How cars should be taxed! Worldwide!!

[Filibuster]

Why are cars still taxed based on CO2 emissions, basically all over Europe? (Don't know how they are taxed in the States TBH)
Wouldn't it be much fairer and easier to solely tax them on size (footprint of the car) and weight?
The first equates to how much space you are actually using driving and parking it on the roads.
The second accounts for how hard you are using the road surface. (Also in a way it taxes the grey energy used producing the vehicle, but that is a different matter!)

The tax on CO2 should be put only on petrol and diesel (and electricity) since this is the only way to have an accurate and fair taxing on how much CO2 you are actually emitting.

Why has nobody proposed this taxing before? Although I'm sure, this idea must have been discussed before!
What do you think?

Stupid idea or the future?

[Bumblebee7]

I like the idea. I can't stand the current trend of cars getting bigger and bigger. I know there's all the safety stuff that goes into them now but driving on the roads often feels like an arms race of people wanting larger cars which are invariably heavier and less efficient. Also, seems to work quite well in Japan with their kei cars.

[CrutyRammers]

Nope. Because it doesn't take into account usage.
Putting it on fuel is the sensible way, because it's directly proportional to usage and emissions. It also does away with a load of enforcement and admin cost because it's unavoidable.

[phil4]

CrutyRammers said:

Nope. Because it doesn't take into account usage.
Putting it on fuel is the sensible way, because it's directly proportional to usage and emissions. It also does away with a load of enforcement and admin cost because it's unavoidable.

This

I don't even know why they're considering "road pricing", as if the people sat in the jam wanted to be there.

As you say, simplest, most straight forward, fairest way to do it in my eyes is on fuel, and so on usage.

[Artsy]

The only "correct" way would be to add this to fuel.

The more you drive, the more you pay. Also means that hybrids that have a huge engine and a small battery and are able to get a hypothetical 150mpg around town in factory conditions will be paying their share rather than being exempt.

Also means that nobody is un-taxed at any time as using fuel is essentially paying tax.

[tejr]

CrutyRammers said:

Nope. Because it doesn't take into account usage.
Putting it on fuel is the sensible way, because it's directly proportional to usage and emissions. It also does away with a load of enforcement and admin cost because it's unavoidable.

Anything other than taxing fuel proves that anything else is just a revenue generator. Says its all that we effectively already pay two taxes on fuel.

[Toltec]

phil4 said:

CrutyRammers said:

Nope. Because it doesn't take into account usage.
Putting it on fuel is the sensible way, because it's directly proportional to usage and emissions. It also does away with a load of enforcement and admin cost because it's unavoidable.

This

I don't even know why they're considering "road pricing", as if the people sat in the jam wanted to be there.

As you say, simplest, most straight forward, fairest way to do it in my eyes is on fuel, and so on usage.

If a car is parked on the road it still has to be insured so that stops people littering the roads with 'untaxed' cars without any cost.
Catches any foreign registered vehicles driving longer distances here too.

Might need some system to claim back for lorries/freight as the common complaint is that it would drive prices up. Then again if you really do want to reduce CO2 and pollution then producing it should be expensive and all of a sudden EV trucks become more cost effective.

[TooMany2cvs]

Filibuster said:

Why are cars still taxed based on CO2 emissions, basically all over Europe?

They aren't.

NL is on weight, IIRC, and (albeit only from the second tax purchase onwards...) the UK is a single flat rate for everything new in the last year, except for a hike for expensive stuff. Oh, and split by engine size for anything pre-01.

[captain_cynic]

Bumblebee7 said:

I like the idea. I can't stand the current trend of cars getting bigger and bigger. I know there's all the safety stuff that goes into them now but driving on the roads often feels like an arms race of people wanting larger cars which are invariably heavier and less efficient. Also, seems to work quite well in Japan with their kei cars.

In Western Australia cars are taxed on weight, £x per 100 KG (Plus admin fees which are fixed for everyone) so the heavier your vehicle, the more you pay in tax.

WA also paid compulsory medical insurance (CTP or Compulsory Third Party) as part of your yearly tax, but here in the UK that would surely be covered under NI.

It was fairly cheap for me, My last car was a Nissan 200sx (S15) and I paid about A$470 (£230) in fees incl. CTP. Someone who owned a Range Rover would be paying £150-200 more.

[swanny71]

“Taxing” cars, trucks etc isn’t about being fair though is it? It’s about raising revenue for the government.

The fair way to do it would be to tax the fuel (petrol, diesel, LPG, electricity) actually used by the vehicle. Big heavy vehicles use more fuel as they take up more space, damage roads more, pollute more etc.
Can’t see it ever changing to be fair though, road users are a cash cow to be milked in every possible way!

[captain_cynic]

swanny71 said:

“Taxing” cars, trucks etc isn’t about being fair though is it? It’s about raising revenue for the government.

Taxes pay for the roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

Have you ever had to travel daily on a toll road? It makes the taxes you pay seem cheap.

[Dave Hedgehog]

captain_cynic said:

swanny71 said:

“Taxing” cars, trucks etc isn’t about being fair though is it? It’s about raising revenue for the government.

Taxes pay for the roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

Have you ever had to travel daily on a toll road? It makes the taxes you pay seem cheap.

If I recall correctly only about 30% of taxes raised from motorists are spent on infrastructure etc.

Its all just money for the pot, they just come up with as many different ways / names to increase what goes into the pot

and motorists are a captive cash cow

and OP road pricing will come

Edited by Dave Hedgehog on Friday 18th May 12:33

[mcflurry]

Filibuster said:

Why are cars still taxed based on CO2 emissions, basically all over Europe?

They changed last year to the £140 flat rate, plus more money for 5 years if you're car costs more than £2.50

[Limpet]

phil4 said:

CrutyRammers said:

Nope. Because it doesn't take into account usage.
Putting it on fuel is the sensible way, because it's directly proportional to usage and emissions. It also does away with a load of enforcement and admin cost because it's unavoidable.

This

I don't even know why they're considering "road pricing", as if the people sat in the jam wanted to be there.

As you say, simplest, most straight forward, fairest way to do it in my eyes is on fuel, and so on usage.

+1

Such a simple system, that would be self collecting, almost impossible to avoid, and which would automatically reward the use of more efficient cars , and less frequent car use, and penalise the opposite. The end result would still be driving CO2 emissions in the right direction, but in a manner much more based on real environmental impact as opposed to unachievable numbers in meaningless tests..

[MKnight702]

Limpet said:

+1

Such a simple system, that would be self collecting, almost impossible to avoid, and which would automatically reward the use of more efficient cars , and less frequent car use, and penalise the opposite. The end result would still be driving CO2 emissions in the right direction, but in a manner much more based on real environmental impact as opposed to unachievable numbers in meaningless tests..

However, hundreds of people in Wales would then have to find jobs, so it won't happen, ever.

[CrutyRammers]

MKnight702 said:

However, hundreds of people in Wales would then have to find jobs, so it won't happen, ever.

^^^ this is the problem, I expect.
Putting 3rd party insurance on the price of fuel would be a similar scheme that would, at a stroke, remove the problem of uninsured drivers, and free up loads of admin and enforcement cost. And won't happen for the same reason.

[Bennet]

CrutyRammers said:

Nope. Because it doesn't take into account usage.
Putting it on fuel is the sensible way, because it's directly proportional to usage and emissions. It also does away with a load of enforcement and admin cost because it's unavoidable.

I was all for this up until recently when someone pointed out that one useful function of taxing the vehicle itself just for being on the road is that it discourages people with no driveways from storing multiple vehicles they never use on the road in front of other people's houses for years at a time. (Also, the rule whereby any taxed car has to also be insured would no longer operate, so many of these cars won't be insured either, thus the cost of leaving your rotting heap outside next door's house for a decade becomes zero.)

Not insurmountable problems, but it means the solution has to be wider in scope than "just dump VED on to fuel".

Maybe set a standard rate of £100 to tax any car, and put the shortfall on to fuel.

Edited by Bennet on Friday 18th May 13:10

[unsprung]

Filibuster said:

Don't know how they are taxed in the States TBH

in the US the greatest tax paid by the motorist is via the fuel

fuel is taxed both by the federal and state governments

states also require owners to pay an annual fee; in many states this is very low (eg: £30 or even less); but in a small number of states the figure could be several times that

each state has its own way of taxing your vehicle:
- flat rate
- weight
- value
- age
- hybrid of the above

map here:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/regist...

Edited by unsprung on Friday 18th May 13:29

[Filibuster]

Bennet said:

CrutyRammers said:

Nope. Because it doesn't take into account usage.
Putting it on fuel is the sensible way, because it's directly proportional to usage and emissions. It also does away with a load of enforcement and admin cost because it's unavoidable.

I was all for this up until recently when someone pointed out that one useful function of taxing the vehicle itself just for being on the road is that it discourages people with no driveways from storing multiple vehicles they never use on the road in front of other people's houses for years at a time. (Also, the rule whereby any taxed car has to also be insured would no longer operate, so many of these cars won't be insured either, thus the cost of leaving your rotting heap outside next door's house for a decade becomes zero.)

Not insurmountable problems, but it means the solution has to be wider in scope than "just dump VED on to fuel".

Maybe set a standard rate of £100 to tax any car, and put the shortfall on to fuel.

Edited by Bennet on Friday 18th May 13:10

This is my point from the beginning.
A modest tax based on size and weight (as these two are relevant to the usage on the road) and the rest via fuel.

[Filibuster]

In general I don't mind paying road tax. IMHO it should be a sensible approach (as I suggested in my op).
On the other hand, it should be used solely for the upkeep and extension of the road network.
IMO this should not exceed more than 3/4 of the costs. The rest should be thrown in from the general pot, since everybody benefits from the road network.
Even if you don't own a car and never leave the house, all goods you are consuming come to you via the road network.