mogish
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 500
|
Post by mogish on Oct 27, 2021 8:11:19 GMT
Is it not about time road tax was reviewed?
It seems quite unfair that a motorbike can be nearly 5 times more expensive than a car.
I believe steam powered vehicles are exempt... come on what's the chances?
Surely pay per mile must fairer
Low Road users are paying the same as high road users... why when they wear out the road less. Motorhome over 40k pay extra £335 . Where can you get a motorhome for less?
Final gripe is the 45p p m travel on business also needs reviewed as this hardly cover fuel cost bever mind wear and tear.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,212 
Likes: 6,020
|
Post by registerme on Oct 27, 2021 8:23:13 GMT
I'm more concerned about:-
a) VED raised about £7b in the last financial year.
b) EVs are exempt (hybrid's pay a reduced amount).
c) Rich people can afford new EVs, poor people can't so its 1) hardly progressive and 2) there are more poor people than rich people, so it will slow the ultimate uptake of EVs
d) How is the future tax revenue shortfall to be made up?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 27, 2021 8:44:55 GMT
Reformed... again.
Historically - one band for everything.
Late 90s - split at 1550cc.
2001 - CO2 banding.
2006 - two higher CO2 bands introduced.
2017 - flat rate for everything non-zero-emission, 5yr hike for £40k+ list.
2020 - £40k+ hike removed for zero-emission.
The 1550cc pre-CO2 split is the only one of these changes that applied retrospectively. Apart from that, the regime in force when the car was new applies for the life of it... If you bought a high CO2 car registered the day before the budget in 2006, it would be £160/year cheaper to tax than one bought the day after...
The big problem is that the CO2 banding was too effective.
In 2016, the average new car in the UK was £30/year VED - the last time the flat rate was £30 was 1975...
The flat rate introduced in 2017 was £140 - the last time the flat rate was £140 was 1996.
Our sensible daily car is 2005, and £210 because of the CO2, despite averaging ~45mpg. If it was a few years older and pre-CO2, it'd be £170, because it's only 1200cc.
Don't forget that old vehicles are £0, too. That was introduced in the 90s as rolling 25 year, then frozen at 1973, then restarted as rolling 40.
We have a vehicle that does 15mpg on a good day. It's £0, because it's 1980. If it was a few years younger, it'd be £280 - the default pre-CO2 rate - despite barely covering 500 miles per year.
We have another vehicle that is about to turn 40. But that cutoff age is worked on complete calendar years, based on the manufacture date. Since this particular car was built the first week of January 1982 (I have this in writing from the manufacturer) it'll be £170 to tax it for 2022. If it was built a week earlier, it would be £0.
Variable road pricing makes PERFECT sense. Charge those who do lots of miles in heavy traffic more than those who do few in very light traffic. BUT... the technology...
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 27, 2021 8:46:08 GMT
Final gripe is the 45p p m travel on business also needs reviewed as this hardly cover fuel cost bever mind wear and tear. Umm, cobblers. Even at the £1.43/litre I saw yesterday for petrol, 45p/mile would be only just a whiff over 14mpg.
|
|
mogish
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 500
|
Post by mogish on Oct 27, 2021 10:46:11 GMT
ok I may have been getting a bit carried away , but 45p does NOT cover running cost per mile.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,623
Likes: 4,194
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 27, 2021 11:22:45 GMT
ok I may have been getting a bit carried away , but 45p does NOT cover running cost per mile. It should certainly cover the running costs (fuel, tax, MOT, servicing, tyres, repairs), possibly not depreciation (depending what sort of a car you have and how many miles you do)
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 27, 2021 11:23:20 GMT
ok I may have been getting a bit carried away , but 45p does NOT cover running cost per mile. For most fairly generic cars, it certainly will. Obviously, if you choose to run something pricier, it may not.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 27, 2021 12:12:38 GMT
In my day it was assumed you were running a car anyway and if you used it for work sometimes they recompensed the fuel + a bit maybe. If you were using a car all the time for work it would be a car allowance (which might or might not be taxable) or a company car.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 27, 2021 13:06:24 GMT
Is it not about time road tax was reviewed? It seems quite unfair that a motorbike can be nearly 5 times more expensive than a car. I believe steam powered vehicles are exempt... come on what's the chances? Surely pay per mile must fairerLow Road users are paying the same as high road users... why when they wear out the road less. Motorhome over 40k pay extra £335 . Where can you get a motorhome for less? Final gripe is the 45p p m travel on business also needs reviewed as this hardly cover fuel cost bever mind wear and tear. Leaving aside EVs, I've never understood this criticism of road tax. We do already pay-per-mile, and quite handsomely so.... it's called fuel duty. I see this as exactly analogous to electricity and gas. The road tax (VED) is the fixed standing charge, which supposedly goes towards providing the infrastructure, whether you use it much or not at all, while the fuel duty is the running charge reflecting how much use you actually make. Like electricity, it's only fair that all road users should contribute something towards the standing charge, even if they only make very occasional use of it. The overall VED/fuel duty model seems sensible to me, even if certain vagaries of it do need addressing after politicians have meddled over the years.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,892
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 27, 2021 13:06:36 GMT
Reformed... again. Historically - one band for everything. Late 90s - split at 1550cc. 2001 - CO2 banding. 2006 - two higher CO2 bands introduced. 2017 - flat rate for everything non-zero-emission, 5yr hike for £40k+ list. 2020 - £40k+ hike removed for zero-emission. The 1550cc pre-CO2 split is the only one of these changes that applied retrospectively. Apart from that, the regime in force when the car was new applies for the life of it... If you bought a high CO2 car registered the day before the budget in 2006, it would be £160/year cheaper to tax than one bought the day after... The big problem is that the CO2 banding was too effective. In 2016, the average new car in the UK was £30/year VED - the last time the flat rate was £30 was 1975... The flat rate introduced in 2017 was £140 - the last time the flat rate was £140 was 1996. Our sensible daily car is 2005, and £210 because of the CO2, despite averaging ~45mpg. If it was a few years older and pre-CO2, it'd be £170, because it's only 1200cc. Don't forget that old vehicles are £0, too. That was introduced in the 90s as rolling 25 year, then frozen at 1973, then restarted as rolling 40. We have a vehicle that does 15mpg on a good day. It's £0, because it's 1980. If it was a few years younger, it'd be £280 - the default pre-CO2 rate - despite barely covering 500 miles per year. We have another vehicle that is about to turn 40. But that cutoff age is worked on complete calendar years, based on the manufacture date. Since this particular car was built the first week of January 1982 (I have this in writing from the manufacturer) it'll be £170 to tax it for 2022. If it was built a week earlier, it would be £0. Variable road pricing makes PERFECT sense. Charge those who do lots of miles in heavy traffic more than those who do few in very light traffic. BUT... the technology...Agree though not sure I agree about charging commuters more than everyone else though. Even without tech, a lot of folk do tax and MOT around the same time as one requires the other. The MOT also lists current mileage. So why not just charge tax based on annual mileage? No tech or changes required....
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,892
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 27, 2021 13:08:47 GMT
Berny got in before me with the standaing charge plus usage charge model. Good analysis.
In that case, just charge usage - we'd get all road users that way not just vehicles registered in the UK.
Another hike on to petrol but scrap vehicle tax...
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 27, 2021 13:15:35 GMT
But if you scrap VED, somebody who does 100 miles a year is barely contributing anything at all towards the infrastructure, the standing costs of providing the road network. Is it fair that the rest of us pay to provide the road system for such a person to use effectively for free whenever he wishes?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 27, 2021 13:15:55 GMT
Variable road pricing makes PERFECT sense. Charge those who do lots of miles in heavy traffic more than those who do few in very light traffic. BUT... the technology... Agree though not sure I agree about charging commuters more than everyone else though. If they're the ones doing loads of miles in heavy traffic... Hasn't the last 18 months taught us anything about how optional the 9-5 with rush-hour commuting is? Because the MOT doesn't require an odometer to be fitted or to work... And, of course, there's no way to ensure it's not being disconnected or rewound during the year. GPS-based insurance-black-box-style tech is the only way to be thinking, but even that has issues and limitations.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
Member is Online
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 27, 2021 13:25:03 GMT
Agree though not sure I agree about charging commuters more than everyone else though. If they're the ones doing loads of miles in heavy traffic... Hasn't the last 18 months taught us anything about how optional the 9-5 with rush-hour commuting is? Because the MOT doesn't require an odometer to be fitted or to work... And, of course, there's no way to ensure it's not being disconnected or rewound during the year. GPS-based insurance-black-box-style tech is the only way to be thinking, but even that has issues and limitations. Scrap the road tax and put it all on fuel, that targets the heavy users. As in the analogy of bernythedolt above, if you don't want the standing charge put it all on the rate instead.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,892
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 27, 2021 14:20:28 GMT
If they're the ones doing loads of miles in heavy traffic... Hasn't the last 18 months taught us anything about how optional the 9-5 with rush-hour commuting is? Because the MOT doesn't require an odometer to be fitted or to work... And, of course, there's no way to ensure it's not being disconnected or rewound during the year. GPS-based insurance-black-box-style tech is the only way to be thinking, but even that has issues and limitations. Scrap the road tax and put it all on fuel, that targets the heavy users. As in the analogy of bernythedolt above, if you don't want the standing charge put it all on the rate instead. Ahhh but he's already replied to that idea. I think I agree with you though. Paying for the ability to use something without actually using it is interesting. Does that mean I should contribute to the cost of private jet hire as I could go and hire one ? I stand by the MOT mileage idea. Odometers I think are much hard to "clock" as they are digitally controlled. You'd also have to clock them every year for consistency.
|
|
