Man of Honour
Except the ANPR cameras are only on main roads, so the first Unintended Consequence would be massive congestion on minor roads as people tried to beat the cameras.
Pay as you drive shows its ugly face again.
- Thread starter Third Opinion
- Start date
Except the ANPR cameras are only on main roads, so the first Unintended Consequence would be massive congestion on minor roads as people tried to beat the cameras.
I think you are thinking about the last time when they tried to bring this in, in the name of climate change and congestion. They gave the impression you could save money with this type of scheme.
This is being brought in to raise taxes, not drop them for people. The details of the scheme have not been given yet.
Who is to say that the amount you pay per toll isn't based on the size and power of your car, with electrics being cheaper than supercars?
Personally the way tax classes are at the moment I really can't see them having a one price fits all charge. They will want to be seen 'being green'.
Soldato
Should just stick the vast majority (or all) of tax on fuel and have done with it (at least until enough people are driving electric cars for it to cause the government problems).
Big heavy vehicles vehicles generally spout out more CO2 per mile and cause more road damage per mile than small light ones. Diesel should have a higher rate of tax than petrol because of the more harmful (non CO2) emissions. 3 birds, one stone, job's a goodun...
This would cost me more, as I drive a hybrid in current VED band B but it would be fairer for everyone.
Big heavy vehicles vehicles generally spout out more CO2 per mile and cause more road damage per mile than small light ones. Diesel should have a higher rate of tax than petrol because of the more harmful (non CO2) emissions. 3 birds, one stone, job's a goodun...
This would cost me more, as I drive a hybrid in current VED band B but it would be fairer for everyone.
Depends on the total amount of fuel it uses, which is the entire point.Say 1000 miles at 15mpg vs 50,000 at 50mpg
The supercar owner is paying over 3 times as much tax per mile for the privilege of driving his car. He will almost certainly have another car that most of his miles will be put on every year and will continue to pay tax at a lower rate whilst he uses that.
At the moment, he pays VED on both cars, even though he can only use one at a time whilst also paying tax on the fuel.
It says in the article it will be based on black box technologies???
My other fear with this system is it will be used to further reduce traffic officers and law enforcement, like when they brought in speed cameras as a solution to everything.
No doubt that tax paying, law abiding drivers like us will pay through our noses with a legal, registered black box. When the chavs and low lives will drive around with less fear of being caught, enjoying lower fuel taxes.
Last edited:
I'm sure that whoever is working the numbers will make sure the vast majority of people will be paying more to travel than they currently are.
I agree that the yearly car TAX should have been dropped years ago but not for a tolled road system.
The 2 main problems are once the system is in place the price will be increased and why should a private journey cost the same as one made for profit.
I don't see enough benefits to the system for the people paying into it. Maybe if we got a national 3rd party insurance system for driving on what I see as publicly paid for private roads.
I agree that the yearly car TAX should have been dropped years ago but not for a tolled road system.
The 2 main problems are once the system is in place the price will be increased and why should a private journey cost the same as one made for profit.
I don't see enough benefits to the system for the people paying into it. Maybe if we got a national 3rd party insurance system for driving on what I see as publicly paid for private roads.
As unpopular as it may be, in my opinion it makes sense... I can't see it makes sense that someone in an ecomobile pays no VED while someone with a high-VED car pays through the nose on a yearly basis irrespective of how many miles they do. Surely a fairer system of taxing road usage is to tax people based on how many miles of road they cover, taking into consideration the type of car to predict how much maintenance they cause the road to need. Fuel tax does not achieve this as different car's do different MPGs, if anything fuel tax should in effect do what VED does now - you're probably polluting more if you use more fuel, so you pay more tax. I can see the only reason 'pay as you drive' won't have been implemented in the past is because it's impractical.
Lorry's pay the same duty on fuel as every other vehicle yet the damage the road much more. In fact many heavy haulage firms pay much less TAX per litre as they run on biodiesel.
People running high TAX cars do so because they chose to. They have the option not to pay through the nose.
This is a TAX increase (to be applied to as many people as possible and extract the maximum amount of cash from everyone) to offset lower revenue from the reduction in fuel use. It has nothing to do with cutting pollution or improving the road systems its about putting money into coffers.
Certainly is, I think it's still a while away, give it till 2020 and I think by then it will be knocking on the door.
So after the big push towards getting people into more economical cars with road tax incentives and the massive taxes levied onto our fuels they now decide to take away any advantage of driving a more economical car by scrapping the banded tax system and cutting tax on fuel therefore reducing the financial incentive to not drive a gas guzzler.
Joe average who just bought his Kia Rio ecodynamics is going to be pretty cheesed off and petrol heads can now use man maths to justify getting better value per mile in a 3.0 v6
.
It's not coming in yet, the people with Eco cars will of been saving money for years before any such system comes in.
Co2 emissions are getting tighter and tighter on new cars anyway and of course petrol price won't drop and only increase, making it even more expensive.
You missed this bit clearly:
If a lorry covers 100 miles it should pay less tax than a lorry that covers 100,000miles. Similarly a car that covers 100,000 miles should also pay more tax than a lorry that covers 100 miles, because although it is less damaging per mile it has done far more miles so it's likely more road maintenance will be needed in total as a result. Fuel tax is not an accurate way of doing this due to the differences in fuel economy (although it is a more accurate way of taxing pollution than VED). A vehicle that damages the road the same amount as another vehicle per mile should pay tax based on how much road they cover versus eachother, fuel tax will take care of the differences in economy/CO2 out the rear end.
Last edited:
The real solution is for the UK to stop relying on the motorist to try to prop up the ridiculous spending black hole they have.
Lets face it other countries manage without fleecing the motorists and still deliver a decent standard of living.
Lets face it other countries manage without fleecing the motorists and still deliver a decent standard of living.
Soldato
They also get the happy side effect of being able to track you wherever you go
So I wonder if they will have the cheek to suggest "pay as you drive" and "congestion charging", I bet they will!
Would you give away a goose that laid golden eggs.
Last edited:
It's not coming in yet, the people with Eco cars will of been saving money for years before any such system comes in.
Co2 emissions are getting tighter and tighter on new cars anyway and of course petrol price won't drop and only increase, making it even more expensive.
But comparing an eco car with a thirsty one...
If both travel 12000 miles a year, one at 12ppm in fuel the other at 20ppm in fuel then the difference is £960 lets assume a £200 difference in road tax that makes a £1160 difference between the two.
Now take 50% off the cost of fuel (high admittedly but if the cost per mile from the road toll is high enough...) then straight away the difference in fuel is only £480 and there is no road tax so they are comparatively £680 closer to the running costs of the other car straight away.
Unless the roads are tolled at different levels (and lets face it a system that takes into consideration time of travel and the roads used is already complicated enough without a third multiplier thrown in) then those that are running around in economical cars are getting the crappy end of the stick compared to those in cars that drink like a fish which was the point I was trying to make.
Obviously the figures above are all guestimates but the logic is sound isn't it?
Firstly it's HGV that do the most damage to the roads so they should pay the highest TAX for repairing the damage.
VED is based on c02 emissions and this is a useless system to measure pollution.
The people driving 100.000 miles are paying more then enough TAX on the fuel they use already. Well apart from the Biodiesel users.
The closest system to being fair for combustion cars is to TAX on fuel usage and vehicle weight, with electric cars paying their share in some other road TAX.
Too true, an undoubtedly there will be exemptions for MP's, Police, Nurses, Teachers and all the others they suck up too.
Can't wait to see how they sell it. No doubt it will be endless examples of smiling pensioners in Electric cars saving hundreds of pounds a year.
When the rest of us will probably pay more than a grand a year extra.
Soldato
Genuine question, can you name some countries that offer a good standard of living without high tax on fuels. I can only think of oil producing countries which avoid taxes on fuel by making huge profits selling the stuff and the US which whilst it has much lower tax on fuel also lacks a nationalised health service.