Most people who work in the city dont want to work in an office either I know I dont.
I dont see how this has got into a town v city debate. My point was that public transport cant be expected to work with out some kind of transport hubs. Therefore people who want to use it need to live near these hubs.
If your complaining that you NEED to drive to work. Then either work or you are located in the wrong place and if cars hadnt of existed either you or work would not currently be based where it is.
This is true of both cities and the countryside.
If cars didnt exist villages in the countryside would still be very important. Village shop schools etc would be busier as people would not be able to travel to town to buy food etc.
"scu - i work in multiple locations, all over the world. "
I not sure if this is a joke but if it isnt then surely you just need to live near an airport then you wouldnt need to drive so far.
That or company need to invest in video conferencing.
Like I said my comments dont really apply to jobs with multiple locations obviously these sort of jobs are going to require traveling and will be sensitive to fuel costs no matter what.
Increacing fuel tax wont realy make much difference to the ammount people use cars.
Ammerica - negligable fuel tax, costs about 20-25p a litre
UK - 350% fuel tax (ish) costs 105p a litre.
So im fairly sure it would take a monumental tax rise to have any impact.
And what about old inefficient cars? Should we all trade in our MG's for a prius, because that would be so good for the environment.......
Ironicaly the #1 cause for vehicles being scraped (scrapage may have changed this)? The ECU which supposedly makes them so good, fails and is uneconomical to replace. Average age for a scraped car, 7 years!
So I'd say we'd be much better keeping old cars on the road than doing anything to encourage the car industry to keep churning out disposable crap.
Saying that........ I'd be first inline to transplant tesla style engines and batteries into old sports cars 🙂
However it is still your choice to not work in a city and rely on a car to drive to your place of work.
you are still talking about driving to work, i am not talking about this. As i said above, there is much more to life than getting to and from work, many people in the countryside live in close proximity to the re place of work but not to other amenities. Not everyone lives in a village either. I completely agree that public transport cannot be all encompassing but by increasing the price of motoring irrespective of situation you simply drive those on lower incomes be they working or not into the cities and create a countryside full of the commuting middle classes.
Couple of points:
1. Fuel duty is not there to reduce emmissions, it is there to raise general taxation for the government. As already pointed out it would need to be significantly higher to actually seriously change driving habits. if that was the case then the lowest paid would be effectively priced off the road and no current political party would consdier that. So forget about it as a green tax, it isn't and never will be in the current political climate. Don't forget it was only earlier this year that the government removed the rule that prevented councils from setting up traffic lights to reduce congestion, instead they had to phase the lights to increase congestion (higher fuel usage and therefore tax). I'm not making this up [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7998182.stm ]link[/url].
2. They wanted to increase fuel duty to raise more money but got scared about the voters backlash after the fuel protests. This was why they started to witter on about their ridiculous satellite controlled road pricing scheme. Obviously this wasn't thought out as would cost billions to implement, millions to make administer and be dificult to enforce before any additional revenue is ever seen. Road pricing is a nice idea but prohibitively expensive, intrusive and arbitary.
3. Increased fuel duty is the obvious way to go. It's very difficult to avoid paying it (unless you have access to red diesel etc. which most people don't). It's cheap and easy to collect, no investment needed the network is already there and administered by private companies (fuel retailers). It hits the heaviest users of the road the most, you could design a better system for accurately charging road users based on their driving habits.
Drive a lot - more mliles more fuel more tax.
Drive badly (lots of acceleration / braking) more fuel use, more tax.
Drive a heavily loaded vehicle (causing more road damage) use more fuel, pay more tax.
Drive on congested roads at peaks times, use more fuel, pay more tax.
The beauty of all this is it already works, costs next to nothing to administer and is very difficult to fiddle. The only issue is the politicians are too scared to do it because of the implications in the opinion polls.
I don't set much store by lower paid people being taxed unfairly by this either. If that's the way we want to run things (a legitmate ideaology that I don't personally agree with) all tax should be an income tax, but then again no government has the balls to do that because it makes the total level of tax take far too apparent to the average voter.
The bottom line is that all taxes are a balancing act for the government of the day between how much money they can raise from the different taxation routes before the voters kick off. Concepts such as paying 'national insurance', 'green taxes' or for paying for what for the services you use, 'council tax' are all just governments propaganda for trying to justify each tax stream. All the money goes into central coffers to be spent on whichever policies or whims the current government is pursuing.
Sorry for the long post but it is something I have thought about quite a lot.
What you seem to be suggest is the general public subsidise you so you can live where you want ?
Its not "irrespective of situation" the more you drive the more you pay seems reasonable to me.
"lower incomes be they working or not into the cities and create a countryside full of the middle classes. " but this is true of many areas.
For instance my wife was born and grew up in a very nice village/town in Surrey. We could never afford to live where here parents live.
I come from Lichfield in Staffordshire and its probably only recently I could afford to move back there.
"As i said above, there is much more to life than getting to and from work, many people in the countryside live in close proximity to the re place of work but not to other amenities. Not everyone lives in a village either."
My other point is if the price of driving went up theses amenities would start to reppear in the countryside the local village shop would be profitable as people could nt buy food anywhere else etc etc
It would no longer make sense to live away from at least a village/hamlet but as far as I am aware historically this is what the countryside was likely people tended not to live on their own.
I don't set much store by lower paid people being taxed unfairly by this either. If that's the way we want to run things (a legitmate ideaology that I don't personally agree with) all tax should be an income tax, but then again no government has the balls to do that because it makes the total level of tax take far too apparent to the average voter.
Amen to that, I don't ear any of your moaning about VAT which is way unfair to poor people. You want to pay less petrol tax, drive less. It might not be easy but it's certainly not impossible
Amen to that, [b]I don't ear any of your moaning about VAT which is way unfair to poor people.[/b] You want to pay less petrol tax, drive less. It might not be easy but it's certainly not impossible
Really? I've complained about it on these pages before. The fact remains that the poorest quintile in the UK pays the highest percentage of their disposable income in tax. Raising fuel duty will make this worse.
There are more equitable ways of constraining vehicle usage.
I don't ear any of your moaning about VAT which is way unfair to poor people.
I already answered you on that juan.
Higher earners already pay more tax as they earn, so why should they also pay more as they spend?
Raising fuel duty will make this worse.
Only if you drive...
Only if you drive...
Poor people drive less than rich people. Rich people will just pay the extra duty and carry on as they were.
Currently changing it for fuel tax would add about 10p/litre equiv for an average 12K miles/50mpg car. Thats a pretty damn hefty rise. But it would have the bonus effect of persuading more people to ride if possible, without changing the average persons wealth. While poor people currently drive less they may drive more as they'd be better off overall, but in reality they're less likely to see it that way and the extra would go on household expenses. Rich people will rarely care what you do, they'll pay whatever it costs to live as they want.
'The Rich' have been doing what they want throughout history, not really much anyone can do to prevent that (if anyone feels the need to of course).
Well to be fair I would much better pay half my salary in income taxes and have not VAT (expect on luxuries). Then you could increase fuel as well I'll just drive less. But half the money made by the "new tax" should be spend toward better public transport (and yes that means th gvt buying back railway...) and awarness toward cyclist.
Then for car that cost more than for example 9000£ you could have a road tax as well like a very big one.
The fact remains that the poorest quintile in the UK pays the highest percentage of their disposable income in tax.
What an incredibly crap statistic!
You're basically just saying that poor people have less disposable income than better off people.
What would happen if you fixed this so that the "poorest quintile" had more disposable income than the well off??
you can discuss it all you like but the facts are that both fuel duty and road tax will go up over time! neither will be replaced.
[i]I think petrol is not expensive enough anyway.[/i]
agreed entirely. £2 per litre sounds about right. Alternative forms of transport are available. But I guess most people knew this, it being a cycling website...
cheers
a country boy.
What stumpyjon said. I'd much prefer a few p per litre tax than a black box in my car linked by satellite to the government's mega-database (where are you driving today citizen?).
max - isn't that the situation we have now? more or less?
a small economical car doesn't pay much 'road tax' now anyway (about £50?). but there is lots of tax on fuel.
i'm really not jeremy clarkson, but i think cars are great, especially the freedom and oppurtunities they provide us with - why should we tax them so much?
think of this for a moment, i want to drive to scotland for a short break, while i'm there i will spend lots of money.
if fuel tax goes up too far, it'll be much cheaper to fly to spain for a short break, while i'm there i won't spend lots of money in scotland.
if fuel tax goes up even futher, i won't be able to afford to go anywhere, or do anything.
i fail to see how fuel tax has anything to do with saving polar bears.
I don't ear any of your moaning about VAT which is way unfair to poor people
In what way?!
Why should someone who pays more income tax on there earning also pay more VAT on what they spend? I would argue that VAT is the fairest tax as you are taxed on exactly what you spend. The more you spend, the more tax you pay, spend less, pay less tax, how is that unfair??? Why do people (not just on here) think that those who earn good amounts of money should be punished for doing so?
"Currently changing it for fuel tax would add about 10p/litre equiv for an average 12K miles/50mpg car. Thats a pretty damn hefty rise."
Do you reckon 10p a litre rise is pretty hefty? We saw more than that last year when oil prices went [s]down[/s], erm up and I'm not sure we really saw a big drop in usage. Went up tuppence a couple of weeks ago. Nobody hardly blinked.
What an incredibly crap statistic!You're basically just saying that poor people have less disposable income than better off people.
What would happen if you fixed this so that the "poorest quintile" had more disposable income than the well off??
No, I'm saying that poor people lose a higher percentage of their income to tax, than rich people do. I didn't think it was a hard point to grasp.
If they had more disposable income than the well off, then they wouldn't be poor, now would they. 🙄
"The fact remains that the poorest quintile in the UK pays the highest percentage of their disposable income in tax."
Yeah, probably on cigarettes and alchopops......
Do you reckon 10p a litre rise is pretty hefty? We saw more than that last year when oil prices went down, erm up and I'm not sure we really saw a big drop in usage. Went up tuppence a couple of weeks ago. Nobody hardly blinked.
10% is pretty hefty. I saw ~8p rise and there were demonstrations in the streets last year. We saw a fairly hefty drop in fuel usage too, that was documented in the news. It went up tuppence two weeks ago here, then last week it went back down to pre-tax increase levels.
heres some actual real information:
Relevant bit is page 5
"Motoring taxation is made up of two elements, vehicle excise duty (VED), which can be considered a tax on ownership, and fuel duty, which is a tax on use."
No, I'm saying that poor people lose a higher percentage of their income to tax, than rich people do.
No you didn't, you said that poor people lose a higher percentage "of their [b][u]disposable[/u][/b] income in tax". That's a very big difference.
If they had more disposable income than the well off, then they wouldn't be poor, now would they.
That's right. The "well off" would become the "poorest quintile" and you'd be on here with exactly the same claim. 🙄
In what way?!
Well guy that earn 6000£ a month is going to pay 17.5 £ worth of tax on an 100£ tesco trolley. Guy that earn 1200£ a month is going to pay (guess how much) 17.5£ worth of VAT on a 100£ tesco trolley.
Now if you replace the VAT by an automatic income tax of 17.5% the first guy will pay 1050£ and the second will pay 210.
That sound much more fair to me 😉
"The fact remains that the poorest quintile in the UK pays the highest percentage of their disposable income in tax."
Quite right too, that's why they are poorer, generally speaking the poorer you are the more of your income goes on tax, food utilities etc. That's what a capitalist society is all about. The alternative is a communist style system and whilst theoretically a fantastic idea doesn't really work in the real world.
What we need is a sytem that rewards those whose skills are in demand [b]and[/b] people who are in demand because they work hard. A safety net should also be in place to help the small minority who are genuinely unable to help themseleves (effectively the welfare state in it's purest form).
Beyond that every surely everyone should effectively pay for what they use and in the case of driving surely that should be based on road usage which is dependant on the factors I outlined above. As for a tax on car ownership, how the hell is that fair or justifiable. You've probably already been taxed twice on that money, first through your income tax and then if it is a new car VAT (in fact you could argue you get taxed again to register it etc.). What justification is there for taxing you for just owning something, got a telly, lets tax it (bad example, they already do through the TV licence), better example. proposed million pound house tax, pure vote grabbing jealousy tax.
It's about time we faced up to the fact we don't live in the meritocracy we think we do.
But but but juan, under the current system the guy on £6000 a month has [u]already[/u] paid almost 10 times more in income tax than the guy on £1200.
The £6000 guy will pay £23,209 a year in income tax (32.2% of his pay)
The £1200 guy will pay £2,540 a year (17.6% of his pay)
ahwiles - I was asking if there was any reason car tax could not be replaced by increased fuel levy.
HoratioHufnagel - thanks that essentially answers it, ved is the tax on ownership. 🙂
month has already paid almost 10 times more in income tax than the guy on £1200.
Yes it's income taxes. Looks like you fail to understand how unfair VAT is.
Let say you ride bike (you probably don't as you post on here but lets admit that for the sake of the argument) with someone quite poorer than you are (I know sounds shocking but such peasant do ride bicycles).
Now imagine you both end up in the lbs buy the same product you need for your bike. Such product cost 100£ hence you both give the government 17.5£ of taxes. If we keep the salary figures ahead, you would have paid 0.29% of your income in taxes, the other guy will have paid 1.46% 5 times more than you.
Now due to the marvelous VAT system the poor guys is going to get taxed more than you.
Yes it's income taxes. Looks like you fail to understand how unfair VAT is.
Let say you ride bike (you probably don't as you post on here but lets admit that for the sake of the argument) with someone quite poorer than you are (I know sounds shocking but such peasant do ride bicycles).Now imagine you both end up in the lbs buy the same product you need for your bike. Such product cost 100£ hence you both give the government 17.5£ of taxes. If we keep the salary figures ahead, you would have paid 0.29% of your income in taxes, the other guy will have paid 1.46% 5 times more than you.
Now due to the marvelous VAT system the poor guys is going to get taxed more than you.
But the rich guy had to earn more in the first place, to be left with £100 net pay.
And the 'rich' guy probably lives in a more expensive house, on which he'll pay more Council Tax...
[i]Classic reply from a city commuter[/i]
Guess again. It's a classic reply from someone who feels it's unfair to tax a car which is either sat on my driveway or sat in a private car park most of the time not being used.
Well guy that earn 6000£ a month is going to pay 17.5 £ worth of tax on an 100£ tesco trolley. Guy that earn 1200£ a month is going to pay (guess how much) 17.5£ worth of VAT on a 100£ tesco trolley.Now if you replace the VAT by an automatic income tax of 17.5% the first guy will pay 1050£ and the second will pay 210.
That sound much more fair to me
you seem to miss one crucial thing.............
A poor person shops at lidle, the middle classes at tesco, and the rich guy at waitrose and M&S, but thats beside the point.
The point is the essentials aren't taxed! Food (the essential bits, but not biscuits) is VAT free, gas an elecy' are in a low VAT band. Also there are safety nets for these things, milk vouchers, very low fuel and water tarrifs for those dissabled/on benifits.
Also, the rich guy probably spends £300, thus his tax (by your incorect method) is £52.50.
And why should the rich guy not have more dispoable income, what's the point in trying if you can't have a disposable income? The very fact that the poor guy has a disposable income almost proves the point that he is in fact not as badly off as he could be.
Juan, we will have to agree to disagree. They both bought the same products and therefore paid the same amount of money. You could argue that since the higher earner was likely on the higher rate of income tax he paid a higher percentage of tax on the goods if you take the calculation from gross earnings.
In fact, how about a flat rate of income tax irrelevant of income, say 30%, then the more you earn the more tax you pay, simple. Perfectly fair.
has everyone forgotten how most of the stuff we buy gets moved around the country? most of the goods in most shops are delivered by trucks and vans - an increase in fuel duty would push their costs up, pushing the cost of goods up in turn. so even the poor people with no car would end up paying for increased fuel duty.
there is no easy answer
has everyone forgotten how most of the stuff we buy gets moved around the country? most of the goods in most shops are delivered by trucks and vans - an increase in fuel duty would push their costs up, pushing the cost of goods up in turn. so even the poor people with no car would end up paying for increased fuel duty.there is no easy answer
Or it would push more goods onto rail transport?
Or, locally produced goods would become relatively cheaper?
The point is the essentials aren't taxed!
Last time I check clothes and "non essential" such as plate washing powder etc etc are taxed.
But hey what lunge said lets agree to disagree.
Plate washing powder? Pretty sure that's not essential...
Quite right too, that's why they are poorer, generally speaking the poorer you are the more of your income goes on tax, food utilities etc. That's what a capitalist society is all about. The alternative is a communist style system and whilst theoretically a fantastic idea doesn't really work in the real world.
Oh really? Then let me quote a famous capitalist: "from each, according to his means, to each, according to his needs".
You can achieve this by raising the personal allowance, increasing direct taxes above that point, and reducing indirect taxes which disproportionally affect the poor.
Perhaps you could explain what is communist about that?
Basic stuff people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
If you want any sort of green tax (tax on consumption) it will be regressive by nature (because based on usage, not ability to pay).
Looks like you fail to understand how unfair VAT is.
I guess I do. I've been the low-earner guy (as a student and on the dole) and the better off guy and I've never thought VAT was particularly unfair.
If we keep the salary figures ahead, you would have paid 0.29% of your income in taxes, the other guy will have paid 1.46% 5 times more than you.
Cry me a river. To be left with that £100 to spend on shiny things "I" had to earn £148, "he" only had to earn £122. He's already £26 better off, so why should it be cheaper for him to buy as well??
Now due to the marvelous VAT system the poor guys is going to get taxed more than you.
No. "He'll" be taxed exactly the same amount as "me" (on goods subject to VAT). The fact that this amount is a greater part of his disposable income is hugely irrelevant. The item itself is also a greater part of his disposable income. That's because he has less disposable income. If we had the same disposable income then "I'd" be wondering why "I" was working my ass off trying to earn six grand a month!
[size=1](quotes to emphasise that "I" definitely don't earn six grand a month!)[/size]
Perhaps you could explain what is communist about that?
Because taken to its logically "fair" conclusion you would ramp up all tax percentages directly in line with income. Those earning more would pay more and everyone would be left with exactly the same amount after tax.