Why can't "Road Tax" be replaced by duty on fuel?
Discussion
The tax disc is an indication that the car is also insured and has an MOT (or at least was when the tax disc was acquired). Under the current scheme if a car is not displaying a tax disc, it may be that the car is also uninsured and/or has no MOT.
With the road tax being placed on fuel, there would be no requirement to produce a valid MOT and current insurance certificate.
With the road tax being placed on fuel, there would be no requirement to produce a valid MOT and current insurance certificate.
Lambochick said:
The tax disc is an indication that the car is also insured and has an MOT (or at least was when the tax disc was acquired). Under the current scheme if a car is not displaying a tax disc, it may be that the car is also uninsured and/or has no MOT.
With the road tax being placed on fuel, there would be no requirement to produce a valid MOT and current insurance certificate.
As it only needs one day of insurance and MOT it doesn't help much, and the ANPR cameras are linked to the MID and DOT databases to check insurance and MOT anyway.With the road tax being placed on fuel, there would be no requirement to produce a valid MOT and current insurance certificate.
redstu said:
Si 330 said:
Have an insurance disk then that can be displayed in the window, that can double as your insurance certificate.
+1the obvious solution. It's much more important that the car when in use is insured!
An MOT only proves the car was roadworthy at the time of the test.
A tax disc only proves there was insurance and MOT at the time it was bought.
A car can have a tax disc and not be insured and be out of MOT, so really the disc in and of itself, proves nothing.
MX7 said:
2 Wycked said:
It'd ultimately cost you more though
It depends how many miles per year you do.
... and how many cars you own.
I'm all in favour of this move personally. Depending on the level of taxation per litre, I may end up better or worse of as I do over average mileages, yet own multiple cars. It would sure take the pain out of those pay months when the lumps must get paid of for the window discs.
james_tigerwoods said:
As above....
Controversial, possibly, but how much simpler would it be to put Road Tax on to fuel duty? Surely there could be about a gazillion levels of bureaucracy that can be removed by doing this?
ive always thought the problem with this is a lot of people use petrol for things other than road vehicles - lawn mowers, boats, generators, chainsaws, farm machinery- not really fair to make those users pay road taxControversial, possibly, but how much simpler would it be to put Road Tax on to fuel duty? Surely there could be about a gazillion levels of bureaucracy that can be removed by doing this?
carmonk said:
It wouldn't cost everyone more, clearly. I'm all in favour of scrapping blanket charges wherever possible and charging people pro rata based on usage.
+1 I pay over £400 to tax my 220 which i use rarely, my brothers Mrs pays £35 and does over 12k miles a year. Fair system it is not, thing is as above it would be(too) easy for them to increase it but that happens now anyway!(but would be much easier to increase more than they do now as people only see the increase as small at each fill up). I'd like to see ANPR at every filling station, ANPR flag means no fuel will come out.I often think the road fund tax is to remind us that we are "part of the herd" so to speak. We all have to tax our cars - with a few exceptions of course. That makes us part of a greater community. Loading it onto petrol prices negates that.
Perhaps this is my paranoia speaking, but as a member of a community you are less likely to go against the grain. Even an artifical community like the road fund license can be a useful system of control to ensure we all toe the line, so to speak.
Just a hunch, and more likely to do with a myriad of other boring factors.
Oli
Perhaps this is my paranoia speaking, but as a member of a community you are less likely to go against the grain. Even an artifical community like the road fund license can be a useful system of control to ensure we all toe the line, so to speak.
Just a hunch, and more likely to do with a myriad of other boring factors.
Oli
I agree that it should be on fuel, totally proportionate to the ammoutn you drive and your choice of vehicle, plus it would mean that those who choose not to buy a disk cant escape payment, it would spread the cost across the year as well.
Would mean lots less administration, waste of paper sending out reminders and disks etc.
I think the government wont as at the moment they do a double dip and get money for cars like mine that only do a tiny milage, I pay 220 VED for mine now but due to cycling and proximity of work when I do drive its only a coupel of thousand a year, potentially they would lose most of that as I would, if they said added 12p a litre to cover VED I would only be paying £30 a year.
I suppose it fits with the "green policies" if not revenue raising, but I suppose there will be many 20/30k a year Range Rover drivers to pay more. I would bet they have done the numbers and it doesnt stack up in their favour, therefore I get to pay VED on a car that barely does any miles.
Would mean lots less administration, waste of paper sending out reminders and disks etc.
I think the government wont as at the moment they do a double dip and get money for cars like mine that only do a tiny milage, I pay 220 VED for mine now but due to cycling and proximity of work when I do drive its only a coupel of thousand a year, potentially they would lose most of that as I would, if they said added 12p a litre to cover VED I would only be paying £30 a year.
I suppose it fits with the "green policies" if not revenue raising, but I suppose there will be many 20/30k a year Range Rover drivers to pay more. I would bet they have done the numbers and it doesnt stack up in their favour, therefore I get to pay VED on a car that barely does any miles.
But surely for emission purposes it would be unfair? Imagine little old Mr Green who requires travel 600miles/week for work who usually a little 1.4TDI which produces little emissions would effectively be paying more than MRS Pink in the Landrover who only does 60Miles/week dropping off and picking up the kids from school but probably producing the same emissions?
Maybe a little exaggerated, but you get the jist!
Maybe a little exaggerated, but you get the jist!
Jayho said:
But surely for emission purposes it would be unfair? Imagine little old Mr Green who requires travel 600miles/week for work who usually a little 1.4TDI which produces little emissions would effectively be paying more than MRS Pink in the Landrover who only does 60Miles/week dropping off and picking up the kids from school but probably producing the same emissions?
Maybe a little exaggerated, but you get the jist!
What?Maybe a little exaggerated, but you get the jist!
I don't get your example. If you use more fuel you emit more CO2 and you pay more.
This is good for people with 'gas guzzling super cars' which only get used at weekends. Add it up over a year and it's less CO2 and less fuel that a commuter in a hatchback.
Adding the cost to fuel means you can chose to drive more conservatily and save fuel/CO2/cost, and you're no hammered for having a 'polluting' car sat on your drive doing nothing.
J4CKO said:
I think the government wont as at the moment they do a double dip and get money for cars like mine that only do a tiny milage, I pay 220 VED for mine now but due to cycling and proximity of work when I do drive its only a coupel of thousand a year, potentially they would lose most of that as I would, if they said added 12p a litre to cover VED I would only be paying £30 a year.
It wouldn't make any difference to them. They know how much revenue they get from VED, and I'm sure they know how many liters of fuel are sold a year, so £/lt would mean they recieve exactly the same. Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff