and hey presto do not need employ people do deal with it.
The only reason I can think of is to check for insurance and MOT's. But this can all be done by computers. No MOT and and insurance logged on the system, then an automatic fine sent to the person. Alternatively MOT and insurance can just be discs stuck the windscreen.
What do other people think?
Dave
The only reason I can think of is to check for insurance and MOT's. But this can all be done by computers. No MOT and and insurance logged on the system, then an automatic fine sent to the person. Alternatively MOT and insurance can just be discs stuck the windscreen.
What do other people think?
Dave
I do not want road charging or road tax put on petrol.
I drive 20,000 miles/year just to get to work and back, and NO, I am not rich, or live in a luxury country mansion.
I just like where I live, as it has good links to most places if I ever get made redundant, which has happened once since I lived here, and I have no wish to keep moving just because my place of employment moves.
I drive 20,000 miles/year just to get to work and back, and NO, I am not rich, or live in a luxury country mansion.
I just like where I live, as it has good links to most places if I ever get made redundant, which has happened once since I lived here, and I have no wish to keep moving just because my place of employment moves.
puggit said:
Yes, but the road tax introduces some layers of beaurocracy which keeps otherwise unemployable layabouts in Swansea within a level of employment.
Get with the program
Same with Income Tax: just a way of keeping some folks off the dole, surely ?
One plus point of VAT is that it is a consumption tax.
For example, however you got your money [ black or white], when it comes to buying a tank of petrol, you got to pay the VAT whatever.
Keeps the rascals in paid work, doesn't it ?
You are missing the point. Road tax is there to ensure the civil service have jobs. Same as all the other so called services. Lets face it there is no need for number plates, driving licenses or road tax. There is no need for tax on fuel either. About 10% of the fit and healthy civil service could be rounded up and turned into an essential road building workforce. The rest, including the entire staff of the BBC could be sent to Africa or something, I dont care really so long as we don't have to pay for them anymore. Switching off most of the traffic lights and feeding the world with the talivan operators would help even more. We could even end up getting the respect of the muslim extreemists by using surplus and entirely useless people to provide aid the thoroughly impoverished and undernourished. Especially if we sent them Prince Phillip as well. 
Unfortunately, there is a growing case for encouraging people to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.
You might not like it, Ledfoot, but it is difficult to argue that it isn't both fairer and more sensible on environmental grounds.
I don't like having to shell out the best part of half my salary at source in income tax, but I recognise that taxation is a necessary evil, and if we have to have it, I'd rather it was fair...so I don't scream and stamp my foot about having to pay more than some poor single mum who is working on the checkouts at Tescos for minimum wage.
It would be your choice, and your compromise - move closer to work, get a job closer to where you live at present, or buy a more fuel-efficient car. Whichever solution you choose, extra fuel taxation in place of road tax whould be having the desired effect of encouraging you to reduce the burden you are placing on the environment.
Personally, I only take jobs in rural locations and I move to within 10 minutes drive of wherever I work, as a rule, but that's mainly 'cos I'm an idle bastard and I don't like getting out of bed on a morning!
You might not like it, Ledfoot, but it is difficult to argue that it isn't both fairer and more sensible on environmental grounds.
I don't like having to shell out the best part of half my salary at source in income tax, but I recognise that taxation is a necessary evil, and if we have to have it, I'd rather it was fair...so I don't scream and stamp my foot about having to pay more than some poor single mum who is working on the checkouts at Tescos for minimum wage.
It would be your choice, and your compromise - move closer to work, get a job closer to where you live at present, or buy a more fuel-efficient car. Whichever solution you choose, extra fuel taxation in place of road tax whould be having the desired effect of encouraging you to reduce the burden you are placing on the environment.
Personally, I only take jobs in rural locations and I move to within 10 minutes drive of wherever I work, as a rule, but that's mainly 'cos I'm an idle bastard and I don't like getting out of bed on a morning!
nonegreen said:
About 10% of the fit and healthy civil service could be rounded up and turned into an essential road building workforce.
They could indeed. The country is fatally [ and I mean fatally ] short of trunk roads, and we've got more civil service than we know what to do with.
However, the last person to implement this good idea was Hitler, who was responsible for a lot of road building, but gets a really bad press these days.
I note with interest than Gordon Brown promised to get rid of some tens of thousands of civil servants [ 30,000 ? ] recently.
Precisely those he'd recently hired.
nonegreen said:
The rest, including the entire staff of the BBC could be sent to Africa or something, I dont care really so long as we don't have to pay for them anymore.
Sign me up !
I would agree on road tax, but I think we have no choice in the future but to rid ourselves of the high taxation on fuel, hence travel and movement of goods. The road tax shouldn't be transferred to fuel, but lowered and even eventually scrapped. Moved to other things?........
The economy can't stand high fuel taxation for much longer and it should be used to provide stability on fuel prices by cutting it as crude oil prices rise and transferring the tax need more widely.
As for the "town car", well I'd rather be told that any car over "such an engine size" either can't enter or must pay to enter the town or city centre. Scrapping the road tax would help people to own a small car for the run into town, whilst still having their larger one for the longer journey.
Rather that, than being taxed out of existance.
Well that's my opinion anyway, hope it makes sense!
The economy can't stand high fuel taxation for much longer and it should be used to provide stability on fuel prices by cutting it as crude oil prices rise and transferring the tax need more widely.
As for the "town car", well I'd rather be told that any car over "such an engine size" either can't enter or must pay to enter the town or city centre. Scrapping the road tax would help people to own a small car for the run into town, whilst still having their larger one for the longer journey.
Rather that, than being taxed out of existance.
Well that's my opinion anyway, hope it makes sense!
Mutant Rat said:
Unfortunately, there is a growing case for encouraging people to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.
You might not like it, Ledfoot, but it is difficult to argue that it isn't both fairer and more sensible on environmental grounds.
Personally, I've never understood these environmental folks.
Haven't they heard of the price mechanism ?
While it should be clear to all that the activities of one person won't add up to much in the global picture, some folks seem to think that, in the global picture, the activities of sixty or so million folks on a small island off North West Europe add up to a lot.
I've never understood this either.
There are six or more billion folks on the planet, and I very much doubt if the activities of them all add up to much in the global picture.
Global warming ?
Pah - when and if East Anglia is ten foot under it will be in the same state it was a thousand years ago.
Further to my previous post, I've always liked the German approach to this.
The emergence of the smartcar for that trip to the workplace or the supermarket.(although you wouldn't get much in a smartcar). Yet they all seem to have their large BMW's / Mercs for travel further afield.
But to get this to work here the government has to make it cheaper to own two cars of this type, that means road tax changes, insurance changes (maybe a "smart" could be covered by the larger cars policy). And last but not least a reduction or freezing of fuel tax.
That way when you leave home you'll have a real choice of how much you want to pay for the journey you're making and it won't "kill" the motor industry.
>> Edited by 8Pack on Friday 5th August 00:57
The emergence of the smartcar for that trip to the workplace or the supermarket.(although you wouldn't get much in a smartcar). Yet they all seem to have their large BMW's / Mercs for travel further afield.
But to get this to work here the government has to make it cheaper to own two cars of this type, that means road tax changes, insurance changes (maybe a "smart" could be covered by the larger cars policy). And last but not least a reduction or freezing of fuel tax.
That way when you leave home you'll have a real choice of how much you want to pay for the journey you're making and it won't "kill" the motor industry.
>> Edited by 8Pack on Friday 5th August 00:57
nonegreen said:
Road tax is there to ensure the civil service have jobs. Same as all the other so called services... About 10% of the fit and healthy civil service could be rounded up and turned into an essential road building workforce. The rest, including the entire staff of the BBC could be sent to Africa or something, I dont care really so long as we don't have to pay for them anymore...
But then who would be left to vote Labour?
Mutant Rat said:
Unfortunately, there is a growing case for encouraging people to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.
And increasing price caused by decreasing supply will do exactly that. Not some socialist prick poking his nose into other people's business.
Mutant Rat said:
You might not like it, Ledfoot, but it is difficult to argue that it isn't both fairer and more sensible on environmental grounds.
It is in fact quite easy to argue with both points. In what way is it "fair" that the likes of you tell other people how to run their lives?
Mutant Rat said:
I don't like having to shell out the best part of half my salary at source in income tax, but I recognise that taxation is a necessary evil,
Then you're a sheep. Try reading some of the articles at www.strike-the-root.com/. Mark Davis' stuff is a good start.
Mutant Rat said:
and if we have to have it, I'd rather it was fair...so I don't scream and stamp my foot about having to pay more than some poor single mum who is working on the checkouts at Tescos for minimum wage.
Odd definition of "fair" you have. "Steal more from you because you have done better for yourself".
Mutant Rat said:
It would be your choice, and your compromise - move closer to work, get a job closer to where you live at present,
Sigh. Anyone who trots this nonsense out obviously has no idea what they're on about. You're a student, or a new graddy, right? And you definitely don't live or work in London.
Mutant Rat said:
Personally, I only take jobs in rural locations and I move to within 10 minutes drive of wherever I work, as a rule,
Bully for you. Perhaps you'd like to add "minding your own business" to your list of 'rules'?
There's no need for local councils to duplicate effort to collect council tax but they do, and they all probably do it as badly as my local council. (There must be a handfull of competants in there somewhere) As has been said, it's to keep people in jobs, primarily unemployable people and women. It's socilism and a guaranteed job by another name.
dtpugh said:
Just thinking in this day and age why do we have road tax. The can be just added to the pump price and hey presto do not need employ people do deal with it.
The only reason I can think of is to check for insurance and MOT's. But this can all be done by computers. No MOT and and insurance logged on the system, then an automatic fine sent to the person. Alternatively MOT and insurance can just be discs stuck the windscreen.
What do other people think?
Dave
It'd be far cheaper for everyone to keep the system as it is, that's why I can't believe this government hasn't gone for the more tax on fuel approach.
They should just get rid of it and introduce another way to ensure people have MOT, insurance etc. As for the discount on small engined cars, what a joke, do they honestly believe that 5 quid a month compared to 40 quid a week in fuel is significant enough to fool people into buying a more environmentally "friendly" car. It's just another rip off and that's why we still have to pay it.
Dave[/quote]
It'd be far cheaper for everyone to keep the system as it is, that's why I can't believe this government hasn't gone for the more tax on fuel approach.
They should just get rid of it and introduce another way to ensure people have MOT, insurance etc. As for the discount on small engined cars, what a joke, do they honestly believe that 5 quid a month compared to 40 quid a week in fuel is significant enough to fool people into buying a more environmentally "friendly" car. It's just another rip off and that's why we still have to pay it.[/quote]
I've always wondered, when this suggestion of downsizing to more fuel efficient cars crops up, what the tree huggers think will happen to the gas guzzling cars that have been replaced?
9 times out of 10 they get sold...to another owner, who carries on using the car (which is an excellent form of recycling) but continues to consume the same amount of fuel as the previous owner.
However the previous owner now has a brand new shiny car that uses much less fuel to run (although the overall consumption has to include his old gas guzzler because it's still being used, so that's at least 1.5 times the enviromental impact). The brand new shiny car was manufactured not by harvesting the car tree, but by processing tons of raw materials in factories that don't use moonbeams for energy....not a particularly environment friendly way of saving a few gallons of dinosaur wee by the new shiny car.
And so the cycle (insert pedal power joke here) continues.
The best solution would be to stop industry manufacturing new cars but maintain the ones we've already got. They're safe enough and clean enough for their continued use to far outweigh the "green" cost of making new ones.
Oooh heck, the men in white coats are coming...
zumbruk said:
It would be your choice, and your compromise - move closer to work, get a job closer to where you live at present,
Sigh. Anyone who trots this nonsense out obviously has no idea what they're on about. You're a student, or a new graddy, right? And you definitely don't live or work in London.
Mutant Rat said:
Personally, I only take jobs in rural locations and I move to within 10 minutes drive of wherever I work, as a rule,
Bully for you. Perhaps you'd like to add "minding your own business" to your list of 'rules'?
No, I'm neither a student, nor a new graduate. I'm in my late thirties.
And no, I don't live or work in London, but I have in the past (well, lived in Guildford, worked across the City and the Home Counties) and decided that it wasn't for me.
I pay road tax on two cars, pay petrol tax on two cars, and income tax on 40% of my salary. I think thatprobably makes government taxation strategy as much my business as anyone elses, don't you?
The rest of you post is't worth the time taken to respond, other than to say that if you believe that:
a) We can run a civilised society without any taxation whatsoever, and
b) That taxation doesn't influence the way that people live their lives
...then you are clearly away with the fairies, old chap!
Mutant Rat said:
The rest of you post is't worth the time taken to respond, other than to say that if you believe that:
a) We can run a civilised society without any taxation whatsoever, and
b) That taxation doesn't influence the way that people live their lives
...then you are clearly away with the fairies, old chap!
How amusing, an 'ad hominem' and a refusal to address any points. Oh, well, at least I know you can safely be ignored now. Oh, for killfiles on Pistonheads.
leosayer said:
Mutant Rat said:
The rest of you post is't worth the time taken to respond
Yes it is...go on...you know you want to. This was turning out to be an interesting debate.
Oh, go on then, one last troll before the weekend!
zumbruk said:
Mutant Rat said:
Unfortunately, there is a growing case for encouraging people to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.
And increasing price caused by decreasing supply will do exactly that. Not some socialist prick poking his nose into other people's business.
Depends why you are wanting to limit the supply of fossil fuels. If it is because you are worried about them running out then, yes, certainly supply/demand will eventually regulate usage due to increasing price. But if global warming turns out to be the reality that the majority of scientists now fear it is, demand will drop off because we've all died of famine and climactic natural disasters. You pays you money, and you takes your choice, I guess?
For the record, I'm not a socialist and I suspect that I'm considerably less phallus-like than certain other individuals posting on this forum, but lets not lower ourselves to a personal slanging match, eh?
Mutant Rat said:
You might not like it, Ledfoot, but it is difficult to argue that it isn't both fairer and more sensible on environmental grounds.
It is in fact quite easy to argue with both points.
Go on, then...feel free to make your case
In what way is it "fair" that the likes of you tell other people how to run their lives?
I don't tell people how to run their lives - politicians do that...it's the price we pay for living in a so-called 'democracy'. Whatever form of government you choose, the point is that any society relies on people compromising on something that, whilst it might not be the ideal for them is in the better interest of humanity overall. It might not be to Ledfoot's liking that it would cost him more to commute his long distance to work, but might it not be considered that the overall greater good is served by discouraging people, if only a little, from burning fossil fuels unnecessarily?
Mutant Rat said:
I don't like having to shell out the best part of half my salary at source in income tax, but I recognise that taxation is a necessary evil,
Then you're a sheep. Try reading some of the articles at <a href="www.strike-the-root.com/."><a href="www.strike-the-root.com/.">www.strike-the-root.com/.</a></a> Mark Davis' stuff is a good start.
OK, I'm a sheep. But since my income and standard of living probably puts me in the top 5% of people living on the planet at the moment, I'm a very comfortable sheep, thanks very much.
That means that I'm not particularly inclined to go chasing after untried, hypothetical systems of government which may or may not be better than the one we have at the moment. Look at all the trouble it landed the Russians in, back in 1917!
I assume that since you feel so strongly about it, you don't pay any tax at all? How does that work, then? Where do you buy your petrol?
And I'm sure the forum would love to know how this tax-free utopia of yours would work? Who pays for the roads, the police force, the streetlighting, the.... etc, etc.?
Mutant Rat said:
and if we have to have it, I'd rather it was fair...so I don't scream and stamp my foot about having to pay more than some poor single mum who is working on the checkouts at Tescos for minimum wage.
Odd definition of "fair" you have. "Steal more from you because you have done better for yourself".
That's because, as noted above, I'm doing well enough to feel able to show a little generosity to my fellow man (...or woman). I'm also sensible enough to recognise that the 'me, me, me, give it all to me andthe proletariat' approach is counterproductive in the long run. Back to the Russian revolution, if you aren't careful...or at least a knife in the back when you are least expecting it in a quiet alley, because you are wearing a watch that represents 2 year's income for the guy with the blade. Better to provide a safety net so that nobody is so poor they are starving to death, even it it does mean that poor little me doesn't have quite so much cash to squander on unnecessary luxuries.
maybe I am a socialist, after all!
Mutant Rat said:
It would be your choice, and your compromise - move closer to work, get a job closer to where you live at present,
Sigh. Anyone who trots this nonsense out obviously has no idea what they're on about. You're a student, or a new graddy, right? And you definitely don't live or work in London.
see earlier post - just plain wrong, I'm afraid
Mutant Rat said:
Personally, I only take jobs in rural locations and I move to within 10 minutes drive of wherever I work, as a rule,
Bully for you. Perhaps you'd like to add "minding your own business" to your list of 'rules'?
back to that little thing called 'society', again. If we all 'minded our own business' where would we be? That Hitler chap...he was nuffink to do wiv me, guv. I'm not Jewish. And what u going round bothering that poor Huntley guy for? Wasn't your kids he was fiddling with was it? It's very easy to abdicate all responsibility for something...it just isn't very responsible
>> Edited by Mutant Rat on Friday 5th August 18:32
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff