Office discussion.. is there any reason why car tax could not be swapped for aslight increase in (the already high) fuel tax?

I presume there must be a reason why this cannot happen as it would seem to make complete sense..

Well, it could. But those of us with small economical vehicles that cost little to tax now, would be out of pocket…..

It's also a good way to check that you have insurance and an MOT.

Its a daft tax that bears no relation to the usage you have of the road. It should be use specific and therefore added to fuel tax. That makes it fair and gives an incentive to make vehicles more fuel efficient.

As for checking on MOT's and Insurance, thats done electronically via numberplate recognition cameras.

Its about time the govenment started joined up thinking, but I wont be holding my breath.

But small and economical vehicles use less fuel so you would pay proportionally less?

It seems to far in the future to want to include non petrol vehicles tho and these are exempt at the moment anyway are they not?

The checking for insurance & MOT was the only thing we could think of, a disc could still be mandatory though.

I think it's the obvious path to take. Everyone wins. Small, economical cars pay less tax on the fuel they use, big, thirsty cars pay more tax. It's tied to usage rather than a standarding charge. Look at it this way, when you cycle into work at the moment you still pay tax on your car sat on the drive, that's not fair is it?

No doubt the government will start taxing bananas and energy bars mind.

I think it's the obvious path to take. Everyone wins. Small, economical cars pay less tax on the fuel they use, big, thirsty cars pay more tax. It's tied to usage rather than a standarding charge. Look at it this way, when you cycle into work at the moment you still pay tax on your car sat on the drive, that's not fair is it?

No doubt the government will start taxing bananas and energy bars mind.

everyone wins apart from those who are forced to use cars by where they live. taxing fuel/pay per mile is incredibly discriminatory to those that do not have access to regular public transport and therefore have no choice but to drive.

ah hell, lets all just live in one big city, that'd be great.

Pre '72 vehicles still get a disc, as I assume do electrics etc, so no administrative reason. But I thought road tax was used for road maintenance and construction purposes- and if so it would be nearly impossible to remove cross subsidies and tax vehicles appropriately to the road damage and usage they cause.

Agree entirely. Taxing a car is such a hassle, imagine the admin cost savings too.

You didn't really think before you posted that, did you Peter?

😉

But small and economical vehicles use less fuel so you would pay proportionally less?

Yes, maybe, but still more than I do now!
And more economical vehicles already pay less tax…..

If it was worked so you paid the same then PP to calibrate the cost properly! 😀

I think PAYD tax and insurance would be good. I did the PAYD insurance that Norwich Union piloted and it was a real incentive to bike in and made me generally more thoughtful about when I used the car. It was a shame it didnt get enough take up imo.

my dads car is a 20 year old volvo that gets driven < 1000 miles per year. Taxing that 200 quid a year seems a bit silly. He only fills it up once every 3-4 months. Hire cars/public transport not really an option due to where he lives, though he does cycle a lot now.

VED also means a lot of otherwise roadworthy cars end up getting scrapped. Who wants too pay 400 quid a year on an old petrol audi a6? isn't it better to keep them running?

But I thought road tax was used for road maintenance and construction purposes- and if so it would be nearly impossible to remove cross subsidies and tax vehicles appropriately to the road damage and usage they cause.

All tax goes into a big pot; "Road tax" is no different. Most roads are paid for by local authorities, so it's Council tax if anything that goes 'directly' to the roads.

Taxing a car is such a hassle

It is? 😕

I recently paid the VED on our car. It probably took less than 3 minutes in total. I can just about handle that once a year.

Or were you being sarky?

If it was worked so you paid the same then PP to calibrate the cost properly!

If it was worked so I paid the same on one vehicle, then I'd pay more on another.

It doesn't work any better than the current system

Its a daft tax that bears no relation to the usage you have of the road

Using that rationale, what taxes are fair apart from VAT?

my dads car is a 20 year old volvo that gets driven < 1000 miles per year. Taxing that 200 quid a year seems a bit silly. He only fills it up once every 3-4 months

No, owning a car like that for such a low milage is the silly part. I'd bet you could take public transport or taxis for less then the cost of running that car.

Fuel is price inelastic, so small increases in duty will make no difference to consumption. It's also regressive as it hits everybody the same, regardless of their income.

By contrast, people are more sensitive to VED, because you have to pay it in one hit. So if it's considered desirable to have less polluting cars, VED is a useful instrument.

Oh, and VED isn't hypothecated for road maintenance. Most of it comes out of council tax.

Using that rationale, what taxes are fair apart from VAT?

Well To start with VAT is all BUT fair. As you pay the same price irrespective of your income.

I think petrol is not expensive enough anyway. So bring the cost up less car on the road. Everyone is a winner.

So bring the cost up less car on the road

you mean less poor people on the road.

the solution is not in taxation, it is in providing a viable alternative.

"everyone wins apart from those who are forced to use cars by where they live. taxing fuel/pay per mile is incredibly discriminatory to those that do not have access to regular public transport and therefore have no choice but to drive.
ah hell, lets all just live in one big city, that'd be great. "

I hate this argument and I dont want to live in one big city either (although I could see the arguments for it from a green perspective)

Look you choose to live where you live and if you didnt take into account the public transport system thats your fault. Public transport can only work with a system of hubs and people have to get to those hubs. You cant have public transport everywhere or it becomes uneconomical.

As for you paying for more this is probably very untrue. I bet your housing costs are considerably cheaper because you live away from public transport. I recently brought a house and paid a premium to be near a train station. You saved this initial outlay and may have to be paying it now in fuel.

Or to put it another way if you didnt have a car would you have chose to live where you live probably not.

my dads car is a 20 year old volvo that gets driven < 1000 miles per year.

Has he considered a car club scheme?

http://www.optionc.co.uk/
http://www.citycarclub.co.uk/

Obviously depends where he is, but could be a useful option.
£4 an hour (@15p a mile), or £36 for a full day, £12 overnight.

I don't get your counter argument either

you are aware that people work in the countryside aren't you, it's not just for people to commute into cities to work. I think you also need to distinguish between the countryside and the commuter belt.

You pay more to live near a station if you are in a commuter area, you clearly have a very odd perspective on countryside housing costs. Go and find an affordable house in Devon.

i take it from you counterargument that you live in and or work in or around London?

If as you say you choose to live in the countryside despite cost then who ends up living in the countryside?

Well To start with VAT is all BUT fair. As you pay the same price irrespective of your income.

What? So you think people on higher income, who already pay a higher rate of tax, should also pay more when they buy stuff?

Is the point of tax to make it ultimately pointless to earn a decent wage?

Well To start with VAT is all BUT fair. As you pay the same price irrespective of your income.

That was my point really. I responded to Trimix, who was saying that car tax is unfair, because everyone pays the same irrespective of usage.

I think it's the obvious path to take. Everyone wins. Small, economical cars pay less tax on the fuel they use, big, thirsty cars pay more tax. It's tied to usage rather than a standarding charge. Look at it this way, when you cycle into work at the moment you still pay tax on your car sat on the drive, that's not fair is it?

Classic reply from a city commuter 👿

I think petrol is not expensive enough anyway. So bring the cost up less car on the road. Everyone is a winner.

So you will be the happiest person when your shopping bills double and your bling bike parts treble in price ❓ 💡

VAT is all BUT fair. As you pay the same price irrespective of your income.

But if you paid more tax when you earned the money with which you pay the VAT…

Hear hear scu98rkr

the solution is not in taxation, it is in providing a viable alternative.

No solution is in actually having both at the same time. You tax the fuel and then you use this tax to provide good public transport.
Not the perfect system as it will probably leave the disable people out of it but then is it such thing s perfect system

The only fair way to tax car usage, if the intention of the tax is to reduce usage, is on road charging. That way, people can be charged for driving when there are alternatives available, but not when there are not.

Or, have a tax on car ownership, which is tied to home postcode?

juan – the alternative is not public transport in all cases, i mean a viable alternative to fossil fuelled personal transport

Look at it this way, when you cycle into work at the moment you still pay tax on your car sat on the drive, that's not fair is it?

Yeah, I'm paying my council tax for my house and I'm at work. It ain't right I tells ya.

Look at it this way, when you cycle into work at the moment you still pay tax on your car sat on the drive, that's not fair is it?

I'm paying the road tax on my wife's car, which is sat at home not being used!

i mean a viable alternative to fossil fuelled personal transport

So you want to replace the moron driving a petrol car by the same moron driving an electric car?

James martin anyone?

If you decide to live in the countryside you have to assume the consequences of it.
I wait 2hours a day commuting because I have choose to live in a village rather than in a city. but I don't complain as I have made this choice with (almost) full knowledge of what I would get.

"I don't get your counter argument either
you are aware that people work in the countryside aren't you, it's not just for people to commute into cities to work. I think you also need to distinguish between the countryside and the commuter belt.
You pay more to live near a station if you are in a commuter area, you clearly have a very odd perspective on countryside housing costs. Go and find an affordable house in Devon.
i take it from you counterargument that you live in and or work in or around London?
If as you say you choose to live in the countryside despite cost then who ends up living in the countryside? "

Hi Michael you have are right about where I work/live. But what are you suggesting you work as are you suggesting you work in multiple locations ? Like a farm vet or somethings. If your job demands traveling long distance then I agree there is little you can do about it.

But I still think my arguments will apply to rural, semi rural and urban areas.

Juan –

again with the commuting bollocks

do people not realise that NOT EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN THE COUNTRYSIDE WORKS IN A GOD DAMN CITY

scu –

I don't work in the countryside and i accept that it costs me more in commuting costs. Those who do work int he countryside do however need to shop/go to the bank/get to hospitals/go to the dentist in fact all the things that you can do by public transport in less rural areas. Cars are not just for work!

yes what do you work as ? we need to know, I still dont currently see how you cant live closer to work if you unless you work in multiple locations

I'd favour replacing car tax with a HUGE increase in fuel tax. Fuel needs to be three or four times the current price it is in order for us to have any serious impact on oil consumption and to make an impact on the forthcomming mess.

If fuel price quadrupled and consumption were to be halved, even then we still would be re only a small part of the way we need to go. 90% reduction in fossil energy is a hell of a task.

I'd vote immediately for any party which was going to dramatically raise fuel duties and spend the money on green energy. Shame there isn't one.

scu – i work in multiple locations, all over the world.