Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,259
Good idea but 5% err why ?? Do they not tax us enough??
End of the tax disc
- Thread starter Amos91
- Start date
Anything like this has a additional charge. Paying insurance monthly, for example. In simple terms its a form of credit.
Plus, buying 6 months currently carries a 10% hike, so 5% is an improvement.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
You worked it out wrong.
Income from VED in 2010/11 was £5.8bn last year.
According to UK PIA, demand for fuel in the UK is 124 million litres per day or 45,260,000,000.
Which means that to break even, you'd need to add 12.8p to a litre of fuel to be revenue neutral, if I've got the maths right
Nothing like 30p+ so no need for apocolyptic stories of redundant taxi drivers
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,699
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Putting it on fuel would have some effects, whether that is good or bad would depend highly on your own circumstances (I would say) and your leanings on various issues -
Every high mileage driver I know of does the vast majority for business purposes. This will not go away if VED was put onto fuel. BUT as the highest mileage drivers they would suck up a disproportionate amount of the total tax take, either reducing profitability of businesses or passing the cost onto consumers, thats the nature of any factor that increases costs to a business. (our businesses often complain they are treated harsher than foreign competitors this just exacerbates.)
VED is a simple and effective way of encouraging the less feul efficient vehicles off the road. I am not talking the odd M3 tucked away and used for 2000 miles a year but things like high mileage mondeos used as regular vehicales. People suck up the fuel cost but they complain like hell when they have to fork out a significant chunk of cash in one go for VED. Plenty of people have no idea what MPG they actually get, they complain about the cost of fuel but make far more fuss when its time to tax, so it clearly makes them think.
Due to the amount of tax on fuel there are already people using red, chip fat (without paying the duty), using knocked off fuel etc. The bigger the amount of tax per litre the more benefit construed by avoiding that tax.
Fuel theft will likely go up as the fuel becomes more and more valuable.
Demand for fuel is VERY inelastic, it really changes little with price rises, I could envisage more people feeling better off after getting rid of £240 a year road tax yet paying £5 a week more on fuel since many people are incapable of relating simple maths to money.
Its a tax. Tax is mostly illogical to most people, lets not start assuming tax is going to be made logical. Logic and tax go in the eye of the beholder, its only logical if it suits your views.
I think I have heard just as many people remark about low/no VED as I have heard make a fuss about MPG. The two are intrinsicly linked obviously but I don't think a lot of the general public actually "get it"
The raw value from VED is fairly predictable and can be modelled on customer vehicle selection trends and expected life on the road. If you moved it to petrol/diesel its a different matter, as vehicle fuel efficiency improved the rate would have to go up to maintain the same tax take. Assuming the government had a "target" tax take then as efficiency went up or as they decided they needed more money from this extra fuel duty tax they would have to change the rate increasingly upwards. It may be 30p per litre in 2014, and 40p a litre in 2015. Why? because suddenly a new super diesel improved diesel efficiency by 25% for all diesel cars, this had to be offset by a higher tax so all petrol fuel users would be significantly worse off from this effect in order to balance the tax take.
Every high mileage driver I know of does the vast majority for business purposes. This will not go away if VED was put onto fuel. BUT as the highest mileage drivers they would suck up a disproportionate amount of the total tax take, either reducing profitability of businesses or passing the cost onto consumers, thats the nature of any factor that increases costs to a business. (our businesses often complain they are treated harsher than foreign competitors this just exacerbates.)
VED is a simple and effective way of encouraging the less feul efficient vehicles off the road. I am not talking the odd M3 tucked away and used for 2000 miles a year but things like high mileage mondeos used as regular vehicales. People suck up the fuel cost but they complain like hell when they have to fork out a significant chunk of cash in one go for VED. Plenty of people have no idea what MPG they actually get, they complain about the cost of fuel but make far more fuss when its time to tax, so it clearly makes them think.
Due to the amount of tax on fuel there are already people using red, chip fat (without paying the duty), using knocked off fuel etc. The bigger the amount of tax per litre the more benefit construed by avoiding that tax.
Fuel theft will likely go up as the fuel becomes more and more valuable.
Demand for fuel is VERY inelastic, it really changes little with price rises, I could envisage more people feeling better off after getting rid of £240 a year road tax yet paying £5 a week more on fuel since many people are incapable of relating simple maths to money.
Its a tax. Tax is mostly illogical to most people, lets not start assuming tax is going to be made logical. Logic and tax go in the eye of the beholder, its only logical if it suits your views.
I think I have heard just as many people remark about low/no VED as I have heard make a fuss about MPG. The two are intrinsicly linked obviously but I don't think a lot of the general public actually "get it"
The raw value from VED is fairly predictable and can be modelled on customer vehicle selection trends and expected life on the road. If you moved it to petrol/diesel its a different matter, as vehicle fuel efficiency improved the rate would have to go up to maintain the same tax take. Assuming the government had a "target" tax take then as efficiency went up or as they decided they needed more money from this extra fuel duty tax they would have to change the rate increasingly upwards. It may be 30p per litre in 2014, and 40p a litre in 2015. Why? because suddenly a new super diesel improved diesel efficiency by 25% for all diesel cars, this had to be offset by a higher tax so all petrol fuel users would be significantly worse off from this effect in order to balance the tax take.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,699
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
every case would be diff.
Take an older car and round road tax to say £5 per week
If there current fuel usage was low they would probably be better off. So those with no job or poorly paid but with a localish job would be fine.
But a person who was forced to work a decent distance from home could be massively hit, the £5 saving could be multiplied easily many times over of they couldonly afford an old inefficient car.
Its regrettable but it basically means that those who use the roads absolutely loads or burn through piles of fuel will pay more tax and those who don't use the roads much or do so in a frugal way pay less.
Which, in theory, sounds entirely appropriate.
It makes more sense than charging the old duffer with a Jaguar XJ £300 a year to pop to Sainsburys twice a week or letting somebody race up and down the Motorways at 95 in a Fabia Greenline for 40,000 miles a year flogging double glazing for zero VED.
But if you did 25k a year @ 45mpg you'd pay £302 a year in VED, it's not as if people would be paying thousands.
Last edited:
This is just smoke and mirrors to make you welcome the changes. I would be surprised if they don't take this oportunity to increase tax for most cars. You can bet that lovely low emissions cars will have a rise and any large engine pre-2006 cars will have the cap removed to bring them in line with more modem cars.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 2,025
- Location
- Warwickshire
1 years time:
Government: "road tax to incerase 30% across the board!"
population: "omg!"
Government: sorry did we say 30%? we meant 'an additional £10 a month on the average payment!'
population: "oh that's only 1/4 of my sky subscription! not so bad!"
10 years time:
Government: "we're introducing road pricing"
population: "omg what a massive change!"
Government: "not really, afterall you're already paying VED monthly, we just need to tweak this existing system a bit!"
Populous: "oh cool k"
Don't think this is being done because the gubbermunt empathises with us about pointless round bits of paper
Government: "road tax to incerase 30% across the board!"
population: "omg!"
Government: sorry did we say 30%? we meant 'an additional £10 a month on the average payment!'
population: "oh that's only 1/4 of my sky subscription! not so bad!"
10 years time:
Government: "we're introducing road pricing"
population: "omg what a massive change!"
Government: "not really, afterall you're already paying VED monthly, we just need to tweak this existing system a bit!"
Populous: "oh cool k"
Don't think this is being done because the gubbermunt empathises with us about pointless round bits of paper
Don't think this is being done because the gubbermunt empathises with us about pointless round bits of paper
Not everything is a conspiracy - the price is still set annually even if you wish to pay it for monthly.
On this occasion it geuinelly is because they've finally realised that administering pointless bits of paper is.. pointless.
It would require a shift in other things though. People who do significant business miles would need a rise in their companies expenses policy to match. Haulage firms would need to charge more. My dad would need the council to hike taxi fares by 10%, which seems unlikely given they haven't moved for about 5 years. Etc.
So?
Or they'd need to pick more efficient company cars etc.
But would suffer far far less from the massive damaging effect foreign hauliers have on UK hauliers given they don't pay to use our roads.
It's never going to happen so it's just utopian stuff, but if they are serious about encouraging a shift to people who drive less or drive more efficient cars, its the way to do it.