Petition to make Road Tax fairer

[[TW]Fox]

But anyway, Why on earth should a Ferrari be taxed less than a VW UP! Just because one might be driven more?

Why not? The more you drive on the roads the more you should contribute and the more you 'pollute'. Either 'road tax' is designed to encourage efficient driving, in which case it makes no sense to tax a car that does 500 miles a year many times more than one doing 50,000 a year, or it isn't, in which case why is the road tax for a £30,000 520d only £30 a year when the road tax on a £20,000 Kia People carrier is rather more?

Putting it on fuel acheives all goals - the more fuel people use the more CO2 the emit and generally the further they drive, so taxing fuel instead means the tax people pay is proportional to the use of the roads/pollution of the environment.

I have two cars, one is hardly used, one is used all the time. The one that is used all the time is bigger, heavier, more expensive and... £100 a year cheaper to tax

 

[AndrewNR]

Work out income from "road tax".

Work out how many miles per year motorists do.

Apply the necessary income figure to the price of fuel.

Jobs a good 'un.

 

[nutcase]

Wow still so much rebellion lol. Yes it's a first world problem, but the Govt have had a chance to correct a problem with the old system (only full month refunds on unused tax) yet chose to make it worse when with computerised systems it would be easier to make it a daily system.

Can you imagine the uproar if when you buy something you only get change to the nearest full pound? What's the difference?

If you're onto HOW it should be taxed that is indeed another issue, but I'm another one who thinks it should be on fuel. So the more efficient your car is/the lower you pay. My car is 1 litre and does about 50mpg - yet I still have to pay a LOT more in tax than other less efficient and damaging cars. I do a few thousand miles a year so should be penalised for that. On the other hand my other car (when it's on the road) is a 2litre petrol guzzling turbo. However, I only do a few miles a year (usually less than 2000) yet have to pay £250 in tax

It should have been excempt from tax years ago with the rolling 25 year rule, but that went out the window. Now I have to wait until 2018 for it to be excempt now it's a 40 year rolling (which they'll probably stop just in time...).

 

[Randomface74]

Buy an electric car if you dont like road tax

 

[Trifid]

It's vehicle excise duty. The link between its rate and emissions is just how it is valued, but essentially it is a duty on owning a vehicle.

You're getting hung up on the name. It is another tax that goes into the general pot. We all agree cars and their use should be taxed but there are different ways to go about it, some more effective than others.

Adding costs on to fuel will effectively hide the actual amount of duty you would pay in any given period and also allow more increases in fuel costs for everyone.

The government love doing that. This is a non issue but will still factor in peoples choices of cars. More MPG, less cost to go to work.

People who need their car for work and on low incomes would be hit disproportionately to those with £200k sports cars who just jaunt about at the weekend.

Car ownership is expensive. How expensive is dependant on income. Those on low incomes might still have a pre 2001 car that is over 1.6ltrs paying £200+. It's those who can afford new cars then are getting a great deal at the moment.

I also don't think it should go on fuel - all that does is change people's behaviour on buying fuel and it also isn't really fair.

Surely this is a good thing?

It further complicates the income streams adds more bureaucracy and complicates the tax system. At least a separate tax can be allocated more efficiently, than taking a percentage of a variable / fluctuating resource (oil prices changing).

No it doesn't There is already fuel duty which is a fixed cost. And then there is VAT on top. No one has complained that VAT is complicated to work out.

 

[EdGey]

The diesel / petrol price different is where things get unfair.

What a crock that is...

 

[InvaderGIR]

It should have been excempt from tax years ago with the rolling 25 year rule, but that went out the window. Now I have to wait until 2018 for it to be excempt now it's a 40 year rolling (which they'll probably stop just in time...).

It's not a rolling 40 year rule at the moment, they moved it by one year but never said it would continue to do so year on year.

 

[Freefaller]

Surely this is a good thing?

I guess if we're trying to get people off the road, then yes. However not everyone has the choice of not driving.

No it doesn't There is already fuel duty which is a fixed cost. And then there is VAT on top. No one has complained that VAT is complicated to work out.

Yes but oil is a variable so if the rate is fixed - the government would either get more or less depending on oil price and how much is taxed (which IMO is already overly taxed), as such they would either change the tax rate, or keep moving the goal posts which just adds complication IMO. However I may have misunderstood how taxing fuel may work. I am also holding onto the days of sub 60p a litre days in my mind.

Also those that budget and pay off their car tax either 6 monthly or yearly, don't have to worry about it, and in many cases the number of miles done negates the value of the tax anyway so they get they're money's worth.

Those that can afford it won't care either way - those that are just about able to keep a car on the road will be the ones that struggle.

Then you have to take into consideration business mileage and adding another tax calculation to that.

Don't get me wrong I sort of "get" the simplicity of putting it on mileage, and the argument that if you use you car more, you pay more tax... however, I'd rather pay less on tax pay less for fuel, and pay for motorways with better facilities, emptier higher quality roads, and push more finance into proper public transport infrastructure.

 

[[TW]Fox]

The diesel / petrol price different is where things get unfair.

What a crock that is...

In what possible way is that unfair? The government levies identical duty on both.

 

[SkodaMart]

In what possible way is that unfair? The government levies identical duty on both.

Air pollution is taxed through CO emissions.

This is only a fraction of the story.

Particulates from diesel exhausts pose far more of a threat to people, animals and the environment than a petrol engine ever will.

It's absolutely crazy that diesels are taxed at a lesser rate, it should be vice-versa.

Cheap or free tax for small efficient petrol engines.

Or even better, scrap petrol and diesel full stop and run vehicles on ammonia.

 

[Castiel]

Why not? The more you drive on the roads the more you should contribute and the more you 'pollute'. Either 'road tax' is designed to encourage efficient driving, in which case it makes no sense to tax a car that does 500 miles a year many times more than one doing 50,000 a year, or it isn't, in which case why is the road tax for a £30,000 520d only £30 a year when the road tax on a £20,000 Kia People carrier is rather more?

Putting it on fuel acheives all goals - the more fuel people use the more CO2 the emit and generally the further they drive, so taxing fuel instead means the tax people pay is proportional to the use of the roads/pollution of the environment.

I have two cars, one is hardly used, one is used all the time. The one that is used all the time is bigger, heavier, more expensive and... £100 a year cheaper to tax

It disproportionately affects the poorer in our society and small businesses and sole traders who have to rely on their transport for their livelihood. That is innately unfair.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with VED as it is, it is probably one of the most transparent of levies we deal with. It isn't broken so don't fixed it.

 

[SkodaMart]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with VED as it is, it is probably one of the most transparent of levies we deal with. It isn't broken so don't fixed it.

It's massively broken.

London was recently reported to be one of the most dangerously polluted cities on the planet due to massively harmful diesel particulates.

Yet 'sporty' diesels can be taxed for a mere £30 a year as Fox says.

It's just wrong.

 

[Castiel]

You're getting hung up on the name. It is another tax that goes into the general pot. We all agree cars and their use should be taxed but there are different ways to go about it, some more effective than others.

I'm not hung up on anything. Everyone else seems to be hung up on the emissions aspect. The duty is one of the most transparent and fairest duties we have. You can buy a car that has high VED or one which has low VED depending on what you want. It is not levies according to how much emission you produce, but how much the car can produce per KM.

The government love doing that. This is a non issue but will still factor in peoples choices of cars. More MPG, less cost to go to work.

It isn't a non-issue at all. stealth taxation is anything but a non-issue.

Car ownership is expensive. How expensive is dependant on income. Those on low incomes might still have a pre 2001 car that is over 1.6ltrs paying £200+. It's those who can afford new cars then are getting a great deal at the moment.

Which would still be significantly less and easier to budget for than a further levy on fuel costs, which would proportionately affect those on low incomes, especially in rural communities where there is limited or no other form of transport. Again VED isn't broken, so there is no need to fix it. It is transparent and relatively cheap.

No it doesn't There is already fuel duty which is a fixed cost. And then there is VAT on top. No one has complained that VAT is complicated to work out.

People complain about how the VAT is added to already taxed fuel all the time.

 

[Castiel]

It's massively broken.

No it isn't.

London was recently reported to be one of the most dangerously polluted cities on the planet due to massively harmful diesel particulates.

Source? Because the Kings College Environmental Group stated that the NO2 concentrations in Oxford Street (the most dangerouly polluted street in london, rather than the grabbing headline you just made) was due to the high concentrations of public transport and black cabs. Are we going to ban public transport? or maybe tax it to the hilt?

Source

Yet 'sporty' diesels can be taxed for a mere £30 a year as Fox says.

Good. Lower Duty is a good thing, less taxation is a good thing.

It's just wrong.

No it isn't.

 

[SkodaMart]

Source? Because the Kings College Environmental Group stated that the NO2 concentrations in Oxford Street (the most dangerouly polluted street in london, rather than the grabbing headline you just made) was due to the high concentrations of public transport and black cabs. Are we going to ban public transport? or maybe tax it to the hilt?

You mean vehicles powered by diesel engines?

Diesels pollute far more than petrol engines ever have.

It's not 'good' that rates of tax for diesels are so low as this has encouraged more diesel buyers, particularly company vehicles.

Great that the most polluting engines on the road amount for 50% of the traffic.

A much more viable solution is ammonia as fuel, as I have previously mentioned.

Or alternatively, small turbo charged electric hybrid engines take some beating for performance and cleanliness.

 

[[TW]Fox]

It disproportionately affects the poorer in our society and small businesses and sole traders who have to rely on their transport for their livelihood. That is innately unfair.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with VED as it is, it is probably one of the most transparent of levies we deal with. It isn't broken so don't fixed it.

To me it's quite simple.

Either VED is about emissions, in which case, do it properly and charge tax based on actual emissions - the only way to do this is via fuel. Otherwise, if VED isn't about emissions, then remove the link between vehicle emissions and VED. Currently, VED is charged based on how good the manufacturer is at getting through the ridiculous NEDC test, hence all these comedy consumption figures we get on new cars now. Mine does 46mpg combined apparently, and has it's VED set on that basis, yet in reality it's more thirsty than that. By rights, I should be paying more money to tax my 530d than I do. And you should with your car, too.

As for the poor, in what way is it fair that you can drive your nearly new Audi A6 thousands and thousands of miles a year and pay just £120 per annum in VED yet a poor family driving a 2000 Ford Mondeo as a family car a few thousand on the school run must pay twice as much tax as you?

 

[Castiel]

You mean vehicles powered by diesel engines?

Diesels pollute far more than petrol engines ever have.

Again, there is not enough evidence for that. They pollute differently, not necessarily more or less.

Source

Perhaps incentivise City Diesel and LPG, and other low emission, low pollutant fuels.

Messing about with the VED isn't necessary or particularly efficient at reducing pollutants.

It's not 'good' that rates of tax for diesels are so low as this has encouraged more diesel buyers, particularly company vehicles.

It is good that taxation is being lowered. It really is as simple as that. Diesels are cheaper because they produce significantly less Carbon emissions.

Great that the most polluting engines on the road amount for 50% of the traffic.

Again, there is not enough evidence to say this. They simply pollute differently.

A much more viable solution is ammonia as fuel, as I have previously mentioned.

Or alternatively, small turbo charged electric hybrid engines take some beating for performance and cleanliness.

then by all means lobby the Government to incentivise these fuels and vehicles.

 

[SkodaMart]

Castiel, I don't need a 'source' to tell you that diesels pollute more than petrol engines.

My 'source' is commuting by bicycle for over 10 years.

Every mechanic I know says 'Oooh dirty diesel'

Try working in a garage with a diesel engine running.

It's filthy harmful ****.

It's common sense however yet again the leaders of our country have ****ed up and decided that vehicles should be taxed on CO alone.

So I throw the argument back at you, prove CO is more harmful than particulates.

I'm not advocating huge V12 petrol monsters, I'm saying that efficient petrol turbos and turbo hybrids are the best of the current crop.

Ammonia is a much better long term solution but there isn't much money to be made from that so it has been kept quiet.

 

[Glaucus]

VED is also a colossal waste of money. Think how much money it takes to implement and enforce VED, when theirs no reason for it. It should be on fuel. Then the costs people don't think about like courts, legal aid etc. On top of that foreigners would pay so you get a slight increase as well,

 

[Castiel]

To me it's quite simple.

Either VED is about emissions, in which case, do it properly and charge tax based on actual emissions - the only way to do this is via fuel.

It is done properly. It is done by assessing the vehicle at its point of manufacture as to its Carbon Emissions (note, not pollutants) per KM travelled. This leads to an annual levy based on that. It is simple, relatively cheap, transparent and easy to budget for.

As for the poor, in what way is it fair that you can drive your nearly new Audi A6 thousands and thousands of miles a year and pay just £120 per annum in VED yet a poor family driving a 2000 Ford Mondeo as a family car a few thousand on the school run must pay twice as much tax as you?

It is fairer than charging that poor family by the mile and increasing their tax burden.

If they drove the same amount of miles as someone in their A6 then they would be disproportionately disadvantage simply because they cannot afford a newer car. In any case if they are driving around in their 2000 Mondeo diesel, their VED is about £20 a year more than mine, not double.