Uk Road Tax Increase

[dan-cat]

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!

Dang! Anybody in your position deserves all the concessions they can get.

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?

It's to do with fuel not being used efficiently. We both know that the typical individual in your example charges around the roads like a maniac. Perhaps they should be penalised for the privilege?

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.

I can only address the examples that you provide. At the risk of upsetting again, I feel that you've given two different examples here and trying to pass them off as the original. I know a little about tachograph set-ups in the UK and hauliers have little choice but to abide by the laws of the road. Also appealing to sympathy with the dialysis approach was a little below the belt.

I can only speak from experience on compensation. I get tax breaks for vehicle use for business purposes. I'm pretty sure there is a similar set-up in the UK. I'm fairly certain that all businesses in the UK can claim on business costs so the tax break is there.

 

[Pauldohert]

I can only address the examples that you provide. At the risk of upsetting again, I feel that you've given two different examples here and trying to pass them off as the original. I know a little about tachograph set-ups in the UK and hauliers have little choice but to abide by the laws of the road. Also appealing to sympathy with the dialysis approach was a little below the belt.

I can only speak from experience on compensation. I get tax breaks for vehicle use for business purposes. I'm pretty sure there is a similar set-up in the UK. I'm fairly certain that all businesses in the UK can claim on business costs so the tax break is there.

To me its the same example (look back at the original example , it always had these two threads to it!!!!!!, you owe me an apology again!) In essence its exactly the same .

The evidence would seem to be that both threads of the original example are valid.

 

[dan-cat]

To me its the same example (look back at the original example , it always had these two threads to it!!!!!!, you owe me an apology again!) In essence its exactly the same .

The evidence would seem to be that both threads of the original example are valid.

Let me attempt to explain why I don't think they are.

I've explained why the 'travelling salesman' example is not really an efficent fuel user in practice. So I'm arguing that it's not a good example. You haven't addressed my position on this. Why shouldn't the target reaching salesman driving at 90mph+ be hit on fuel use?

The hauliers and transporter of sick persons have little choice BUT to drive efficiently. They don't charge around the roads like maniacs. That's why the examples are different and why my argument doesn't apply to them.

 

[Pauldohert]

Without getting bogged down of the pedantry of the matters, the essence of my argument is very likely correct.

I know a few people who do many miles for work, who do it a efficiently. But they don't count cos others do not?

Enough already! AS I say this is pedantry - its quite clear some people need to drive and already do it efficiently in every sense, so why tax them further by increasing fuel duty rather than road tax for the inefficient.

 

[dan-cat]

Enough already! AS I say this is pedantry -

It's not pedantary Paul. It's your refusal to acknowledge that 99.99% of the individuals of your 'salesman' example drive inefficiently. Why? Because your example is poor.

A little reciprocation would be nice...

 

[Brianwarnock]

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.

No absolutely not, only tax the ownership at purchase to tax it as an on going liability is to encourage use, it is not ownership that is the problem it is the use.

Brian

 

[Pauldohert]

It's not pedantary Paul. It's your refusal to acknowledge that 99.99% of the individuals of your 'salesman' example drive inefficiently. Why? Because your example is poor.

A little reciprocation would be nice...

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 salesman were always the ones doind it efficiently - who do exist cos I know a few. We have been thru this. Don't change the original example to fit your point.

It is pedanty cos you have to get down to the nitty gritty, then change what I said quite a lot, just for one small peice of the argument not to be correct.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Your original example has a couple of Ifs in it, and what is worse is that you are using specific examples and turning them into a general case.

Still I don't suppose the fact that you are the only poster arguing for increased road tax over increased fuel tax will make you accept in any way that the others may be a tichy bit correct and you less than 100%.

Brian

 

[Rabbie]

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

That would just divert more cars on to the roads that bikes and mopeds are allowed to use.

 

[ColinEssex]

How about someone in the countryside - who needs to get to hospital 200 miles away 3 times a week for dialasis then?

They get a hospital car to take them. I pick up many people in the countryside and take them to hospital clinics - many have a car parked in their drive and are probobly more fit than me.

A 200 mile trip would be done by an ambulance though, that's a little out of our league.
Now which ambulance service would do it (the home one or the hospital one) is another matter, it depends on any contracts or whether it would be a 'one off' payment.

Col

 

[Brianwarnock]

Just as a matter of interest Col, is it likely that somebody would have to travel 200 miles for dialysis? I know that people do travel long distances for specialist clinics, Hazel meets them on the cancer ward, but dialysis.

brian

 

[dan-cat]

Your original example has a couple of Ifs in it, and what is worse is that you are using specific examples and turning them into a general case.

Thankyou that's all I was saying. What is more it seems that the dialysis example has a big 'if' to it as well.

Did I understand that right? The costs of such a trip would be covered by your health system?

 

[dan-cat]

It is pedanty cos you have to get down to the nitty gritty, then change what I said quite a lot, just for one small peice of the argument not to be correct.

Sorry Paul. From now on I'll accept all further examples you give as fact without question. We can't have anybody else's experience putting your examples into some kind of context can we?

 

[ColinEssex]

Just as a matter of interest Col, is it likely that somebody would have to travel 200 miles for dialysis? I know that people do travel long distances for specialist clinics, Hazel meets them on the cancer ward, but dialysis.

brian

I would think it unlikely. Dialysis would be done closer to home.

Did I understand that right? The costs of such a trip would be covered by your health system?

The hospitals have contracts with the Ambulance services to bring in patients.

The NHS would pay, not the patient. The patient only pays if they have a private ambulance.

Col

 

[dan-cat]

The NHS would pay, not the patient. The patient only pays if they have a private ambulance.

Col

So an individual needing ongoing dialysis is pretty likely to have both their road tax paid for (DLA?) and their hospital transport too?

Sounds like they've pretty well much been protected on all fronts when it comes to this kind of tax.

 

[ColinEssex]

So an individual needing ongoing dialysis is pretty likely to have both their road tax paid for (DLA?) and their hospital transport too?

DLA or Disability Living Allowance is paid to eligible people who have a chronic condition (like MS or Parkinsons for example) - there are 3 levels of benefit. To be eligible for free car tax you need to be on the top rate. This benefit (DLA) has to be agreed after a long drawn out examination process by several specialists. The free car tax is just an additional side benefit.

The hospital transport (of patients) is all organised by the ambulance services around the country. They tender for contracts from the hospital trusts. Depending on the patients' injury or condition they could have an ambulance (if they are in a wheelchair) or a car if they can walk a bit.

The car drivers (like me) are voluntary, and get paid expenses (in Essex) on a per patient basis - other ambulance trusts pay on a per mile basis. Therefore, it's more income for Essex drivers because 4 patients in one trip in the car equals 4 times the amount you would get for one patient.

In Suffolk it's on a per mile basis (36p) so it doesn't matter how many patients they do on one trip, they get the same money.

Col

 

[Rich]

Don't patients have to pay for the car service though, unlike the ambulance?

 

[scott-atkinson]

I think this whole argument is nonsense.

Everybody with an ounce of sense knows that the Earth is simply going through a climatic cycle like it has been doing for thousands of years, only now the politician people of the planet have given it a name and found a way to generate revenue from it.

I have to drive 700 miles a week to work, so I can put food on the table, and a roof over my families head.

I bought a very economical Diesel car, not to save the planet, but to reduce my travelling costs from this money grabbing Government.

But even now, with the cost of fuel going through the roof, again it is proving to be uneconomical for me to even use this car.

This Government needs to jump off the 'Green' band wagon and give the economy and the moterist a break by cutting the duty on Fuel.

Either that, or they pump more money into developing more economical forms of transport for the consumers such as cheaper hybrid cars, or electric cars etc etc..

As for where the duty should lie, Fuel or Car tax, I say pile it on the car tax, not the fuel. let the gas guzzlers pay more.

 

[Golfer]

I agree, well said Scott !

 

[dan-cat]

I agree, well said Scott !

Wasn't Scott applauding the increase in the road tax as opposed to the fuel tax?

As for where the duty should lie, Fuel or Car tax, I say pile it on the car tax, not the fuel. let the gas guzzlers pay more.