Vehicle Excise Duty

Especially when you consider that diesels chuck out more crap into the atmosphere, which is much more damaging than emissions from petrol engines, yet because everything's rated on CO2 it's ALL GOOD GUYS AND WE SHOULD HAVE CHEAP TAX ON IT.
 
stockhausen said:
Why would it require more paperwork / time if they simply increased the price of Petrol / Diesel :confused:

Not perfect but would certainly tend to address Foxy's quite reasonable concerns.
Click to expand...

Read my first post. I'm not referring to increasing the price of fuel, I'm referring to the Excise Duty that this thread is about.
 
Maccy said:
Read my first post. I'm not referring to increasing the price of fuel, I'm referring to the Excise Duty that this thread is about.
Click to expand...

Excise Duty can never be proportional to mileage covered - therefore linking it to emissions is entirely pointless. If anything, the previous engine size system worked better. Or perhaps car size in general.

If you wish to have a fixed duty, then it must be based on a fixed property.
 
[TW]Fox;21292333 said:
Excise Duty can never be proportional to mileage covered
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I'm merely stating that if such a system were to be trialled then it would be impossible to do. There must be a better way than basing it on CO2 emissions alone.

Anyway, I'm off for a hoon :D
 
I think you'd need to show that there is a disproportionate level of emissions being caused by ostensibly low emissions cars across the whole system...
 
Duke said:
It should just be scrapped and put on fuel really.
Click to expand...

It already IS onfuel.
Car uses more fuel = more fuel purchased, to which over half of it is tax!
There is absolutely no need for road tax and it should be binned.

On a slightly different note, my 1.0 Micra could be deemed unfit for the road if it failed the MOT on CO2 etc., but a 4.0 V8 Range Rover could be deemed clean if it passes the MOT?! Just throwing another spanner in the works.

My arguement is (I am doing a PhD in sustainability in manufacturing) that the money raised from taxing fuels is fine provided the whole lot goes into A) Reversing the damage done by fossil fuels B) Goes into research for future nuclear/renewable energy.
I also find it equally stupid that a car registered (not made!) in March 2006 can be about half the road tax of the same vehicle registered just a day later in April 2006.

Another spanner in the works is that CO2 is a very short sighted, narrow minded way of looking at envrionmental damage from vehicles. Diesels chuck out way more crap that is damaging to humans/animals than petrols, yet everyone is furiously jacking off over CO2 from the exhaust pipe. They say nothing on where the material for the vehicle has come from, how it was made, the fuels it uses, the crap that comes out the exhaust, the consumables such as oil, tyres etc.
 
Last edited:
Lashout_UK said:
Especially when you consider that diesels chuck out more crap into the atmosphere, which is much more damaging than emissions from petrol engines, yet because everything's rated on CO2 it's ALL GOOD GUYS AND WE SHOULD HAVE CHEAP TAX ON IT.
Click to expand...

You know that there are EU-wide emissions regulations that aim to do this?

Basically the strategy is:

- reduce CO2 by increasing the cost of emitting more CO2 via VED and fuel duty
- reduce other emissions through strict emssions regulations on all new vehicles (getting tighter all the time)

Would you rather it was the other way around?

Or perhaps the government should do what the US did in the 70s and put mpg requirements on all new cars (almost killing the US car industry at the time)?
 
I've just donated my £260 to the DVLA for another years worth of motoring and would also much prefer to just pay as I go via more expensive fuel duty. :(

What I really don't get is cars that pay *no* road tax. Why? At least make them pay a token amount as a minimum.
 
[TW]Fox;21292134 said:
I am confused.

The DVLA wish me to pay £260. Over an average year, my car will emit a total of 2,228,000g of CO2. I understand this and appreciate this and do not feel that the £260 is excessive.

But if I was a sales rep travelling the country in a 320d, the DVLA would require me to pay £35 a year to emit 5,540,000g of CO2.

So, 7 times less CO2 based tax in order to emit more than double the amount of CO2.

Can somebody explain why it is correct to do it in this way? Can somebody give me one good reason why the vehicle excise duty for doing 30k a year in a 3 Series diesel shouldn't be a lot more than £35 a year?

:)
Click to expand...

You really should get out more :p
 
Trifid said:
I've just donated my £260 to the DVLA for another years worth of motoring and would also much prefer to just pay as I go via more expensive fuel duty. :(
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the uproar (and maybe riots) if fuel duty went up enough to cover the lost revenue from scrapping VED?

For reference, in 2010 fuel tax revenue was £27bn, compared to VED revenue of £5bn.
 
It cost £115m in 2010/2011 to collect VED of £6bn so there is an incentive to simplify the system.

Net Income £5,850,000,000
Vehicles on the road 33,000,000
Average miles per vehicle per year 9,000
Average MPG 25 (this is a best guess)

That's 53,935,000,000 litres of fuel from which to collect £5.85bn which equates to 10.8pence per litre of additional duty.

In my case I fill up 100 litres a month so would see my duty drop from £215 to £130 per year. Haulage businesses would be very hard hit though.


Sources
http://www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/ARA/Management/VED Collection and enforcement.aspx
http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/transport/car-pollution/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom