Uk Road Tax Increase

[Fifty2One]

How about a "no drive" week in the UK
When the government gets zero fuel taxes rolling in, they might change their mind (I doubt it but they might).

Reminds me of tobacco taxes. The governments keep raising them saying they're trying to stop kids from starting etc.
If they're that concerned, why not just ban the weed? Then no one would start. They have the authority because its a known disease causer.
Of course there are those billions they get from tobacco taxes.

Tobacco taxes? O yeah thats the money non-natives are supposed to pay to the government if they buy smokes on a rez. No one ever pays that but at least everyone can blame First Nations people and not the consumers who are smoking the cigarettes.
Yeah just ban tobacco, heck it worked last century when they tried prohibition with liquor

 

[Fifty2One]

Agreed but Southern England has a very high traffis density so in many places using a bike or moped is to take your life in your hands.

Not if you strategically place a number of large stones on the motorway

 

[ColinEssex]

Agreed, I was not talking about my own situation as I said , I was merely using it to illustrate a point. Not being a leftie I care about other people not just my own situation.

Brian

I wasn't getting at you Bri - I was pointing it out as an item to educate those who may not know.

Sadly, although I get the Mondeo tax free, I don't get my bike tax free - that is due this month and is £66 for the year, my 400 cc scooter is £33 per year tax.

Oh, and the exhaust is now blowing, I went down to Brighton today and it started blowing on the M25 - that'll be another few hundred in the pocket of Mr Honda

Col

 

[Rich]

that'll be another few hundred in the pocket of Mr Honda

Col

' should have bought Italian

 

[Pauldohert]

I'm not following this argument. If I paid no road tax but the tax on fuel went up then a low mileage small car owner would pay less tax, a large car owner doing the same number of miles would pay more than me, but, perhaps correctly, less than a small car owner doing say 50,000 miles a year. Isn't that more green and equitable?

I am following the argument that some people have to drive - ie you with your wife say. I wouldn't want particularly to make you pay extra for fuel if you had the most efficient car possible.

But if you chose to have a gas guzzler - then thats a differant story.

Putting the tax on fuel is not fair for those who have to drive - but try to do it efficiently. So I wouldn't want a travelling salesman who clocked up 100,000 miles a year to be taxed on his fuel, if he was doing it efficiently.

The point is to encourage efficiency - so why tax more , someone who is as efficient as they can be? Following yet?

 

[Brianwarnock]

Is the summer heat getting to people?, that'sthe 2nd sharp riposte I've had in the 1st day back on the forum.

I follow your argument Paul but don't agree with it as all of the people I have met who drive for a living either clain on expenses, and include a fair chunk of private mileage, or claim as a legitimate business expense, but maybe that's not always the case. Tax on fuel is still the most green option in my opinion.

Brian

 

[ColinEssex]

' should have bought Italian

Yeah - a Lambretta

Col

 

[ColinEssex]

Update - 2 stainless steel silencers (pattern) = £249.99 + £10 postage.

Col

 

[oumahexi]

How come they don't pay road tax in France? How come we pay vast amounts of tax on petrol and tax for our roads? Why don't cyclists have to pay to use the roads? (no, I'm not having a go at cyclists).

Seems to me it would be much more fair to add the amount for road tax into the price of petrol then everyone pays, nobody can avoid it and we're not subsidising tourists. Face it, the money probably doesn't go to road repairs anyway.

 

[dan-cat]

The point is to encourage efficiency - so why tax more , someone who is as efficient as they can be? Following yet?

What about congestion?

 

[dan-cat]

Putting the tax on fuel is not fair for those who have to drive - but try to do it efficiently. So I wouldn't want a travelling salesman who clocked up 100,000 miles a year to be taxed on his fuel, if he was doing it efficiently.

Nah don't agree with this. You can also apply efficiency to the action of driving itself. Optimizing a certain process more often than not involves doing a certain action less.

It's totally plausible to ask a salesman who covers 100,000 miles a year to reassess his business process to cut down the mileage. Re-evaluating his route selection, online meetings etc etc.

 

[Pauldohert]

Is the summer heat getting to people?, that'sthe 2nd sharp riposte I've had in the 1st day back on the forum.

What was sharp about it?

 

[Pauldohert]

Nah don't agree with this. You can also apply efficiency to the action of driving itself. Optimizing a certain process more often than not involves doing a certain action less.

It's totally plausible to ask a salesman who covers 100,000 miles a year to reassess his business process to cut down the mileage. Re-evaluating his route selection, online meetings etc etc.

Yes you can - which is why in my example I picked those who had to drive. (the fact you then said they may not have to drive - completey changes the example)

The salesman has already done that . He can't reasonably be any more efficient. Why punish him more than already rather than someone who chooses to drive a gas guzzler.

There is already tax on fuel - which I agree with, I was argueing against moving the car tax over to fuel only.

So inefficiency in car and usage are both discouraged!

 

[dan-cat]

Yes you can - which is why in my example I picked those who had to drive. (the fact you then said they may not have to drive - completey changes the example)

No it doesn't. I didn't say 'they may not have to drive'. I said that the term 'efficiency' had to apply to the amount of driving actually done as well as the tool for performing it. You just added to your example that he was already doing this after I pointed it out.

The salesman has already done that . He can't reasonably be any more efficient. Why punish him more than already rather than someone who chooses to drive a gas guzzler.

If what Bri says is true about being compensated for mileage I seriously doubt that this is happening in practice. Especially after personally seeing how 'professional' people drive on the motorway pulling out of Gatwick airport. I'm not sure how driving at 90mph+ can be classed as efficient.

 

[Pauldohert]

No it doesn't. I didn't say 'they may not have to drive'. I said that the term 'efficiency' had to apply to the amount of driving actually done as well as the tool for performing it. You just added to your example that he was already doing this after I pointed it out.

Yes efficiency does apply to amount of driving which is why all along the example quite clearly says, "needs to drive" or "have to drive". ie those who had limited their driving as much as reasonably possible already.

To not ackowledge that is clearly the case - well it says something about you.

I did not add to the example - I just pointed out again the glaringly obvious bit you omitted in order to make your point correct.

 

[dan-cat]

To not ackowledge that is clearly the case - well it says something about you.

Good grief. I have to agree with Bri. You are being sharp.

Ok, Paul. I acknowledge that in your original example you clearly explained that the salesman was driving as little as he could and that I missed it.

The following points still stand:

1) Your example has not been changed by me re-iterating the point that efficiency of use must be a factor. It is actually a necessary ingredient of your argument.

2) Your example is a little far fetched in terms of what is actually happening in practice.

 

[Pauldohert]

Good grief. I have to agree with Bri. You are being sharp.

Ok, Paul. I acknowledge that in your original example you clearly explained that the salesman was driving as little as he could and that I missed it.

The following points still stand:

1) Your example has not been changed by me re-iterating the point that efficiency of use must be a factor. It is actually a necessary ingredient of your argument.

2) Your example is a little far fetched in terms of what is actually happening in practice.

Thanks. I have the inlaws staying for 7 weeks - so I may be a little touchy. You did accuse me of being dishonest - whereas you ackowledge you misread it though!

1) I am not aware it has to (espeically as you say its a necessary ingredient already!!??) - its only to do with the current road tax increase being moved to fuel duty instead.

What has to change?


2) I am not an expert in allowances etc etc, but the hauliers blockades over fuel duty though would indicate my example to be realistic though. ie everyone can't just claim it back in allowances expenses etcor why would they be protesting. How about someone in the countryside - who needs to get to hospital 200 miles away 3 times a week for dialasis then? Why should their tax go up. They drive as little as reasonable possible in a very fuel efficient car.

If you would rather tax them - thats up to you.

 

[Fifty2One]

Just heap the taxes on the fuel and let people figure out a way to modify their requirements. Complaining that someone needs the consume wastefully in order to make a living doesnt make sense, that person just needs to learn some basic business practices, whether it is to commute or to actually conduct business.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Paul you will always find winners and losers, what I think is that car ownership should be taxed when you buy, car use should be taxed as you drive. Its simple, its fair, no one can dodge it.
Since I only do a couple thousand miles per year, and pay no car tax, I'm not exactly arguing for my advantage.

Brian

 

[Pauldohert]

Paul you will always find winners and losers, what I think is that car ownership should be taxed when you buy, car use should be taxed as you drive. Its simple, its fair, no one can dodge it.
Since I only do a couple thousand miles per year, and pay no car tax, I'm not exactly arguing for my advantage.

I am not argueing for my advantage either - as I said earlier - it doesn't directly affect me at all.

I agree the tax needs to be on both the car and usage, thats what I have argued all along, ie don't put it all on the fuel.

Taxing the ownership just when you buy, or spreading it over the time you own it, well swings and roundabouts really.