MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
If only road tax could be used to pay for and maintain our roads?
Just a bit of fun for my usual Friday row with the plebs we get at work. The ones that think they pay road tax, and think that cyclists constantly hold them up on their journeys.
EVERY car on Britain's roads receives a pounds 1,000 annual 'subsidy' from the Government because of the indirect costs of roads and motoring, including pollution, noise, accidents and congestion, according to an analysis published today.
Contrary to claims by transport ministers and motoring organisations that car drivers pay more in fuel and vehicle taxes than they receive back in spending on roads, the 'true' cost of motoring is more than double the tax revenues - pounds 32.5bn as against pounds 13.8bn - according to Transport 2000, the environmental pressure group.
From the independent in 1994
Pop it through the extrapolator and see what you get for today
Well, for a start its not road tax, don't think it ever was. It was VED, it's now called vehicle tax or car tax officialy (dont think it's called ved anymore). So it's a tax on vehicles on the road, which for cars is based loosely around how much they pollute. Some cars pay zero. Bikes pay zero.
Roads and repairs are generally paid for by local councils. so that'll be council tax which is paying for them. Folk generally pay that regardless of whether they drive, cycle, walk etc....
Motorways are more likely to be central government funded, who obviously get revenue from all over, not just vehicle tax, but vehicle tax will contribute to. Bikes aren't allowed on motorways.
Err it was a hypothetical question not asking what the current situation was :p
There's [url= http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/when-will-drivers-start-paying-the-full-costs-of-motoring/ ]THIS[/url] and a whole lot more on Carlton Reid's site, I pay Road Tax.com
Similar to mike's post ^^ about the hidden costs of motoring.
I think is was briefly in the thirties. Thats why you get that kind of 'they don't even pay road tax' rhetoric in the Daily Mail - the mail has fond memories of the thirties 🙂Well, for a start its not road tax, don't think it ever was.
The question though is what costs are you including when you talk about roads - just the tarmac the cars drive on or everything in the street - the pavements, street lighting, underpasses, footbridges, crossings, cycle paths. Probably all come under a 'roads' budget but non of it, with the exception of motorways, is exclusively for the use of motor vehicles.
By the same measure, we had a network of streets and roads long before there were motor vehicles, and if everyone abandoned their cars tomorrow we'd still use, build and maintain them.
ha, tis what you get for browsing STW within a minute or two of waking up 🙂
The question though is what costs are you including when you talk about roads - just the tarmac the cars drive on or everything in the street - the pavements, street lighting, underpasses, footbridges, crossings, cycle paths. Probably all come under a 'roads' budget but non of it, with the exception of motorways, is exclusively for the use of motor vehicles.
A paved way and some lighting is desirable for non-motorised transport, but without motor vehicles there'e far less need for underpasses, footbridges, crossings, cycle paths...
By the same measure, we had a network of streets and roads long before there were motor vehicles, and if everyone abandoned their cars tomorrow we'd still use, build and maintain them.
Do you need an 8 lane motorway for a horse and cart?
Well, for a start its not road tax, don't think it ever was.
FFS, 'Road Tax' a tax for [u]road users[/u], not spent on roads!
'Tobacco Tax' (not official name either), same.
'Alcohol Tax' (not official name either), same.
And YES it's for road use, not emission (despite any fancy name they choose to give it to confuse the the ignorant), because off road vehicles (e.g. track cars, closed course rally cars, sprint cats, hillclimb cars, enduro and MX bikes) (that would require tax to use on public roads require no tax not to, and yet produce exactly the same emissions.
C'mon chaps, it's really not brain surgery.
There's THIS and a whole lot more on Carlton Reid's site, I pay Road Tax.com
Has that bloke lost the plot, who exactly suggest that road tax goes towards roads? 😯
TuckerUK: And YES it's for road use
TuckerUK: Has that bloke lost the plot, who exactly suggest that road tax goes towards roads?
😯
FFS, 'Road Tax' a tax for road users, not spent on roads!
Yes, except it ISN'T A TAX FOR ROAD USERS is it? Since "road users" include cyclists, horses, and pedestrians - none of whom pay road tax.
A far better name is "car tax", which is catchy, properly reflects what it is a tax on, and neatly self-answers questions like [i]"Why don't you pay car tax for bikes?"[/i]
A far better name is "car tax", which is catchy, properly reflects what it is a tax on, and neatly self-answers questions like "Why don't you pay car tax for bikes?"
Ah, but then motorbikes, trikes, quads, vans, trucks, lorries, etc. use the roads too. 😉
No point being silly eh? 🙄
Edit: It's just standard time served tax naming convention: (Usage taxed) Tax.
Has that bloke lost the plot, who exactly suggest that road tax goes towards roads?
you don't commute by bike, do you!! 😆
Has that bloke lost the plot, who exactly suggest that road tax goes towards roads?you don't commute by bike, do you!!
Um...yes, as does my son, and often my partner.
Your point?
[i]The ones that think they pay road tax, and think that cyclists constantly hold them up on their journeys.[/i]
That's nothing to do with road tax. That's just being a thick idiot.
Tell them to count the number of cars that "hold them up" on their next journey, then the number of bikes...
Edit: It's just standard time served tax naming convention: (Usage taxed) Tax.
Ah, like Poll Tax? 😉
If you're following that convention then "car tax" (or more accurately but less catchily, "motor vehicle tax") is surely correct?
It isn't the usage of the roads itself that is taxed, it is the usage of a motor vehicle on the public road.
have you considered heeding your own advice?No point being silly eh?
almost every post you do is some right wing daily mail trollathon and you urge others not to be silly 🙄
#puts down keyboard... backs slowly out of thread... careful not to make any sudden movements#
who exactly suggest that road tax goes towards roads?
Go and search Google, YouTube and Twitter for the terms "road tax cyclist".
Come back when you've read the several billion hits produced. 😀
Do you need an 8 lane motorway for a horse and cart?
Maybe if there was 20 odd million of them on the road, you might.
Um...yes, as does my son, and often my partner.Your point?
That you've missed the point maybe? Carlton's website is an ironic answer to the commonly shouted insult to cyclists of "oi, pay yer road tax!" The answer being of course that there is no such thing, it's a commonly mis-understood colloquialism for Vehicle Excise Duty.
But that wasn't the question posed by the OP anyway. Car drivers for whatever reason seem to believe that their "Road Tax" gives them a right to be on the roads. There was a good pictorial argument (for those motorists too stupid to read) against this a little while ago but I can't find it now.
Edit: this is sort of what I saw but a more wordy version:
http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/who-pays-road-tax/
Somehow, this myth persists that motorists own the roads by virtue of paying "Road Tax", fuel duty, insurance, parking fees, MOT etc but the reality is that motoring is heavily subsidised. The only real answer to reflect the true costs of motoring is a full Road Pricing scheme.
There is no such thing as road tax, do people not read?
Well, for a start its not road tax, It was VED, it's now called vehicle tax or car tax officialy (dont think it's called ved anymore). So it's a tax on vehicles on the road, which for cars is based loosely around how much they pollute. Some cars pay zero. Bikes pay zero.Roads and repairs are generally paid for by local councils. so that'll be council tax which is paying for them. Folk generally pay that regardless of whether they drive, cycle, walk etc....
Motorways are more likely to be central government funded, who obviously get revenue from all over, not just vehicle tax, but vehicle tax will contribute to. Bikes aren't allowed on motorways.
This is correct. I suggest people read the thread before posting something that makes you look daft, continuing to call it road tax doesn't make it so.
Edit: clamed down a little, removed threat to injure.
Did anyone actually read the OP? It was a hypothetical question, what would it cost us if we actually had to pay to maintain the roads?
20 quid each a year
Well this thread went well 🙂
To try and answer the question.
If you only want to cover road maintenance (not new infrastructure, policing, pollution, public transport etc) then http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9138507/Cutting-roads-repair-budget-will-cost-taxpayer-more-MPs-warn.html suggests:
90% of roads are maintained by local authorities and the budget is around £560M per annum. I couldn't quickly find a repair and maintenance budget for motorways but lets assume it is in proportion, the total budget would be £622M. This is probably just for England/Wales (not the whole UK?) - but lets ignore that for now as per head of population it will be 'in the error margin'.
Now this:
http://www.rac.co.uk/news-advice/motoring-news/post/2011/4/record-34m-vehicles-on-uks-roads/ suggest there are 34m vehicles so each motorised vehicle should be paying just over £18 for its share of maintenance.
To try and answer the question.
Likewise, from [url= http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/when-will-drivers-start-paying-the-full-costs-of-motoring/ ]Carlton's page on costs[/url]:
[i]"The [2009 Transport Select Committee] report quoted the typical annual expenditure on roads as about £8-9 billion. "[/i]
Note: that's just for road building/maintenance - it doesn't cover the costs of other (more vague) externalities.
[i]Did anyone actually read the OP?[/i]
I think I was the only one who made it as far as the second paragraph!
Another just as valid question that will affect the same number of peeps is
"how much does NHS 'tax' cost each UK tax payer?"
OP: I've used this argument before:
The [url=h http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/ARA.aspx ]DVLA Annual Report and Accounts states "VED receipts in 2010-11 amounted to [b]£5,782 million[/b]"[/url].
Meantime the [url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-2.pdf ]HMRC figures show that Tobacco and Alcohol tax receipts were [b]£17,776 million[/b][/url], plus another few billion for the VAT on booze and fags of course.
The clear answer is that only chain-smoking alcoholics should be allowed to drive, as they have paid for the roads.
The clear answer is that only chain-smoking alcoholics should be allowed to drive, as they have paid for the roads.
Yes! Get orff my roads! Actually, I've given up smoking, but I'll happily start again.
Thanks all for contributing to my Friday 'bit of fun' 🙂
But we would be looking at about £1300 per car to cover the cost of our roads as it stands?
Bear in mind people think that the few quid they pay in licence fees covers the costs of everything. Where as the motorist is underpaying and is in fact subsidized?
Bear in mind people think that the few quid they pay in licence fees covers the costs of everything.
What do such people make of Band A cars that pay no "road tax", along with around 2 million exempt vehicles?
Or the Band B and C cars that pay £20 or £30 respectively?
And does a Band L car have 23 times more right to be on the road than a Band B?