Uk Road Tax Increase

[statsman]

Hahaha there would be a waiting list for all my surplus cheepie fuel based on 100 litres a month, my moped gets 150 miles to the gallon

Don't forget to claim that money on your Income Tax.

 

[statsman]

Yes I see what you're getting at.

In the UK (well, in Essex anyway) the police, ambulances etc all fill up at local filling stations obviously on an account. Maybe 'essential' voluntary drivers could be allowed x litres for free on the ambulance account.

I've cut my days down now, I only do 2 days a week - it was working out that just over 50% of the remuneration was going on fuel. I've just had the car serviced costing £210 ($420) it will take me one months work to recoup that money.

Col

Sounds like a situation where if you work 0 days per week, you might just break even.
There has to be a better way.
Maybe you could get a certain number of litres per month "tax free". That would work out to about 50p per litre.

 

[GaryPanic]

Sounds like a situation where if you work 0 days per week, you might just break even.
There has to be a better way.

during my military service in Germany we were given vouchers ,(these were sold to the soliders at a cheaper rate than the petrol normally avaiable (with a cap limit on x liters per mnth) so petrol was sold at 3dm per litre and the soldiers got vochers at 2.5dm for the first 100 litres..
as a possible solution

 

[scott-atkinson]

What evidence have you that a greedy government won't take revenue from both sources.

I don't have any evidence, I was really just hoping that this government might actually help the little man for once rather than stringing him up by his googlies..

 

[ColinEssex]

I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves.

Remember one thing - we're talking about the NHS here. There is no way the NHS will provide 'free' litres or vouchers for voluntary drivers. The NHS will rely on goodwill for us to continue to do the driving and for us to absorb any increases in fuel costs.

It's exactly the same for NHS employees, many are working way above their hours for free because of loyalty to the NHS and the patients. NHS employees do not get paid overtime.

Col

 

[rsmonkey]

you might have noticed that further taxation on fuel would bring this country to its knee's. Already taxed at around 70% p/litre of fuel, its already crippling haulage companies etc.. remember further fuel tax is not the answer as it effects EVERYONE in this country. Although i havent read through the whole thread, the impression I got is that people are only accounting for their own personal travel exspenses when it comes to fuel. Further taxation on fuel, will push prices up, ergo companies feel the bite thus transfering this economic strain onto the consumer. Hence the large increases in food & general living items.
Increasing fuel = increasing living costs = less spending money for families = lower morale etc...

Forthcoming general elections to consider this can be further seen as stealth taxing giving the conservatives and nice big election selling point. The funny thing about democracy is that we have a parliament supposedly representing general consensus of their constituence, where all I see is a bunch of morons haggling with the country in order to prolong their parliamentary life and endeavour on their own unique interests. Anyway back to the fuel problem......

Also you have to note that (the government recognise this aswell) you cannot tax by amount of fuel used because of the dwindling public transport infrastructure. I drive to work every day it takes me 2hours to go 55miles. If i did this same journey on public transport I would have to do a 90mile trip taking 4hours (this is using direct trains & bus). That would mean a 4-4:30am wake up for me, which is not going to happen.

The way I see it is that the current fuel tax imposed on us all has been the saving grace for the current government. They've made a number of large **** ups in these last years and the extra revenue they gain from fuel has got them out of many tight spots. As i've explained higher fuel tax wont work. As for this fuel card idea... no it wont work. The government would need to spend billions of pounds creating an infrastructure which will take at least 10 years to implement along with the fact that it will have to run off a centralised system thus meaning government paid datalinks to all petrol stations blah blah blah... they f*ked the NHS up & essentially that was easy in comparison.

This car tax can work but the problem is the decision to impede people who already own the car, I wont explain any further then that because this point has already been discussed. Much more money should be spent on greener power station & indutrilisation.

 

[Sum Guy]

You have a good point RS.
We also have not touched on alternate fuels for cars.
It has been proven that cars can run on alcohol which is the preferred car fuel in some parts of the world, natural gas and hydrogen. All minimal polluters.
The main problem with them is that the auto manufacturers don't want to switch as they are geared up for gas/petrol engines.
If you pay to have your car converted to one of these fuels, you should get a huge tax break on the fuel.

 

[Rabbie]

You have a good point RS.
We also have not touched on alternate fuels for cars.
It has been proven that cars can run on alcohol which is the preferred car fuel in some parts of the world, natural gas and hydrogen. All minimal polluters.
The main problem with them is that the auto manufacturers don't want to switch as they are geared up for gas/petrol engines.
If you pay to have your car converted to one of these fuels, you should get a huge tax break on the fuel.

The problem with biofuels is that in order to grow the plants to provide the fuel there is no longer resources available to feed the worlds starving millions. It all come down to priorities - our fuel or someone elses food.

It takes minimal modifications to run a petrol engine on alcohol but I for one can think of better uses for alcohol

 

[Alc]

Or smart.
If I only use 70 litres a month, why can't I sell off my other 30?
I won't know how many liters I have left til near the end of the month.
The gas guzzler used up his 100 litres by the end of week 2. He's still getting dinged at the higher tax rate for half a month.

He's getting dinged by a lot less if he can find enough people to sell him 'cheap' fuel (and a lot of people will have a good idea of how much they'll actually use in a given month well in advance).

I was still thinking along the lines of trying to discourage vehicles that get poor mileage from being driven.

 

[statsman]

He's getting dinged by a lot less if he can find enough people to sell him 'cheap' fuel (and a lot of people will have a good idea of how much they'll actually use in a given month well in advance).

I was still thinking along the lines of trying to discourage vehicles that get poor mileage from being driven.

So long as people hold on to out dated notions like "I am what I drive", its not going to happen.
Too many folks drive gas guzzlers for their ego, not because of any real need (next time you're in Toronto, count the number of SUVs that you can tell just by looking at them have never been off road).
We should start by adding a huge tax to these things when they are purchased. Next, institute the gas guzzler fuel tax when they exceed an allotted number of liters per month.
My main point is, if we give a certain number of tax reduced litres per month, how are we going to keep people from selling them off. Any kind of enforcement in this area is going to be defeated before we start, so why even try.

We also have the scenario that I'm going on vacation this month and I need all of my litres for myself.

 

[Fifty2One]

The problem with biofuels is that in order to grow the plants to provide the fuel there is no longer resources available to feed the worlds starving millions. It all come down to priorities - our fuel or someone elses food.

It takes minimal modifications to run a petrol engine on alcohol but I for one can think of better uses for alcohol

The problem with biofuels is that they are focussing on the wrong source. There are not that many people who eat sugar beets which is as hugh a yeild per plant as corn but you can grow more beets per acre then corn. Also there are correct enzymes available to convert the sugars in any plant to alcohol, so the byproducts of harvesting can be used for reclaiming such as corn husks and stalks. Even the lawn clippings can be converted, lawn grass is the most populous cultivated plant in the developed world.
We use ZERO petrolium fuel in the summer in our tractor and lawn maintenance equipment, all that fuel is produced from our own byproducts.

Dont bring your flask when you visit though Rabbie, it is not drinkable but the left overs from the casks has quite a kick to it but you would have to fight for your place at the trough.

 

[Sum Guy]

I believe the Newfoundlanders in your part of the world have a treat called "Screech".
The way it was explained to me is, you take the remnants of a keg of rum, add boiling water, throw in a few cast off fishing nets for taste, let it sit for a while and then drink it. Potent to the point of instant drunkenness.
Perhaps they could use it to power their fishing boats as well.

 

[Rabbie]

Dont bring your flask when you visit though Rabbie, it is not drinkable but the left overs from the casks has quite a kick to it but you would have to fight for your place at the trough.

Sounds like I should bring my flask with my own drinkable supplies

 

[rsmonkey]

cosy efficiency & minimal impact on the consumer is the key. The government cant say all cars must run on 15% alcohol by 2015 unless they are willing to pay for the fuel conversion kits, installation etc... for everyones motor. My brother is a car designer who freelances but has been designing the new Bentley Arnage & he tells me that their is no real solution available for about 10years (at current rate of research). He tells me that batteries are the way foward but current battery technology is rubbish. Oh he also tells me that hybrid cars are a joke & pollute more than anycar. The fact that they carry a battery almost 10x the size of a normal car battery & a life span of 7 years... These batteries are non recyclable.

Im told that until a equitable solution is found, fuel efficiency & clevel fuel management systems are being developed. Expect cars made as light as possible with commodities such as regenerative braking (energy disserpated from braking is stored & then used in acceleration thus reducing fuel consumption on accelerating & not wasting engery produced by the brakes.) etc etc....

 

[Pauldohert]

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%.

Whats bad about an if in a statement! ffs

Yes the examples are specific - they illustrate why the putting all the duty on fuel is unfair.

Rather than clumbsy, generalisations which you seem to advocate?!

As for the last slight - I suggest Brian and Dancat - you look at the subtleties of the argument - including all the ifs and buts. They are important - (which is why I don't think misquoting me by removing the ifs from the argumnet is particlularly clever) .

PS - about the dialysis patients - my little nephew indeed didn't drive himself to the hospital, his parents did at their own expense.

I should have put "IF the patient is a child etc" - but that would have led to accusations of being too specific, cos IF the patient used an ambulance for free - its is a differnat story. Instead I left it open for those with a brain to work out the circumstances where the fuel tax increase would be unfair and road tax fairer.

Sadly its evident - that some here either are unable or can't be bothered, and would rather score cheap points, whilst simultaneously accusing others of being blind to the arguments.

Grow up.


Thankfully my nephew is now perfectly healthy so it doesn't affect him anymore.

 

[Brianwarnock]

All taxes can be deemed unfair to someone, but the principle that the person who uses the roads most and most fuel should pay, rather than the guy who has a vehicle for occasional use, seems to be the fairest.

All of your examples appear to be not only specific but based on somebody you know that would be worse off if the tax shifted from the road fund licence to the fuel, well guess what so would I be , but I'm argueing a principle not for me, me , me, bet you're a socialist.

I pay no road tax.

Brian

 

[Pauldohert]

All taxes can be deemed unfair to someone

No shit sherlock!

Which is why balancing it both on fuel and car seems fairest to me.

All of your examples appear to be not only specific but based on somebody you know that would be worse off if the tax shifted from the road fund licence to the fuel, well guess what so would I be , but I'm argueing a principle not for me, me , me, bet you're a socialist.

I pay no road tax.

Brian

A socialist - my voting history wouldn't indicate that at all. TRy again.

So its all for me me me. like you Brain - I pay no tax at all directly on cars/fuel whatever. So for me - I couldn't care less. Try again.

That I know someone who I can use as an exmaple - I probably know someone I can use as an example of a winner/loser in just about any tax debate you care to mention. So what?


I am argueing the point for people like you, but who cannot afford a fuel increase. If you see that as a bad thing, God help us.

If that makes me a socialist fair enough.

 

[Pauldohert]

rather than the guy who has a vehicle for occasional use, seems to be the fairest.

I agree especially for efficient cars -

If you are driving a smart car 10 miles a week - if the road tax increase was to move to fuel as you suggest. Then the guy in the smart car would pay more.

So I would leave it as proposed / planned - and he would pay less.

So from your example - the guy who occasionally drives in an efficient car - the planned road tax increase (and decrease) seems fairest in this example?

My point exactly.

Let me guess - you are a me me me, socialist aren't you Brian. ;-)



Thanks

 

[GaryPanic]

I would go one step further and put all of the tax on the fuel and impose a green tax on the disc , so a 600cc car would pay x amount which would be ring fenced for green issues (either tree planting or subadising public transport) and the bigger the car the higher the green tax- which is what we are saying - but I would ring fence the green tax and call it a green tax

 

[Rabbie]

I would go one step further and put all of the tax on the fuel and impose a green tax on the disc , so a 600cc car would pay x amount which would be ring fenced for green issues (either tree planting or subadising public transport) and the bigger the car the higher the green tax- which is what we are saying - but I would ring fence the green tax and call it a green tax

Unfortunately the history of ring-fenced taxes in the UK is not good. Previous ringfenced taxes has been diverted into general funds very quickly.