[Closed] You don't pay road tax!

[i]And it looks like no-one may in the future:[/i]

No one has since 1937, or did I miss something?

or did I miss something?

the joke.
how likely is this to go through? or anything similar? I would welcome it.

No one has since 1937

A few years back, the Gubmint wanted to realign the VED rates, ostensibly to "encourage" us toward more efficient cars, however should the owner of a cooking VW Golf pay the same as someone with an Aston Martin? At least this plan goes some way to ensuring that this doesn't happen.

A better idea - quite radical actually as no-one at The Treasury seems to have cottoned on - is that hikes in one off VED or Fuel Duty help fund a cheaper public transport system...

[i]the joke.[/i]

well, I kindof did - it was the 'And it looks like no-one may in the future' bit that threw me.

oh well.

From the article:

The Office of Budget Responsibility this year cut its forecast for VED revenues by £100 million a year from 2014/15 to reflect the move towards cleaner cars.

Right, the "green nudge" from VED appears to be working.
So lets scrap it and try something else...

So as a confirmed second hand car buyer I (possibly) save?

What will the anti-bike brigade accuse us of then?

So an encouragement to keep cars for longer - or to buy 2nd hand cars? That'll be interesting.

So an encouragement to keep cars for longer - or to buy 2nd hand cars? That'll be interesting.

Aye. I always wondered about the level of energy/resources that go into making a new car vs the fuel/emmissions savings of having a newer, more efficient car.
ie Is having a new Prius etc on a scheme every 2-3 years more wasteful than keeping most average cars for 10? I think so, but it's just a guess.

Anyone with a Telegraph login care to respond to this muppet:

English Militia
14 minutes ago

Tax cyclist using the roads (40 pound a year) and make them do a bike test for the use of the roads (20 pound).

If we can tax people for watching TV on a computer in the UK, I see no excuse not to tax people using their cycles on the roads that have no cycle lanes and where the majority have no road sense.

After all, it is the Car tax that pays for the cycle lanes, So why shouldn’t the cyclist contribute money towards the use of the roads?

My response would be something like:

Brilliant - make cyclists pay £40 a year, a tenner more than a Band C car pays and twice what a Band B pays? Cyclists are Band A: £0 a year.

It's very sad that it all appears to be more about revenue raising than protecting the environment. The last bunch of imbeciles were spectacularly good at this too.

What an absolute muppet hey, Charging cyclist rad tax. Liek we cause so much road damage. The world is full of muppets!

Charging cyclist rad tax

If there's to be a rad tax, I think we all need to reconsider how much we shred the gnat!

Charging cyclist rad tax

You must shred the gnar considerably if you're getting taxed on your rad emissions.

I would like to ask him for his evidence of this:

the majority have no road sense

and this:

it is the Car tax that pays for the cycle lanes

If you rode a single speed I wonder if bike tax would be cheaper than geared 😛

After all, it is the Car tax that pays for the cycle lanes

Many if not most cyclists do pay "road tax" (sic), and we all pay tax VAT, PAYE etc, so it's actually cyclists who are subsidising motorists, because we contribute to the roads through our taxation, but when using our bikes instead of motor vehicles we aren't damaging the roads or the environment.

can't believe there are people who still believe this

Sadly I think he probably speaks for a sizable majority of the population based on my own conversations with bike-adverse drivers (including my own family 👿 )

It all seems really simple to me. Abolish VED and add a 1p per litre tax to fuel so the people who use the roads the most and/or have the highest emmissions, pay the most tax.

shred the gnat!

[img] [/img]

Aye. I always wondered about the level of energy/resources that go into making a new car vs the fuel/emmissions savings of having a newer, more efficient car.
ie Is having a new Prius etc on a scheme every 2-3 years more wasteful than keeping most average cars for 10? I think so, but it's just a guess.

I once read somewhere (although no guarantee that it is true) that the most environmentally friendly car (resources used over lifetime of vehicle) was the original Willys Jeep.

Average life expectancy of modern cars is only nine years, and there is no way a Pious makes less of an environmental impact than my 17yr old Micra.
They also weigh as much as my Jag (twice the weight of the Micra), so it's not like they couldn't be made more economical.

It all seems really simple to me. Abolish VED and add a 1p per litre tax to fuel so the people who use the roads the most and/or have the highest emmissions, pay the most tax.

What if you use a lot a fuel but have a really low emission car?

You'd lose out under that system, which undermines the "green nudge" approach.

grahamS, yeah that's my experience too, still have difficulty believing it tho

Have I missed sommat?
The holy trinity of Tax Disc/MOT/Insurance, if we remove the Tax Disc where is the cross check re insurance and MOT?
I know the system as it stands is imperfect, but this appears to make it worse.

grahamS, yeah that's my experience too, still have difficulty believing it tho

I've been saying for ages that CTC/Sustrans/BritishCycling/THINK/RoadSafe etc etc should get together and run a series of national cross-media adverts to dispel some of these stupid myths.

I think a series of ads explaining the truth of "road tax", primary position, cycle lanes, dangerous law-breaking, filtering, Advanced Stop Lines, correct overtaking, etc etc would be great.

page has gone, one minute worked, next disappeared. Conspiracy, no doubt.

I can't see this going far- in the current climate the revenue would have to be made up somehow, and there wouldn't be too many options that weren't self defeating- tax high emission vehicles too much, and the sales would fall, leading to a drop in revenue etc..

Then again, a few years down the line the government coud 'reassess' and reintroduce vehicle based taxtaion, fro a double slice of the cake.

good shout graham, nice idea

No one has since 1937, or did I miss something?

Shouldn't someone tell the government?
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_4022118

I'm all for Black boxes that issue on the spot fines for speeding and tax you per mile as well as within the current tax bands but that's a bit extreme for some people.

But yes, let's licence and tax cyclists!

But yes, let's licence and tax cyclists!

At what age does a cyclist have to obtain a licence and pay tax? The kids round our village are a real liability - can we start with them. They don't wear helmets either! 😯

Shouldn't someone tell the government?

I don't see anything about "road tax" there.
That's about "Vehicle Tax".

At what age does a cyclist have to obtain a licence and pay tax? The kids round our village are a real liability - can we start with them. They don't wear helmets either!

Well this is exactly it, sorry son, can't ride a bike until you've passed your test!

What if you use a lot a fuel but have a really low emission car?

You'd lose out under that system, which undermines the "green nudge" approach.

If you use a lot of fuel, you're hardly being green, are you?

I can't see anything, the link no longer works

English Militia
14 minutes ago
Tax cyclist using the roads (40 pound a year) and make them do a bike test for the use of the roads (20 pound).

If we can tax people for watching TV on a computer in the UK, I see no excuse not to tax people using their cycles on the roads that have no cycle lanes and where the majority have no road sense.

After all, it is the Car tax that pays for the cycle lanes, So why shouldn’t the cyclist contribute money towards the use of the roads?

What about replying that you think the government should refund some of the car tax paid by cyclists for cycling to work and leaving their car on their drive. (that will light the blue touchpaper)

If you use a lot of fuel, you're hardly being green, are you?

Well no, but that may be dictated by the nature of your job.

If you try to offset that a little by using the lowest emission engine you can then it would be good to reward that effort somehow, even by a relatively small amount, which is why graduated vehicle tax is separate from fuel tax.

Doing so upholds the principal of "polluter pays" - otherwise you're left with a situation where a low-emission car is paying the same as a crusty banger producing over twice as much CO2 per km.

That proposal is the complete opposite of what they should be doing.

Its car USAGE thats the problem and needs to be reduced. Lowering running costs in favour of up front costs would achieve the opposite.

Why not just abolish VED completely and have an additional tax added to the cost of fuel? The more you drive, the more damage / wear to roads, increased emissions, the more you pay?
Might actually make people think a little more about what they use their cars for.

The holy trinity of Tax Disc/MOT/Insurance, if we remove the Tax Disc where is the cross check re insurance and MOT?

You can keep the disc system, just don't charge for it. This is (or certainly used to be) the case for pre-1974 classics - the "tax" was free but you still had to toddle off to the post office with your documents and get a disc to put in your windscreen to prove to plod that you were all nice and legal. Is it not the case for Band A cars now, as well? (genuine question, never had a clean, green car and not had a classic for some years)

In practice, now they have ANPR and instant access to the insurance database, is the little round disc in the windscreen as important as it was for providing this assurance anyway?

I think a series of ads explaining the truth of "road tax", primary position, cycle lanes, dangerous law-breaking, filtering, Advanced Stop Lines, correct overtaking, etc etc would be great.

Well no, but that may be dictated by the nature of your job.

If you try to offset that a little by using the lowest emission engine you can then it would be good to reward that effort somehow, even by a relatively small amount, which is why graduated vehicle tax is separate from fuel tax.

Doing so upholds the principal of "polluter pays" - otherwise you're left with a situation where a low-emission car is paying the same as a crusty banger producing over twice as much CO2 per km...

... but being used half as much.
Seems fair to me.
My Jaguar uses less fuel and produces less pollution than the average vehicle over the course of a year.
Why should a conscientious driver like myself pay more for polluting less?
Don't forget also that the "crusty banger" is already in existence, so is likely to be less resource hungry than running [i]and[/i] building a newer car, as mentioned.

Why not just abolish VED completely and have an additional tax added to the cost of fuel?

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/you-dont-pay-road-tax#post-4235405 ]Because...[/url]

... but being used half as much.
Seems fair to me.

Ahh but we didn't say that though.

Let's say there are two cars, both use 15,000 litres of petrol a year and get exactly the same mpg.

One spews out 230 g/km of CO2, the other is a new fancy engine with very low emissions (sub 100 g/km).

For a green nudge you need to punish the former / reward the latter.

If you just add tax to fuel you don't achieve that. Hence Vehicle Tax.

Let's say there are two cars, both use 15,000 litres of petrol a year and get exactly the same mpg.

One spews out 230 g/km of CO2, the other is a new fancy engine with very low emissions (sub 100 g/km).

You could use that as an example, but unfortunately it is not a situation that you will find in reality.
Emissions are proportional to fuel burnt, maybe not directly, but pretty damn close.

Have a look [url= http://greencarsite.co.uk/CONGESTION-CHARGE-EXEMPT-CARS-LIST.htm ]here[/url] and then find me a polluting old banger that matches the mpg figures.