by andyr
on July 01, 2010 at 09:19AM
Abolish the fixed annual car tax/Road Fund Licence and replace it with additional fuel duty. This way the people who drive the most pay the most tax.
Why the contribution is important
£160 car tax per year, 12000 miles, average useage at 35 miles per gallon would add 10p to a ltr of fuel. Anyone who drives less than 12000 miles pays less, anyone with a more fuel efficient car pays less. Helps the less well off and encourages people to drive fuel efficient cars.
It is also virtually impossible to not pay the tax as to move the car you must have fuel. At the moment you can drive without purchasing a tax disc.
The government can save the cost of administration, which I suspect is significant.
Is this idea inappropriate? Please login to report this idea to a moderator
Current tags
Posted by
martinlucas
July 01, 2010 at 09:36
Completely agree with this - I actually came on the site to write the same thing, but I would add one additional idea;
Keep the disc, but make an insurance disc that insurance companies provide. The system that checks for untaxed cars (the police I assume) can stay in place - but they can instead check for uninsured drivers - which are surely more of a problem than untaxed cars.
Keep the disc, but make an insurance disc that insurance companies provide. The system that checks for untaxed cars (the police I assume) can stay in place - but they can instead check for uninsured drivers - which are surely more of a problem than untaxed cars.
Posted by
jonling
July 01, 2010 at 09:37
I agree - its a complete nonsense. The only valid reason for the tax disc is that it provides a check on Insurance and MOT, however this is more readily checked by the Automatic Plate Recognition cameras that are increasingly common on our roads.
Posted by
viz1
July 01, 2010 at 09:55
I totally agree, I know people who drive around with no car tax....But they have to put fuel in the car,If the cost of fuel rised to subside the cost of the tax we all would be paying it there would be no one getting away with it..
The cost of car tax is huge i drive a car with a 1.6 litre engine yet im punished every year paying the same amount as the person driving a 3.0 litre car wheres the justice in that.
The cost of car tax is huge i drive a car with a 1.6 litre engine yet im punished every year paying the same amount as the person driving a 3.0 litre car wheres the justice in that.
Posted by
Stephen
July 01, 2010 at 09:56
I agree but want to see fuel tax reduced by 30%.
Let's get this country moving again.
Let's get this country moving again.
Posted by
mikem
July 01, 2010 at 10:06
I agree get rid of road tax and put a little on fuel tax is the best way.
How much does it cost to admin the road tax? Surely big savings there.
How much does it cost to admin the road tax? Surely big savings there.
Posted by
jennie59
July 01, 2010 at 10:10
I think this is an excellent idea...then the ones who do not pay car tax, wont be able to drive their vehicle if there is no fuel....
Posted by
dredmondson
July 01, 2010 at 10:24
Needs to be properly thought out. Potential for users to pay, will assist with the foreign HGV problem, deal with the tax dodgers, reduce the size of the grossly inefficient DVLC. In parallel there must be a review of the insurance issue, there must be no scope for uninsured vehicles on the road....long shot I know. What we don't want is a half cock system which causes more problems than it solves, or costs more than it saves to HMG.
Posted by
designit
July 01, 2010 at 10:26
Yes I agree as well - the amount of fuel used is directly linked to CO2 emissions. There would have to be a way of preventing cars and lorries entering the country with tanks to bursting leading to unfair competition - perhaps a duty at port of entry?
Posted by
Speedbird
July 01, 2010 at 10:33
Linking Road Tax to CO2 emmissions is grossly unfair, it does not take in to account people who do a very small mileage per year. It should definately be on fuel duty.
Posted by
SUNLIGHT
July 01, 2010 at 10:42
TAX FUEL AS THIS WOULD BE A PAY AS YOU GO WHICH WOULD RAISE MORE REVENUE FOR THE COUNTRY THEN THE CURRENT TAX DISC SYSTEM AND MAKE TAX DODGERS PAY FOR USE OF THE ROAD THERE WILL BE NO ESCAPE FOR NON PAYERS
IF FOUND DRIVING WITH NO INSURANCE LOSE ALL BENEFITS FOR GOOD AND MOTOR VEHICLE WILL BE SIZED AND SCRAPPED
IF FOUND DRIVING WITH NO INSURANCE LOSE ALL BENEFITS FOR GOOD AND MOTOR VEHICLE WILL BE SIZED AND SCRAPPED
Posted by
DoomWolf
July 01, 2010 at 10:52
Your figures are wrong. An efficient, low polluting car doesn't have £160 tax. My own car (120g/km CO2) cost £35 to tax this year, and is £30 next year. Therefore, replacing car tax and putting up fuel taxes would cost me (and many others) MORE money for a low polluting, high efficiency car.
Posted by
bradladuk
July 01, 2010 at 10:55
This also allows revenue to be gathered from foreign motorists. In Austria they make visitors have a temporary road tax. Taxing fuel is the easiest way, you just cannot avoid it.
Posted by
KWhite
July 01, 2010 at 10:56
Remove the separate fixed road tax and add to fuel duty. Then replace the tax disc with an insurance disc to prove insurance. The insurance company then becomes responsible for checking MOT for at least 1 month is remaining. This not only reduces admin costs for the tax payer, yes a cost may be charged by insurance companies, but this should deter non-insured drivers from taking to the road, which should reduce premiums above the cost increase. then if drivers are on the road without insurance for more than 1 week after policy expires car is automatically detained for auction all profits then go to the fund to pay for crashes caused by uninsured drivers so they will pay either by insuring or by the value of the car. Plus increase penalty for no insurance.
Posted by
CupidStunt
July 01, 2010 at 10:56
I agree. Posted the same thing sorry.
Posted by
MotorsportPhill
July 01, 2010 at 10:57
I dont mind paying car tax, in form of a tax disc or combined with the fuel, everybody has to pay it so why argue it.
I do strongly object to the amount we pay, why an if you own a 'eco' friendly car you pay less tax its rubbish, the whole green world, global warming lark is garbage, are my £5 notes making a new ozone layer? NO!
My point is, tax is tax, we all have to pay it, but we all need to see it being spent on our roads, I will happily pay taxs that go towards the benifit of the motorist, not into speed cameras, old people with speed guns etc.
Proper resurfacing of roads, street lighting, signs etc on all roads, so instead of putting a camera in accident hot spot amend the road so it isnt one anymore.
Putting the tax onto the fuel is a great idea, but surely that gives the goverments tax on fuel more to hide behind?
I do strongly object to the amount we pay, why an if you own a 'eco' friendly car you pay less tax its rubbish, the whole green world, global warming lark is garbage, are my £5 notes making a new ozone layer? NO!
My point is, tax is tax, we all have to pay it, but we all need to see it being spent on our roads, I will happily pay taxs that go towards the benifit of the motorist, not into speed cameras, old people with speed guns etc.
Proper resurfacing of roads, street lighting, signs etc on all roads, so instead of putting a camera in accident hot spot amend the road so it isnt one anymore.
Putting the tax onto the fuel is a great idea, but surely that gives the goverments tax on fuel more to hide behind?
Posted by
RobertW
July 01, 2010 at 11:23
I agree with all those who want to abolish car tax and add to the fuel price. The fuel efficient car which has a lower tax band also uses less fuel, so the costs balance out equitably. Furthermore, the costs of running the DVLA must be enormous. This money could be used for improving roads. If there is an inequality, it is for the user who rarely uses a car but still has to pay £160 or more for the privilege. A car in a garage is doing no harm to anyone.
Posted by
Cronan
July 01, 2010 at 11:33
Retain the insurance disc, but get rid of the tax. The same thing applies to "large car" taxes, emission taxes, etc etc, add them in to fuel, that's the best way to pay for this stuff and penalise people with gas guzzlers.
Posted by
Kelly
July 01, 2010 at 11:39
Disabled people do not pay road tax, therefore they would be penalised if they put it on fuel tax. Unless they are able to claim it as a refund
Posted by
CodsallKid
July 01, 2010 at 11:45
Get rid of car tax and stick on fuel. That way EVERYBODY pays not just the honest law abiding motorist. Also it saves time and money getting rid of hundreds of pen pushers,form fillers and printers.
Make it compulsory to display a current proof of insurance disc in the windscreen instead.
Make it compulsory to display a current proof of insurance disc in the windscreen instead.
Posted by
Dazzledonut
July 01, 2010 at 11:49
Totally agree... much fairer... then the drivers of big engined cars would pay road fund licence in keeping with the enviromental impact on their cars... and the little old lady in her punto ditto...
Posted by
TheTrough
July 01, 2010 at 12:02
road fund taxation is unfair, innapropriate and an archaic system to administer.
My car is taxed at over £200 per year as it supposedly inefficient, whilst my wifes is taxed at £135 being newer. However my car does 25% more MPG.
Manufacturers catering for numerous different EU government tax regimes have their costs increased and which we as consumers end up paying. In any event buying a new car is a significant environmental impact that I do not wish to create.
All of which is irrelevant when comparing number of miles driven and where they are driven. EU wide tax added to fuel at common levels would raise revenues in proportion to use and generally in the area/country in which the fuel is actually used and thus suffering the environmental impact.
New cars should be taxed according the imact of their manufacture and materials used. Existing cars should be taxed only according to the impact of keeping/parking the car.
My car is taxed at over £200 per year as it supposedly inefficient, whilst my wifes is taxed at £135 being newer. However my car does 25% more MPG.
Manufacturers catering for numerous different EU government tax regimes have their costs increased and which we as consumers end up paying. In any event buying a new car is a significant environmental impact that I do not wish to create.
All of which is irrelevant when comparing number of miles driven and where they are driven. EU wide tax added to fuel at common levels would raise revenues in proportion to use and generally in the area/country in which the fuel is actually used and thus suffering the environmental impact.
New cars should be taxed according the imact of their manufacture and materials used. Existing cars should be taxed only according to the impact of keeping/parking the car.
Posted by
Cookie
July 01, 2010 at 12:07
I think that the pros far outweigh the cons in this debate. On the plus side, we ensure that it is practically impossible to dodge the tax as many now do and we substantially reduce the paperwork involved in maintaining the current system. This will have the effect of reducing the average tax being paid by road users as they no longer need to support the tax dodgers and administrators.
On the downside is the effect it will have on the transportation of goods but I'm sure that the powers that can be can come up with exclusions or lower rates for haulage vehicles.
Over the years, numerous things have been hit by multiple taxes so that the government doesn't have to admit to a tax increase in a certain area but rather introduces another tax with another layer of administration to handle it. This is a perfect case where this can be simplified, making the system easier to understand, less liable to abuse and cheaper to administer.
On the downside is the effect it will have on the transportation of goods but I'm sure that the powers that can be can come up with exclusions or lower rates for haulage vehicles.
Over the years, numerous things have been hit by multiple taxes so that the government doesn't have to admit to a tax increase in a certain area but rather introduces another tax with another layer of administration to handle it. This is a perfect case where this can be simplified, making the system easier to understand, less liable to abuse and cheaper to administer.
Posted by
Richardrj
July 01, 2010 at 12:19
Quite possibly the most sensible and cost effective way of a fairer system of paying for the use of roads. Foreign vehicles would also be paying to use our roads as well... which they should.
Posted by
jamesone
July 01, 2010 at 12:28
(1) The tax breaks for "less polluting" cars doesn't reflect the pollution they create. A old car which does few miles per gallon but is only driven short distances, may end up creating less pollution than a new efficient one which is driven further.
(2) The tax disc should be replaced with an insurance disc with the name of the insurer and drivers. The DVLA should provide insurers with MOT and driving license information - including new points on licenses and MOT expiry / renewals. That way uninsured drivers would be easier to catch and less police time would be spent getting people to produce insurance documents at police stations.
(2) The tax disc should be replaced with an insurance disc with the name of the insurer and drivers. The DVLA should provide insurers with MOT and driving license information - including new points on licenses and MOT expiry / renewals. That way uninsured drivers would be easier to catch and less police time would be spent getting people to produce insurance documents at police stations.
Posted by
Mlubbock
July 01, 2010 at 12:29
I agree entirely with this thread, in fact I would go a step further & include TP insurance thus eliminating untaxed & uninsured veihcles at a stroke. it would also rid us of the ridiculous SORN system where myself (a classic bike owner) & my son (a serving soldier in Afgahn.) were both fined for not re sorning despite not recieving reminders-no appeal possible.
Posted by
JamesNason
July 01, 2010 at 13:24
Entirely agree - it's a no brainer to get rid of the car and motorcycle tax disc. I dread to think how many man/woman hours that have been wasted by people waiting in queues at the Post Office for their discs. Even worse when you heed a £15 tax disc for a 50cc moped. Would much rather pay a bit more for petrol and save the hours of bureacracy.
Posted by
twenty10
July 01, 2010 at 13:30
I agree with this. I know of people who don't tax their cars, and this way no one could escape paying it. It also means that those who use the roads the most are contributing the most, and maybe even reduce their usage. It will also encourage the use of cleaner technologies and more fuel efficient vehicles.
Posted by
Stephenjoe
July 01, 2010 at 13:35
An excellent idea.I agree with the points raised by others."The more you drive,the more you pay."
For the dissabled drivers have a rebate system.
For the dissabled drivers have a rebate system.
Posted by
joycem
July 01, 2010 at 13:53
It's no brainer - get rid of this tax and stick it on fuel. Just in the view of balance, what exactly is the positive case for keeping Road Fund License?
I suspect the only people who would really want to keep it are the administrators who salaries it pays.
I suspect the only people who would really want to keep it are the administrators who salaries it pays.
Posted by
Cyril
July 01, 2010 at 14:00
I would also add that foreign-registered vehicles on our roads don't pay RFL so removing this tax and putting it on fuel would make imports more realistically priced and encourage supermarkets and shops to source local produce - which would enable local producers to produce more and employ more local people. Such a basic idea would have a huge and beneficial knock-on effect to the British economy.
Posted by
Vespula
July 01, 2010 at 14:19
I do hope this is taken up as it would catch license dodgers. It is far more sensible to Tax this way. My car does less than 1500 miles a year and I pay mightily for the privilege. I have a large vehicle and use it for a dozen or so trips a year. The rest of the time I use public transport. Yet there are smaller cars that are constantly on the road producing vastly more pollution than I do over the course of the year. So it is the case of make the polluter pay those that produce the most emissions pay the most. One thing we will most likely see is smaller more efficient cars as people realise that it is in their best interest to pay less for their transport and this tax proposal is the only viable option at the moment.
Posted by
herbing
July 01, 2010 at 14:55
Ok.... fantasic idea in principle.... makes loads of sense
except....
what about about people in rural communities miles from anywhwere with poor public transport, who are forced to rely on their cars...
not entirely fair on them.
Maybe if some of the
except....
what about about people in rural communities miles from anywhwere with poor public transport, who are forced to rely on their cars...
not entirely fair on them.
Maybe if some of the
Posted by
DragonflyUK
July 01, 2010 at 15:16
I agree that this would cost some people more per year, but the main benefit would be, that everyone would then have to pay it if they're using the roads, and you can't decide that you quite fancy a drive, but don;t want to put any fuel in the car.
For someone like myself it would be a fantastic thing if it happened, I have "show" vehicles that are used for maybe 20 days in any given year, spread throughout the summer 'car show' season. It seems very unfair that I am paying £120+ for 6 months RFL just to use a vehicle for a few days a year.
If it could be administered online, I'd like to see a new taxation class introduced, akin to PLG but on a daily basis. A higher cost, maybe £5 per day, but then you just pay to tax your car on the days that you use it, with no charge for the days that you aren't.
For someone like myself it would be a fantastic thing if it happened, I have "show" vehicles that are used for maybe 20 days in any given year, spread throughout the summer 'car show' season. It seems very unfair that I am paying £120+ for 6 months RFL just to use a vehicle for a few days a year.
If it could be administered online, I'd like to see a new taxation class introduced, akin to PLG but on a daily basis. A higher cost, maybe £5 per day, but then you just pay to tax your car on the days that you use it, with no charge for the days that you aren't.
Posted by
DougS
July 01, 2010 at 15:20
Completely agree.
Road users would then pay for their road usage. Some people are confusing 'pollution' with CO2 emissions, which is airborne plant food, but used by the government to tax us.
Even looking at it like that; more miles is more 'pollution' so you would pay more.
If your car has 120g/km CO2 emissions and you do 12000 miles/year you're emitting more CO2 than somebody with 240g/km CO2 emissions that does 5000 miles/year, so you should pay more for the privilege.
Road users would then pay for their road usage. Some people are confusing 'pollution' with CO2 emissions, which is airborne plant food, but used by the government to tax us.
Even looking at it like that; more miles is more 'pollution' so you would pay more.
If your car has 120g/km CO2 emissions and you do 12000 miles/year you're emitting more CO2 than somebody with 240g/km CO2 emissions that does 5000 miles/year, so you should pay more for the privilege.
Posted by
Blueglasgow
July 01, 2010 at 15:30
Great idea at long last common sense is starting to prevail the more you motor the more you pay. No system will ever suit everybody but its about finding the fairest system which will reduce cost of running the system.
I would also add its about time the money the motorist spends on motoring be spent more evenly on the motorists,road network not just another income to support other projects/budgets.
I would also add its about time the money the motorist spends on motoring be spent more evenly on the motorists,road network not just another income to support other projects/budgets.
Posted by
andyc
July 01, 2010 at 15:49
Excellent idea.
I would add one rider. Duty should be charged on anything over 100 miles worth of fuel in your tank as you arrive in the UK. This would prevent people filling up in Calais, driving around the UK for a while and then leaving again without ever contributing to maintaining the roads. It would also reduce the whinging from the UK haulage lobby.
I would add one rider. Duty should be charged on anything over 100 miles worth of fuel in your tank as you arrive in the UK. This would prevent people filling up in Calais, driving around the UK for a while and then leaving again without ever contributing to maintaining the roads. It would also reduce the whinging from the UK haulage lobby.
Posted by
richardjackson99
July 01, 2010 at 16:15
Car tax (Road Fund Licence) was introduced to raise revenue to cover the cost of roads, it has been amended to provide a way of encouraging lower emissions. However it effectively penalises low use of a vehicle, because, before it turns a wheel, you have paid to tax and insure it - for a low use vehicle this can be 75% of the total annual cost, so effectively there is the incentive to use it more.
Tax on fuel penalises the less efficient and more polluting vehicles, because they use more fuel - which is surely what we want. It also penalises the "Boy Racer" who drives in a less economical way. Most of all, it raises more revenue from those who drive farthest - again, a positive. Isn't there a slogan "The polluter pays"? This supports that mantra.
Tax on fuel penalises the less efficient and more polluting vehicles, because they use more fuel - which is surely what we want. It also penalises the "Boy Racer" who drives in a less economical way. Most of all, it raises more revenue from those who drive farthest - again, a positive. Isn't there a slogan "The polluter pays"? This supports that mantra.
Posted by
homertrix
July 01, 2010 at 16:28
[quote]Your figures are wrong. An efficient, low polluting car doesn't have £160 tax. My own car (120g/km CO2) cost £35 to tax this year, and is £30 next year. Therefore, replacing car tax and putting up fuel taxes would cost me (and many others) MORE money for a low polluting, high efficiency car.[/quote]
A more efficient car would be using less fuel and therefore be paying less fuel duty. It also reduces the spend required to administer the road tax scheme.
A more efficient car would be using less fuel and therefore be paying less fuel duty. It also reduces the spend required to administer the road tax scheme.
Posted by
straightwicket
July 01, 2010 at 17:15
A damned good idea that’s been far too long ignored by regressive governments anxious to increase public sector employment.
The benefits are considerable:
For the government: Any vehicle usage automatically guarantees a contribution to the Road Fund. Insurance verification is already available through a national system. High mileage users and owners of high consumption vehicles would finally pay for their excesses. New MOT’s are already notified to Swansea electronically every time one is issued. SORN registration becomes superfluous. Hundreds of DVLA jobs become unnecessary overnight and a major reduction of expenditure in the Ministry is available immediately.
For the Motorist: Finding the cash to pay for the annual major service, pre-MOT restorations, the MOT itself and a Tax Disc renewal all at the same time is now becoming increasingly difficult for many motorists. Being able to pay the tax on a pay-as-you-go basis through a small increase on fuel would really help.
The potential drawbacks are: A first class idea – but probably only to private motorists. I foresee unwarranted price increases on private sector goods and services when it is applied to company cars, white van man, light commercials, agricultural vehicles - and I’m sure the Road Haulage Association will have several objections (despite no longer having to pay exorbitant licence fees up front).
The benefits are considerable:
For the government: Any vehicle usage automatically guarantees a contribution to the Road Fund. Insurance verification is already available through a national system. High mileage users and owners of high consumption vehicles would finally pay for their excesses. New MOT’s are already notified to Swansea electronically every time one is issued. SORN registration becomes superfluous. Hundreds of DVLA jobs become unnecessary overnight and a major reduction of expenditure in the Ministry is available immediately.
For the Motorist: Finding the cash to pay for the annual major service, pre-MOT restorations, the MOT itself and a Tax Disc renewal all at the same time is now becoming increasingly difficult for many motorists. Being able to pay the tax on a pay-as-you-go basis through a small increase on fuel would really help.
The potential drawbacks are: A first class idea – but probably only to private motorists. I foresee unwarranted price increases on private sector goods and services when it is applied to company cars, white van man, light commercials, agricultural vehicles - and I’m sure the Road Haulage Association will have several objections (despite no longer having to pay exorbitant licence fees up front).
Posted by
Rex
July 01, 2010 at 17:19
High mileage road users pay more whilst low users pay less
Posted by
jltowen
July 01, 2010 at 17:57
Excellent idea - it is the ultimate user choice and green tax combined and would save a fortune in administration
we would be free to choose the vehicle we wanted to use and our choice would be valued/penalised precisely according use of fuel/emissions pollutants
If you want a big thirsty car as a hobby and joy you would only be (quite rightly) penalised for when you use / pollute - the penalty relates to actaul use not ownership which is fair and without political or social slant.
Yes agree with earlier comment - tax disc should be replaced with insurance disc
we would be free to choose the vehicle we wanted to use and our choice would be valued/penalised precisely according use of fuel/emissions pollutants
If you want a big thirsty car as a hobby and joy you would only be (quite rightly) penalised for when you use / pollute - the penalty relates to actaul use not ownership which is fair and without political or social slant.
Yes agree with earlier comment - tax disc should be replaced with insurance disc
Posted by
nm51ml
July 01, 2010 at 18:31
Some interesting stuff here. I agree with many of the benefits but I feel there may be some negatives in certain cases:
1) This massively benefits people who own more than one car. Yes one of the vehicles may be super efficient but an extra car, regardless of how little it is used, uses resources, creates emissions during manufacturing and takes up space. So all those who wish to force people to drive "more efficient" cars, I hope you only have the one.
2) Yes absolutely it would (hopefully) force people to be frugal, drive cheap cars and not make unnecessary journeys. Except those who have no choice but to continue using the vehicle they've got (Did you know a new car costs money? What about the busses - that extra fuel cost will get passed on to the passenger and public transport is no where near cheap enough as it is. Other "gas guzzlers" include fire trucks, ambulances, riot vans, my local farm's delivery van that provides fresh veg at a reasonable price.) I have one vehicle. It's 30 years old and it is not as efficient as new cars. However the economy is good if I don't drive like a tosser (Anyone got any figures on how the UK's emissions would reduce if people learnt to drive.)
3) Please don't confuse emissions/pollution/CO2/fuel efficiency. These are not the same things! Yes they are related but not in any linear way. It's complicated! All of those super efficient "eco" cars that are set to replace perfectly good old cars are now consumable. The car companies and governments want to make and sell as many new cars as possible. Making new stuff and getting rid of old stuff uses resources. It's wasteful and it is done to benefit the economy not to save our planet. Yes, as a rule of thumb fuel efficient cars pollute less that inefficient ones but it depends on mileage, speed, driving style. Plus you need to offset it against the environmental cost of buying a new car every few years.
I pay £205 tax on my car. A car I look after and love. I put higher octane (more expensive) fuel in it because it used to run on leaded and it grumbles on regular petrol. The premium fuel produces less emissions and gives me more mpg. I pay enough. I try to be thrifty.
To everyone that is paying £35 tax - congratulations you may have saved the global economy by consuming but you have done sweet fa to help our pale blue dot. Feel smug, you deserve it.
1) This massively benefits people who own more than one car. Yes one of the vehicles may be super efficient but an extra car, regardless of how little it is used, uses resources, creates emissions during manufacturing and takes up space. So all those who wish to force people to drive "more efficient" cars, I hope you only have the one.
2) Yes absolutely it would (hopefully) force people to be frugal, drive cheap cars and not make unnecessary journeys. Except those who have no choice but to continue using the vehicle they've got (Did you know a new car costs money? What about the busses - that extra fuel cost will get passed on to the passenger and public transport is no where near cheap enough as it is. Other "gas guzzlers" include fire trucks, ambulances, riot vans, my local farm's delivery van that provides fresh veg at a reasonable price.) I have one vehicle. It's 30 years old and it is not as efficient as new cars. However the economy is good if I don't drive like a tosser (Anyone got any figures on how the UK's emissions would reduce if people learnt to drive.)
3) Please don't confuse emissions/pollution/CO2/fuel efficiency. These are not the same things! Yes they are related but not in any linear way. It's complicated! All of those super efficient "eco" cars that are set to replace perfectly good old cars are now consumable. The car companies and governments want to make and sell as many new cars as possible. Making new stuff and getting rid of old stuff uses resources. It's wasteful and it is done to benefit the economy not to save our planet. Yes, as a rule of thumb fuel efficient cars pollute less that inefficient ones but it depends on mileage, speed, driving style. Plus you need to offset it against the environmental cost of buying a new car every few years.
I pay £205 tax on my car. A car I look after and love. I put higher octane (more expensive) fuel in it because it used to run on leaded and it grumbles on regular petrol. The premium fuel produces less emissions and gives me more mpg. I pay enough. I try to be thrifty.
To everyone that is paying £35 tax - congratulations you may have saved the global economy by consuming but you have done sweet fa to help our pale blue dot. Feel smug, you deserve it.
Posted by
OLDCHICKEN
July 01, 2010 at 19:11
Totally agree.Car tax is unfair and obsolete and does not make economic sense when collecting tax.
I Make a couple of additional points,
1. There would be no need to display an insurance disk on a car as police ANPR systems can tell immediately if a vehicle has current insurance or not as well as MOT any outstanding fines and the owners name and address. Most of us drive past ANPR's every day without noticing.
2.Another advantage of putting the tax on fuel is that foreign visitors would contribute as well. After all if we go to France do we not have to pay the road tolls !
I Make a couple of additional points,
1. There would be no need to display an insurance disk on a car as police ANPR systems can tell immediately if a vehicle has current insurance or not as well as MOT any outstanding fines and the owners name and address. Most of us drive past ANPR's every day without noticing.
2.Another advantage of putting the tax on fuel is that foreign visitors would contribute as well. After all if we go to France do we not have to pay the road tolls !
Posted by
law
July 01, 2010 at 20:14
Common sense. No one can avoid it if you don't have to have it. No one can avoid the tax if you need fuel. And if insurance details are needed to be displayed on the windscreen, there's less need for all those expensive VOSA vans and manpower.
Posted by
DaveAngel
July 01, 2010 at 20:56
The tax disk is a method for insuring the car is both insured and MOT'd. Hence, combined with SORN its a good measure.
Posted by
ScottjGregory
July 01, 2010 at 20:57
Yes rid us of the road tax.
I'll try to keep my comments focused and brief.
As mentioned by others the road tax is nothing short of blantant taxation. Those whose chose to and are priveldge are right royally nailed by tax if they drive a car with a large engine irrespective of usage or "road damage".
The princle of road tax is supposed to be that for upkeep of the road. So tell me how a BMW 3litre would damage the road any more than its little brother of 1.8ltr and yet the price diffence in tax is immence.
Lets not mention those poor souls who have worked hard for a fun car they keep in the garage for sunny sundays! Those cars probably see the light of day 20 times a year and yet will have to pay full tax.
It is a system thats needs complete fair reform. We pay enough on petrol as it is.
I also dont want to hear any rubbish about gas guzzlers should pay more. Its your right to have a big engined car, its up to the government to champion the fuel technology we put in them.
We have the technology, we have the resource its just greed and money that means we use dirty fossil fuels.
Posted by
Smferino
July 01, 2010 at 21:08
This is so feasible it's untrue!!
No need to raise the fuel tax though, the saving smade by abolishing the printing process alone would surely raise massive revenue! The concept of a paper disc is severely outdated and totally unnecessary, it would also mean a "fairer" way of balancing the ecological cost of heavy road users, and drivers of "gas guzzlers" against those who take their carbon footprint seriously and act accordingly.
Pay as you go is definitely the way forward!
No need to raise the fuel tax though, the saving smade by abolishing the printing process alone would surely raise massive revenue! The concept of a paper disc is severely outdated and totally unnecessary, it would also mean a "fairer" way of balancing the ecological cost of heavy road users, and drivers of "gas guzzlers" against those who take their carbon footprint seriously and act accordingly.
Pay as you go is definitely the way forward!
Posted by
Tscott
July 01, 2010 at 21:44
I have to agree with this idea, i bought a more economical performance hatch instead of keeping my old 1995 performance 2.0 hatch, one of the reasons being it was more economical on petrol the other was the tax banding, but in two years the tax has risen by £15 for 6 months, in that two years my car has covered around 2,500 miles as i use my partners older car also, but even though my car has only covered a low mileage i am still paying as much tax as someone who does 12,000 miles per year or more, so i say put a small amount extra on fuel and do away with the road fund licence, then people who drive more pay more.
Posted by
TheAngelKeeper
July 01, 2010 at 22:16
I've read enough and don't have anything to add that someone else has already commented on so
everybody in favour say yes
everybody against say no
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
everybody in favour say yes
everybody against say no
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Posted by
nm51ml
July 01, 2010 at 22:47
Why not just tax mileage? Most people have sat nav - have a scheme where you can opt out of road tax and pay per mile. free software download for your tomtom or provide a cheap sealed gps unit. If it doesn't pan out it is totally reversible.
Posted by
ledwels
July 02, 2010 at 00:27
Whilst I agree that the RFL is not a sensible tax it does allow Police to visually identify cars that should not be on the road, No RFL could also mean no MOT or insurance. I suggest that we should have a disc issued by a MOT testing centre that should be displayed in the same way as the RFL. I think that should add back the controls that removing the RFL would take away without increasing costs to the driver.
Charging per mile does not address the green issue whereas increasing the petrol/Diesel costs does and it should encourage manufacturers to further develop leaner fuel burning cars.
Charging per mile does not address the green issue whereas increasing the petrol/Diesel costs does and it should encourage manufacturers to further develop leaner fuel burning cars.
Posted by
strathdon
July 02, 2010 at 06:44
This argument is overwhelming.
It addresses two things at once - it reduces regulation and it reduces the cost of tax administration.
The government must act.
It addresses two things at once - it reduces regulation and it reduces the cost of tax administration.
The government must act.
Posted by
chestnut
July 02, 2010 at 07:43
Great idea, and it would be easy to make insurance companies send though insurance discs for everyone to display.
Posted by
jkeswick
July 02, 2010 at 08:39
This idea works for me. I have two cars, one modern fiesta that I drive to work etc doing about 15000 miles a year and pay £150 odd pounds for road tax. I then have a classic mini with an insurance policy with a milage limit of 1500 miles. I still have to pay £140 tax for that even though it sits in my garage and hardly ever gets to see the road I am paying for. Putting road tax on fuel would make the system fair, cheaper and unavoidable.
Posted by
robweal
July 02, 2010 at 09:40
A proper green way of doing it, you pay more for the fuel you burn and as a bonus, get rid of the over-complex system and the wages of a bunch of overpaid civil servants
Posted by
rpb
July 02, 2010 at 09:54
Yes and no. We already have a lot of tax on fuel, which costs heavy drivers more. However, with this proposal you can't tax more-polluting cars more than less-polluting ones, whereas with the tax disc you could base it on emissions, particulates, etc. (admittedly only based on make/model/age not the actual car in question).
Posted by
gforsyth
July 02, 2010 at 10:03
I like this idea, but the point of the tax disc is that you can't get one without an MOT certificate. The MOT ensures the cars on our roads should meet a minimum standard which improves the safety of everyone.
That said, the disc can be replaced by a MOT disc at no extra cost only receivable in the same way.
That said, the disc can be replaced by a MOT disc at no extra cost only receivable in the same way.
Posted by
gjball
July 02, 2010 at 10:54
This is all very well but will it make thingsd more complicated with the added work neccesary to compensate HGV's.
After all they get 10mpg and drive anywhere up to 90,000 miles pa.
That could see them paying £3000 or more per year and as a result the costs of our goods and services will increase
After all they get 10mpg and drive anywhere up to 90,000 miles pa.
That could see them paying £3000 or more per year and as a result the costs of our goods and services will increase
Posted by
CarlPierce
July 02, 2010 at 10:57
An excellent idea. Of course you would need to make changes for things like MOT enforcement (MOT disk ?) and ensure that some sectors of the economy - like road freight weren't unfairly hit.
Posted by
JohnRG
July 02, 2010 at 11:10
I've thought this for many years now, excellent idea.
Posted by
Iank
July 02, 2010 at 11:10
This was always a no-brainer. The disc could be supplied by the insurance company or the MOT centre, and be easily machine readable.
Posted by
matthewcgirling
July 02, 2010 at 11:15
Could it lead to people owning a car, parking it on the road but never ever driving it? This may not be a good thing. I suppose this problem would still be discouraged by the cost of an MOT and yearly insurance.
Posted by
igat
July 02, 2010 at 11:18
The only fair tax is a tax on fuel. However I would point out that seeing as about 80% of the price of fuel is tax there is already a high enough tax on fuel already. There are plenty of other revenue earners that the government could exploit that are as yet untapped.
Posted by
TabbN
July 02, 2010 at 11:59
100% behind this.
How Victorian is queuing at the Post Office for a round bit of paper to stick in the cars windscren?
How Victorian is queuing at the Post Office for a round bit of paper to stick in the cars windscren?
Posted by
poulan
July 02, 2010 at 13:23
Also foreign vehicles that refuel in the UK contribute to our roads!
Posted by
hilarymillswilliams
July 02, 2010 at 13:39
Completely agree. It makes it impossible to evade the charge and ensures that foreign drivers using our roads also make a contribution. Cannot understand why no Government has implemented this. Would save loads of cost at DVLA and Police time catching and prosecuting those who avoid paying car tax.
Posted by
cwilliams
July 02, 2010 at 14:29
This is an excellent idea, but surely there is too much duty on fuel already. The duty we currently pay needs to be reduced.
Posted by
riddy
July 02, 2010 at 15:05
The car tax is actually stealth taxation of the motorist, The roads are no better maintained. A levy on the fuel would be more effective in generating income for road projects and repairs. The large oil companies that produce the fuel are making millions in profits while the motorist pay for it. The oil companies are running free with the pricing of the fuel, Shell published £700,000,000 profit. so why not cap the price of fuel, surely the companies will reduce the price. Then a fair and just system of revenue collection for road repair and such can be implemented. The more you use the private car the more you use the road, the more you pay. Give concessions to business and haulage firms in the form of mileage allowance and tax returns. A much fairer system.
Posted by
avoter
July 02, 2010 at 15:53
It would be useful to trap those who do not pay for insurance either by having a third party insurance bundled with the cost of fuel.
Many people have been disadvantaged by being in an accident with uninsured drivers.
Many people have been disadvantaged by being in an accident with uninsured drivers.
Posted by
RJNewtonHowes
July 02, 2010 at 16:08
Disappointingly my rather longer argument in favour of this idea was moderated off as a duplicate:
Abolish the Tax Disc and use a fairer, greener, less beauracratic way of raising money which also makes foreign users of our roads pay their fair share.
The original justification for these was to raise money for the upkeep of roads, and also provide a check that the road user carried a valid MOT certificate and Insurance. Times have moved on and there are greener, fairer, and less bureaucratic ways of paying for the upkeep of roads. In any case, the road fund has gone into general Treasury funds for many years now, and is not ring-fenced.
With modern databases, records already exist about MOTs and Insured vehicles. The argument that proof of these needs to be displayed on a car does not carry weight any more. In any case the MOT certificate and Insurance certificate could always be condensed and displayed as an alternative, in the windscreen.
The financial and green arguments are compelling:
Abolishing the road fund and instead collecting the revenue through an increase in fuel duty would have a direct green incentive. Most significantly though, it would also ensure that foreign vehicles on our roads, including lorries and foreign tourists make a bigger contribution.
It would also be fairer to pensioners who may use the car just once a week to do the weekly shopping.
There has been an argument in the past that it would penalise people in rural areas who have to travel long distances. Times have changed, and so has vehicle technology. Long rural journeys in high gear on fast roads are far more fuel economic than short journeys in town, in low gear, especially while moving in slow traffic. The rural argument no longer holds credence.
The green argument is also compelling because those who travel more miles will pay more in tax. The concept of polluter pays, and also those who pose the greatest wear and tear on our roads pays are supported by transferring the tax on vehicle ownership to that of vehicle use. It is also a moot point that a tiered tax disc system does not act as a deterrent to those with large funds who want to buy gas-guzzling cars. Besides, the MOT contains an emissions test in any case.
There are also huge bureaucratic savings - the staff at DVLA could be deployed on far more useful and productive work than the issuing of tax discs. Also the cost of printing, sending, reminding people would all be saved, as would the huge cost of enforcement.
It's time to change this regressive and unfair tax on ownership of vehicles which many people on low incomes have to pay for undertaking even rare and short journeys and instead transfer the cost on to those who pollute the most, travel the most, and above all foreign traffic which is being subsidised by UK tax payers.
Abolish the Tax Disc and use a fairer, greener, less beauracratic way of raising money which also makes foreign users of our roads pay their fair share.
The original justification for these was to raise money for the upkeep of roads, and also provide a check that the road user carried a valid MOT certificate and Insurance. Times have moved on and there are greener, fairer, and less bureaucratic ways of paying for the upkeep of roads. In any case, the road fund has gone into general Treasury funds for many years now, and is not ring-fenced.
With modern databases, records already exist about MOTs and Insured vehicles. The argument that proof of these needs to be displayed on a car does not carry weight any more. In any case the MOT certificate and Insurance certificate could always be condensed and displayed as an alternative, in the windscreen.
The financial and green arguments are compelling:
Abolishing the road fund and instead collecting the revenue through an increase in fuel duty would have a direct green incentive. Most significantly though, it would also ensure that foreign vehicles on our roads, including lorries and foreign tourists make a bigger contribution.
It would also be fairer to pensioners who may use the car just once a week to do the weekly shopping.
There has been an argument in the past that it would penalise people in rural areas who have to travel long distances. Times have changed, and so has vehicle technology. Long rural journeys in high gear on fast roads are far more fuel economic than short journeys in town, in low gear, especially while moving in slow traffic. The rural argument no longer holds credence.
The green argument is also compelling because those who travel more miles will pay more in tax. The concept of polluter pays, and also those who pose the greatest wear and tear on our roads pays are supported by transferring the tax on vehicle ownership to that of vehicle use. It is also a moot point that a tiered tax disc system does not act as a deterrent to those with large funds who want to buy gas-guzzling cars. Besides, the MOT contains an emissions test in any case.
There are also huge bureaucratic savings - the staff at DVLA could be deployed on far more useful and productive work than the issuing of tax discs. Also the cost of printing, sending, reminding people would all be saved, as would the huge cost of enforcement.
It's time to change this regressive and unfair tax on ownership of vehicles which many people on low incomes have to pay for undertaking even rare and short journeys and instead transfer the cost on to those who pollute the most, travel the most, and above all foreign traffic which is being subsidised by UK tax payers.
Posted by
albyefield
July 02, 2010 at 17:44
I completely agree with the idea of scrapping VED disc and replacing it with an increase in fuel duty rated at 10p/litre could replace this unfair tax. This would generate £150 PA covering 12,000 miles at 35MPG. MOT & Insurance to include windscreen discs. Number plate recognition cameras can already spot untaxed, uninsured and those with no MOT all details of which are on the DVLA database. The windscreen discs would alsoenable visual checking by Traffic wardens Etc.
HOWEVER I believe that this should apply to the private motorist only. Commercial and public service vehicles which cover massive mileages should not pay the extra as this would add to the cost of everything in the shops and public transport. The fuel stations already act as tax collectors and a "pass" could be used to get the fuel price reduction. The “pass” referred to could also apply to those exempt from VED at present such as disabled drivers. Those owners of “Historic vehicles who at present do not pay VED due to their presumed low mileage could now pay the new duty on fuel.
The idea of Third party insurance being included in fuel duty is not practical due to the wildly varying cost of insurance depending on age/history of the driver.
There would be a considerable saving in administration costs due to VED no longer having to be collected from the private motorist.
HOWEVER I believe that this should apply to the private motorist only. Commercial and public service vehicles which cover massive mileages should not pay the extra as this would add to the cost of everything in the shops and public transport. The fuel stations already act as tax collectors and a "pass" could be used to get the fuel price reduction. The “pass” referred to could also apply to those exempt from VED at present such as disabled drivers. Those owners of “Historic vehicles who at present do not pay VED due to their presumed low mileage could now pay the new duty on fuel.
The idea of Third party insurance being included in fuel duty is not practical due to the wildly varying cost of insurance depending on age/history of the driver.
There would be a considerable saving in administration costs due to VED no longer having to be collected from the private motorist.
Posted by
Izak
July 02, 2010 at 17:56
The tax system of charging based on CO2 emissions really needs revising and I totally agree with the idea of having it added to the cost of fuel, it seems the most sensible way.
I am partly disabled (but cannot cannot claim any road tax rebate) and have no choice but to drive a car with automatic transmission. I found a suitable car recently but was annoyed to discover I would have to pay around £30 more for road tax than if I went for the manual transmission model. On another car I looked at out of interest, the manual model was road tax Band K (£245), however the automatic model just fell into Band L (£425) meaning that if I went for such a car, I would have pay almost £200 more just because of my disability.
I am partly disabled (but cannot cannot claim any road tax rebate) and have no choice but to drive a car with automatic transmission. I found a suitable car recently but was annoyed to discover I would have to pay around £30 more for road tax than if I went for the manual transmission model. On another car I looked at out of interest, the manual model was road tax Band K (£245), however the automatic model just fell into Band L (£425) meaning that if I went for such a car, I would have pay almost £200 more just because of my disability.
Posted by
MrWiggles
July 02, 2010 at 18:00
Good idea, however there should be special dispensation given to the disabled. Buses, trains and the Underground are not always accessible and this, combined with obviously not being able to walk or cycle, means they have no choice but to drive more.
Posted by
Tembo11
July 02, 2010 at 18:25
Add third party insurance to the cost of fuel as well you then save on
Administration of both systems
Cost of postage for certificates and tax discs and reminders
Costs of secure printing tax discs
Costs of administration for government contracts for supply of tax discs
costs of checking / enforcing for non compliance with both
Court cost for dealing with non compliance
You could also add in the cost of an annual MOT as well and make it a stipulation that to make any insurance claim the vehicle had to have a current MOT and to have been registered for at least 3 months prior or shown that it was newly acquired
Administration of both systems
Cost of postage for certificates and tax discs and reminders
Costs of secure printing tax discs
Costs of administration for government contracts for supply of tax discs
costs of checking / enforcing for non compliance with both
Court cost for dealing with non compliance
You could also add in the cost of an annual MOT as well and make it a stipulation that to make any insurance claim the vehicle had to have a current MOT and to have been registered for at least 3 months prior or shown that it was newly acquired
Posted by
maggieg
July 02, 2010 at 19:30
A lot of good suggestions there Tembo11! Just look at the red tape that could be cut at a stroke here. Getting rid of car tax just seems like a no-brainer.
Posted by
dcollier
July 02, 2010 at 19:49
Fantastic idea, needs careful calculation to ensure it's revenue neutral though. Also would save a few million by reducing the number of staff at the DVLA processing SORNs and tax disc requests.
Posted by
shelley
July 02, 2010 at 19:57
I agree with this
Posted by
Kyon
July 02, 2010 at 19:59
Great idea, apart from adding insurance to the cost, as this would effectively have the careful driver subsidising the boy racers.
With the massive efficiency savings to be made from no longer having to collect and process VED and SORNs, the increase on fuel could be substantially lower than 10p/litre.
With the massive efficiency savings to be made from no longer having to collect and process VED and SORNs, the increase on fuel could be substantially lower than 10p/litre.
Posted by
JamesN
July 02, 2010 at 20:09
So people who live in rural areas, and have to travel further to work have to pay more than the person who can afford to live in a city?
I do not agree with this. The current system works fine. If anything, they should reduce the road tax and make money from congestion charges in more cities, or toll roads from the most heavily used roads.
I do not agree with this. The current system works fine. If anything, they should reduce the road tax and make money from congestion charges in more cities, or toll roads from the most heavily used roads.
Posted by
martinemj
July 02, 2010 at 20:35
great idea but...
ime sure a lot of the foreign hgv s have twin tanks and hold large amounts of fuel
they fill up on the continent ,drive here(not paying anything) and then go home with a large proportion not ever visiting a uk garage
ime not a lorry driver but thats the way i understand it
i think these hgv s should have a special disc valid for a period of time (they do this in austria,hungry)
ime sure a lot of the foreign hgv s have twin tanks and hold large amounts of fuel
they fill up on the continent ,drive here(not paying anything) and then go home with a large proportion not ever visiting a uk garage
ime not a lorry driver but thats the way i understand it
i think these hgv s should have a special disc valid for a period of time (they do this in austria,hungry)
Posted by
bobrayner
July 02, 2010 at 21:54
Road tax is inefficient, redundant, and regressive.
Posted by
morleyr
July 02, 2010 at 22:06
agree tax discs are unfairly priced also with a 1.8 litre petrol costing the same as a 1.3litre turbo diesel but i dont think putting it on fuel is the way forward what should be done is a pay as you go method where you fill in your annual mileage and pay based around that example say you do 5000 miles a year £50
6000 miles - £60 etc
much fairer method rather than £210 for a car that probably only does around 2000 miles a year that is ridiculous
6000 miles - £60 etc
much fairer method rather than £210 for a car that probably only does around 2000 miles a year that is ridiculous
Posted by
classixuk
July 02, 2010 at 22:09
This is a brilliant idea! I hope Nick Clegg picks this up.
Posted by
Kyon
July 02, 2010 at 23:06
@morleyr: If the tax is put on the fuel, then it rewards those who drive less and/or drive a more fuel-efficient vehicle. If it's just a straight £x per mile then those drivers of efficient vehicles will be subsidising the drivers of gas-guzzlers.
Posted by
kevinsteinhardt
July 03, 2010 at 01:45
I don't see any problem with getting rid of VED and fuel duty, and replacing it with a sensible and logical pay-as-you-drive system; one pays x pence for every kilometre travelled.
Posted by
cosmiclandmine
July 03, 2010 at 02:18
About time we scrapped car tax which penalises car owners rather than road users. The Road Fund Licence has always been a Road Transport Lobby scam to ensure that private car owners subsidise commercial road users. The current system encourages car owners to use their car - since they've already paid the tax, rather than use public transport even on those occasions when it would be more convenient. The lost revenue should of course be collected from a rise in the tax on fuel. The more you use the road the more you pay - fair and simple really.
Posted by
john_willy55
July 03, 2010 at 07:59
Completely agree, car tax is another waste of taxpayers money on administration costs
Posted by
Faraway
July 03, 2010 at 12:38
if there is one change that needs to be implemented in motoring law its this one. It's green - it's pay as you go - it reduces government spending and its fair - the only problems are calculating what the increase in fuel should be and for the cashing in of unused road fund discs which would need to occur. I think if we knew it was going to come in on say april 2011 we could time the purchase of tax discs until then - i could also imagine a lot of people making their own bio diesel fuel to avoid the tax but that could be argued to green too. SORN and the cost of imposing it would no longer be necessary saving millions, go for it
Posted by
dave100
July 03, 2010 at 14:44
Absolutely. Fuel tax is a simple to collect, fair tax on usage/efficiency. Road tax is just a way of employing more civil servants. Insurance and MOT are checked by ANPR cameras on major roads and in patrol cars now.
Posted by
myopinioncounts
July 03, 2010 at 16:07
Excellent idea. This would also give the 'I pay road tax' brigade one less way to moan about cyclists!
Posted by
Parison
July 03, 2010 at 17:10
So what about those of us that drive in excess of 50,000 miles each year. I already pay £5K a year for the pleasure of a company car plus the tax on fuel as well. My car is my office it is not a perk, why should I pay through the nose for a vehicle that allows me to do my job
Posted by
LiSrt
July 03, 2010 at 19:32
An excellent idea - simpler and fairer than the current system.
Posted by
EmilyN
July 03, 2010 at 20:05
Great idea, much fairer
Posted by
pkdurling
July 03, 2010 at 20:38
How would this apply to electric cars?
Posted by
andyhofer
July 03, 2010 at 21:51
Brilliant idea, less admin, those who use their cars the most pay the most, foreign cars and lorries would pay as well. Tax on fuel is unavoidable, whereas the tax disc is. As for electric cars, they would pay no tax, seems fair.
Posted by
classixuk
July 04, 2010 at 04:40
If just one idea gets picked up from this entire website, I hope this one is it. It's a fantastic idea!
Posted by
globalman
July 04, 2010 at 08:51
totally agree but...................
TAX ALL NATURAL RESOURCES at source, at a level determined by the environmental impact it has on planet life and man.
TAX ALL NATURAL RESOURCES at source, at a level determined by the environmental impact it has on planet life and man.
Posted by
albyefield
July 04, 2010 at 11:49
Quote So what about those of us that drive in excess of 50,000 miles each year. I already pay £5K a year for the pleasure of a company car plus the tax on fuel as well. My car is my office it is not a perk, why should I pay through the nose for a vehicle that allows me to do my job unquote
This could be classed as commercial, paying a VED and having a "pass" (smart card" to buy the fuel without paying the extra fuel duty. I earlier said that it should only apply to the private motorist.
This could be classed as commercial, paying a VED and having a "pass" (smart card" to buy the fuel without paying the extra fuel duty. I earlier said that it should only apply to the private motorist.
Posted by
AngerOfTheNorth
July 04, 2010 at 20:42
I've said the same for YEARS. No one could then avoid tax and heavier users of our roads pay more towards their upkeep.
Simplifying taxes so that heavy users pay more heavily MUST be a central plank of the new government's strategy...
Simplifying taxes so that heavy users pay more heavily MUST be a central plank of the new government's strategy...
Posted by
NRBurns
July 04, 2010 at 22:30
I totally agree with replacing the current road taxation system with a fuel based taxation system. Yes I know that we need to get rid of old high emission cars, however, there must be a better way of doing this, and surely adding the tax onto fuel would be a better way>
Posted by
tomburns
July 04, 2010 at 23:48
I agree why should I pay road tax and others dont. If i drive my big car let me pay for my usage through my fuel. scrap sorn which is a pain in the ass if youve a couple of motor bikes or cars as a collector and only use them for rallies etc. just think of all the poor civil servants we wont need to pay for admin and enforcement.
Posted by
davehoulbrooke
July 05, 2010 at 03:21
This makes complete sense.
Posted by
rholland
July 05, 2010 at 13:24
Totally agree. I've been saying for years that they should do this.
Posted by
sprog
July 05, 2010 at 14:51
Road Tax was invented in the days of the man with the red flag and should have gone with him! It needs a hugely expensive and complex bureaucracy to collect it, yet we also have a (huge, expensive and complex) bureaucracy collecting fuel duty.
Get rid of one, or the other!
SORN is a complete joke, bureaucracy gone mad, and how can it possibly be cost-effective to send a reminder etc for £15 for a moped, or to administer and log all the zero-rated vehicles?
Get rid of one, or the other!
SORN is a complete joke, bureaucracy gone mad, and how can it possibly be cost-effective to send a reminder etc for £15 for a moped, or to administer and log all the zero-rated vehicles?
Posted by
Ulysses31
July 05, 2010 at 15:35
Agree with all the comments:
Fuel taxation to include road tax
Fuel taxation to include 3rd Party insurance
Insurance companies to claim amounts raised, from government, at the end of the fiscal year, and that they must show the deduction from all insurance forms.
I'd add, though, that fuel taxation must not be more than a given percentage of the actual cost of petrol/deisel. This stops it becoming an ever-growing panacea for Government.
Fuel taxation to include road tax
Fuel taxation to include 3rd Party insurance
Insurance companies to claim amounts raised, from government, at the end of the fiscal year, and that they must show the deduction from all insurance forms.
I'd add, though, that fuel taxation must not be more than a given percentage of the actual cost of petrol/deisel. This stops it becoming an ever-growing panacea for Government.
Posted by
raYdar
July 05, 2010 at 16:23
Lots of similar comments show that "the man in the street" can be inventive and progressive - one can only hope the government can follow suit!
Posted by
daninoman
July 05, 2010 at 17:33
Great idea! Do it now.
C02 output is not based on miles per gallon values its based on gallons of fuel burnt in the engine. Tax the fuel and you tax the gallons burnt!
That said fuel duty is being used to prop up other parts of the government and not being spent on the roads/transportation (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/[…]/). Why not use fuel duty to create a major contribution to this new green bank they are proposing? Then the fuel duty would have a greater impact on reducing CO2 if that is the objective of the fuel duty in the first place!
C02 output is not based on miles per gallon values its based on gallons of fuel burnt in the engine. Tax the fuel and you tax the gallons burnt!
That said fuel duty is being used to prop up other parts of the government and not being spent on the roads/transportation (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/[…]/). Why not use fuel duty to create a major contribution to this new green bank they are proposing? Then the fuel duty would have a greater impact on reducing CO2 if that is the objective of the fuel duty in the first place!
Posted by
DrGCT
July 05, 2010 at 17:37
a sensible suggestion that would catch all the foreign cars and lorries in this country too. Residents in rural areas should however be given relief somehow for their extra costs
Posted by
jdt79
July 05, 2010 at 19:50
i agree environmentally its milage and emissions you want to tax big cars doing high milage, if i buy a car and leave it on the drive 5 days out of 7 i should pay less it would help the economy lots and save admin
Posted by
amble
July 05, 2010 at 22:29
We actually do this in Jersey and it works all right - there is a temptation, of course, for the Government to keep increasing the price of fuel for other reasons, so eventually you forget what the tex element is, but generally it woeks OK.
Posted by
mojo
July 05, 2010 at 23:20
I am happy with the current system. My car only costs £30/year to tax - I chose an efficient (but still nippy and fun to drive) model instead of a tractor.
The problem with putting the tax on fuel is that there would then be no reliable way to make sure cars are insured and MOTed every year. The Automatic Numerplate Recognition system should be dismantled anyway, not used for yet one more thing.
The problem with putting the tax on fuel is that there would then be no reliable way to make sure cars are insured and MOTed every year. The Automatic Numerplate Recognition system should be dismantled anyway, not used for yet one more thing.
Posted by
sidjobling
July 06, 2010 at 13:32
Finally a good idea which i hope is listend too by our new government. What could be more simple.
Posted by
sidjobling
July 06, 2010 at 13:32
Finally a good idea which i hope is listend too by our new government. What could be more simple.
Posted by
SteveT
July 06, 2010 at 13:35
I've been an advocate of this for as long as I can remember. Governments have for years been complaining they lose millions of pounds by people avoiding paying RFL. They then spend even more money kitting out the police etc to catch those who haven't paid it. Last time I looked you can't avoid paying for fuel. As long as its a fair increase and not then taxed again this would work perfectly. Foreign cars and lorries would also be contributing. Also, add a small premium to fuel so that everyone automatically has 3rd party insurance. This stops insurance companies ripping off the motorist as we would have a choice to pay or not and also eliminates the hassle of being hit by an uninsured driver as there won't be any.
Posted by
pete3080
July 06, 2010 at 14:32
This is a great idea with so many positives on such a broad range of current issues.
The interesting negative mentioned about MoT and insurance can surely be overcome as registration and proof of ownership will still be needed and its cost could be covered in the fuel tax.
The interesting negative mentioned about MoT and insurance can surely be overcome as registration and proof of ownership will still be needed and its cost could be covered in the fuel tax.
Posted by
pete3080
July 06, 2010 at 14:32
This is a great idea with so many positives on such a broad range of current issues.
The interesting negative mentioned about MoT and insurance can surely be overcome as registration and proof of ownership will still be needed and its cost could be covered in the fuel tax.
The interesting negative mentioned about MoT and insurance can surely be overcome as registration and proof of ownership will still be needed and its cost could be covered in the fuel tax.
Posted by
pete3080
July 06, 2010 at 14:33
This is a great idea with so many positives on such a broad range of current issues.
The interesting negative mentioned about MoT and insurance can surely be overcome as registration and proof of ownership will still be needed and its cost could be covered in the fuel tax.
The interesting negative mentioned about MoT and insurance can surely be overcome as registration and proof of ownership will still be needed and its cost could be covered in the fuel tax.
Posted by
pete3080
July 06, 2010 at 14:33
This is a great idea with so many positives on such a broad range of current issues.
The interesting negative mentioned about MoT and insurance can surely be overcome as registration and proof of ownership will still be needed and its cost could be covered in the fuel tax.
The interesting negative mentioned about MoT and insurance can surely be overcome as registration and proof of ownership will still be needed and its cost could be covered in the fuel tax.
Posted by
pete3080
July 06, 2010 at 14:34
This is a great idea with so many positives on such a broad range of current issues.
The interesting negative mentioned about MoT and insurance can surely be overcome as registration and proof of ownership will still be needed and its cost could be covered in the fuel tax.
The interesting negative mentioned about MoT and insurance can surely be overcome as registration and proof of ownership will still be needed and its cost could be covered in the fuel tax.
Posted by
hgevans
July 06, 2010 at 16:04
I agree with this idea - shifting the burden of tax onto those who actually use the roads more.
But public service vehicles should be exempt and the saving ploughed into more fuel efficient vehicles - some buses I see these day belching out fumes should be taken off the roads.
I don't see how you could bundle 3rd party insurance into the deal - but really going after and hitting uninsured drivers would be a welcome use of money saved on administration (buildings and staff such as DVLA).
But public service vehicles should be exempt and the saving ploughed into more fuel efficient vehicles - some buses I see these day belching out fumes should be taken off the roads.
I don't see how you could bundle 3rd party insurance into the deal - but really going after and hitting uninsured drivers would be a welcome use of money saved on administration (buildings and staff such as DVLA).
Posted by
frogspawner
July 06, 2010 at 17:34
This is a good idea (and the silly SORN off-road declaration bureaucracy should disappear with it, too).
"Insurance Discs" MUST take their place though - but they can't really be introduced by just *repealing* regulations, can they?
If so, though, it gets my vote!
"Insurance Discs" MUST take their place though - but they can't really be introduced by just *repealing* regulations, can they?
If so, though, it gets my vote!
Posted by
Tembo11
July 06, 2010 at 18:51
To follup several questions:
Commercial Bus & Truck operators could have the fixed costs associated with their registration and operator licences cut then that is more of a per vehicle figure rather than a fixed overhaed instead of the cost of administering a rebate
If you are doing 30,000 miles plus PA why is your employer not looking after you and trying to reduce the mileage (Governments Driving for Work web site advises to (some of the duty could be used to subsidises improved Broadband)
For those drivers in the more remote parts of the country some of the duty could perhaps also be used to subsidise certain of the other essentials of living as a one off annual payment to offset the extra fuel duty
AS pointed out by several people the biggest cost in most motoring schemes is the cost of the administration. Thus the more simple the process and the less chance of avoiding the charges
Commercial Bus & Truck operators could have the fixed costs associated with their registration and operator licences cut then that is more of a per vehicle figure rather than a fixed overhaed instead of the cost of administering a rebate
If you are doing 30,000 miles plus PA why is your employer not looking after you and trying to reduce the mileage (Governments Driving for Work web site advises to (some of the duty could be used to subsidises improved Broadband)
For those drivers in the more remote parts of the country some of the duty could perhaps also be used to subsidise certain of the other essentials of living as a one off annual payment to offset the extra fuel duty
AS pointed out by several people the biggest cost in most motoring schemes is the cost of the administration. Thus the more simple the process and the less chance of avoiding the charges
Posted by
Tembo11
July 06, 2010 at 18:52
To follup several questions:
Commercial Bus & Truck operators could have the fixed costs associated with their registration and operator licences cut then that is more of a per vehicle figure rather than a fixed overhaed instead of the cost of administering a rebate
If you are doing 30,000 miles plus PA why is your employer not looking after you and trying to reduce the mileage (Governments Driving for Work web site advises to (some of the duty could be used to subsidises improved Broadband)
For those drivers in the more remote parts of the country some of the duty could perhaps also be used to subsidise certain of the other essentials of living as a one off annual payment to offset the extra fuel duty
AS pointed out by several people the biggest cost in most motoring schemes is the cost of the administration. Thus the more simple the process and the less chance of avoiding the charges
Commercial Bus & Truck operators could have the fixed costs associated with their registration and operator licences cut then that is more of a per vehicle figure rather than a fixed overhaed instead of the cost of administering a rebate
If you are doing 30,000 miles plus PA why is your employer not looking after you and trying to reduce the mileage (Governments Driving for Work web site advises to (some of the duty could be used to subsidises improved Broadband)
For those drivers in the more remote parts of the country some of the duty could perhaps also be used to subsidise certain of the other essentials of living as a one off annual payment to offset the extra fuel duty
AS pointed out by several people the biggest cost in most motoring schemes is the cost of the administration. Thus the more simple the process and the less chance of avoiding the charges
Posted by
Gildas
July 06, 2010 at 19:40
There's enough tax on fuel already and the most tax paid by high mileage drivers is the fuel tax already.
But keeping the car tax ensures that those that drive little contribute to the road system they expect to be there for the few miles they do do, and also means that you can't just buy an old banger with MOT for a tenner then park it on the road, only using it once a month when you'd be better just taking public transport, taxis or using streetcar
But keeping the car tax ensures that those that drive little contribute to the road system they expect to be there for the few miles they do do, and also means that you can't just buy an old banger with MOT for a tenner then park it on the road, only using it once a month when you'd be better just taking public transport, taxis or using streetcar
Posted by
neuralwarp
July 06, 2010 at 19:44
Yes and No. Fuel tax covers damage to the atmosphere; but Road Tax covers damage to the road itself.
An HGV does 1,000,000 times the damage that a car does (I think that's the right statistic) so it makes sense to add up all the costs of road maintenance and share it out according to the number of cars and lorries. I estimate the HGV tax disc will be about 20,000 times higher than the tax disc for cars. Let's say, £10 for cars and £200,000 for lorries. Seems fair.
An HGV does 1,000,000 times the damage that a car does (I think that's the right statistic) so it makes sense to add up all the costs of road maintenance and share it out according to the number of cars and lorries. I estimate the HGV tax disc will be about 20,000 times higher than the tax disc for cars. Let's say, £10 for cars and £200,000 for lorries. Seems fair.
Posted by
Dubzy
July 06, 2010 at 20:49
I think this is a brilliant idea but trying to include third party insurance into the fuel cost will only make things complicated. However insurance should be displayed in some way similar to the tax disc now, this would make it easier for the police to detect those driving without insurance and should reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road drastically (someone in the know).
Posted by
Dubzy
July 06, 2010 at 20:49
I think this is a brilliant idea but trying to include third party insurance into the fuel cost will only make things complicated. However insurance should be displayed in some way similar to the tax disc now, this would make it easier for the police to detect those driving without insurance and should reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road drastically (someone in the know).
Posted by
DaveSanderson
July 06, 2010 at 20:56
Far from new idea, but very sensible and worth doing...provided the funds raised help fix our broken roads.
I have four cars but can only drive one at the time. The classics use alot of fuel but do tiny milages. My main car is very efficient and I drive to minimise fuel consumption. I'd like to be rewarded for that.
I have four cars but can only drive one at the time. The classics use alot of fuel but do tiny milages. My main car is very efficient and I drive to minimise fuel consumption. I'd like to be rewarded for that.
Posted by
halecrater
July 07, 2010 at 14:39
My mum, who is retired, struggles to maintain her car for certain trips where she can't use public transport. The car tax is a real drain so I agree with this proposal, BUT, as there would be a huge saving in terms of administration if car tax was abolished, I expect those savings to help reduce the amount needed to be raised by an additional tax on fuel.
Posted by
halecrater
July 07, 2010 at 14:41
Oh and yes... It seems that one of the reasons that car tax has been kept is that it provides a visual signal to traffic wardens etc that a car is taxed and likely has MOT and insurance. This can be addressed by Insurance companies providing you a windscreen disc each 12 months.
Posted by
spyderman
July 07, 2010 at 16:34
Yes, Yes, Yes!
Display MOT and Insurance Discs instead!
If you can't display those than the car can't be on the road - simple!
Higher fuel duty may help with the environment too! People will learn to drive more efficiently and therfore slower and safer if fuel costs more!
Display MOT and Insurance Discs instead!
If you can't display those than the car can't be on the road - simple!
Higher fuel duty may help with the environment too! People will learn to drive more efficiently and therfore slower and safer if fuel costs more!
Posted by
Dgyton
July 07, 2010 at 22:29
Great idea and long overdue. Lots of people at Swansea out of work though, I fear.
Posted by
boxmoor
July 07, 2010 at 23:41
I agree in many ways but there are two pointst your idea appears to me to miss:-
1) The streets are already cluttered with parked cars. Your system would encourage people to own more than one car and would result in more clutter in residential streets.
2) The road tax system is now being used as a punitive measure to tax the oldest and most polluting cars off the road. Higher fuel taxation will do this but not so effectivly.
1) The streets are already cluttered with parked cars. Your system would encourage people to own more than one car and would result in more clutter in residential streets.
2) The road tax system is now being used as a punitive measure to tax the oldest and most polluting cars off the road. Higher fuel taxation will do this but not so effectivly.
Posted by
ABC123
July 08, 2010 at 08:26
Fully agree with this suggestion. I combine cycling to work with the occassional car use and pay approx £175 a year for doing less than 3000 miles per year. This is very unfair. The tax disc WAS a visual check for police to check for insurance and MOT offences but this data is now held on other police computer systems accessible on their radio network. The tax disc system should be abolished and as suggested the revenue collected through fuel. The more you use the road, the more you pay.
Posted by
MartinJ1952
July 08, 2010 at 11:17
Sorry disgree with this proposal. It fine if you live in a city and have alternative forms of transport, but what about those people who live in rural areas, who are usually on lower incomes and rely on private transport to get them around, scrapping road tax and adding to fuel would significantly increase their costs.
I purchased a new car this year, I ensured it was the most fuel efficient and low emmissions car I could find with the budget I had, I pay £35 Road tax as a result and get 60 mpg, this proposal would cost me and others with similar cars more money.
I purchased a new car this year, I ensured it was the most fuel efficient and low emmissions car I could find with the budget I had, I pay £35 Road tax as a result and get 60 mpg, this proposal would cost me and others with similar cars more money.
Posted by
eddief
July 08, 2010 at 14:26
I too was going to add this idea - so obviously think it is excellent.
1. it is compatible with the 'polluter-pays' principle
2. it helps to remove a layer of admin from Govt
As on the continent, vehicles should be required to display disks to prove current Insurance & MoT.
1. it is compatible with the 'polluter-pays' principle
2. it helps to remove a layer of admin from Govt
As on the continent, vehicles should be required to display disks to prove current Insurance & MoT.
Posted by
albyefield
July 08, 2010 at 16:51
Quote
I purchased a new car this year, I ensured it was the most fuel efficient and low emmissions car I could find with the budget I had, I pay £35 Road tax as a result and get 60 mpg, this proposal would cost me and others with similar cars more money.
Un Quote
£35 equates to 21,000 miles at 60 MPG Unless you drive more than this you would save money
I purchased a new car this year, I ensured it was the most fuel efficient and low emmissions car I could find with the budget I had, I pay £35 Road tax as a result and get 60 mpg, this proposal would cost me and others with similar cars more money.
Un Quote
£35 equates to 21,000 miles at 60 MPG Unless you drive more than this you would save money
Posted by
tarcus
July 08, 2010 at 20:40
The added bonus of this is a new disc could then be raised for issue with an MOT certificate new cars could be given one to see them over how ever many years it is now before they are needed.
Having MOT in window along with Insurance disc which could be made compulsory would make it harder for those who drive without either.
Having MOT in window along with Insurance disc which could be made compulsory would make it harder for those who drive without either.
Posted by
springnuts
July 08, 2010 at 23:41
Great idea.
Posted by
springnuts
July 08, 2010 at 23:41
Great idea.
Posted by
iwinter
July 09, 2010 at 13:07
This is another stupid idea. It means those who commute to work and benefit the economy by providing much sought after skills where they're required, or those who provide much needed services such as IT support to business, or provide social care to the elderly at home end up paying more, whilst those who make unnecessary journeys such as taking the kids one mile down the road in their chelsea tractor end up paying less.
This clearly makes no sense, we should be encouraging people to drive only when it's necessary, rather than to make utterly unnecessary road journeys. Changing to a charging system that focuses purely on mileage does not achieve this much more sensible goal and in fact encourages people to make lazy, senseless journeys, and discourages skilled people from providing their skills where they're needed.
The government should focus on keeping the costs high for the lazy, and the costs low for the hard working. This proposal achieves the opposite goal and is hence an awful idea more worthy of the previous Labour government and it's welfare state "free stuff for the lazy" ideology.
This clearly makes no sense, we should be encouraging people to drive only when it's necessary, rather than to make utterly unnecessary road journeys. Changing to a charging system that focuses purely on mileage does not achieve this much more sensible goal and in fact encourages people to make lazy, senseless journeys, and discourages skilled people from providing their skills where they're needed.
The government should focus on keeping the costs high for the lazy, and the costs low for the hard working. This proposal achieves the opposite goal and is hence an awful idea more worthy of the previous Labour government and it's welfare state "free stuff for the lazy" ideology.
Posted by
Tembo11
July 09, 2010 at 19:19
Quote "This is another stupid idea. It means those who commute to work and benefit the economy by providing much sought after skills where they're required, or those who provide much needed services such as IT support to business, or provide social care to the elderly at home end up paying more, whilst those who make unnecessary journeys such as taking the kids one mile down the road in their chelsea tractor end up paying less"
Why does commuting to work have to be by private car
Where is the link that says going to work actually means commuting, just how many possible productive working hours are lost in commuting and the related congestion and traffic jams
why do most IT support staff to business need to commute large distances. Most could be done remotely (thin Client, Cloud)
I suggested earlier in this thread that the increased revenue initially could help support improved Broadband across the country (work from home), otherwise with ever expected commuting distances the whole economy will come to a halt in a traffic jam of high mileage commuters going nowhere
Why does commuting to work have to be by private car
Where is the link that says going to work actually means commuting, just how many possible productive working hours are lost in commuting and the related congestion and traffic jams
why do most IT support staff to business need to commute large distances. Most could be done remotely (thin Client, Cloud)
I suggested earlier in this thread that the increased revenue initially could help support improved Broadband across the country (work from home), otherwise with ever expected commuting distances the whole economy will come to a halt in a traffic jam of high mileage commuters going nowhere
Posted by
DudleyG
July 10, 2010 at 10:42
Just adding a comment so as to get the scores up. As per all the other people I totally agree. Far more efficient, penalises the gas-guzzlers,reduces costs of collection.
There are at the moment duplicate logbook and duty records for the same vehicle. Have one logbook type reference that maybe is put as a chip in the car along with a reader that says who is driving it. Noone who has anything to hide should object to this. If the vehicle is stolen would be immediately findable,. No disputes as to who was driving when an offence is carried out as I have suffered, and a friend of ours even more serious one.
There are at the moment duplicate logbook and duty records for the same vehicle. Have one logbook type reference that maybe is put as a chip in the car along with a reader that says who is driving it. Noone who has anything to hide should object to this. If the vehicle is stolen would be immediately findable,. No disputes as to who was driving when an offence is carried out as I have suffered, and a friend of ours even more serious one.
Posted by
DudleyG
July 10, 2010 at 10:43
Just adding a comment so as to get the scores up. As per all the other people I totally agree. Far more efficient, penalises the gas-guzzlers,reduces costs of collection.
There are at the moment duplicate logbook and duty records for the same vehicle. Have one logbook type reference that maybe is put as a chip in the car along with a reader that says who is driving it. Noone who has anything to hide should object to this. If the vehicle is stolen would be immediately findable,. No disputes as to who was driving when an offence is carried out as I have suffered, and a friend of ours even more serious one.
There are at the moment duplicate logbook and duty records for the same vehicle. Have one logbook type reference that maybe is put as a chip in the car along with a reader that says who is driving it. Noone who has anything to hide should object to this. If the vehicle is stolen would be immediately findable,. No disputes as to who was driving when an offence is carried out as I have suffered, and a friend of ours even more serious one.
Posted by
TAGGART64
July 10, 2010 at 13:06
LOL are you the same people that moan when the price of fuel goes up
I live in a remote part of Scotland and have a 4x4 which is needed unlike you city 4x4 owners i have to fill two jerry cans to ensure i have the fuel for a week and to travel back the 30 miles (single track road)to the petrol station tell me why i should pay even more for my travelling? i already pay a high price for road tax why because of possers in the city
abolish road tax and reduce the high tax on fuel £1.96 per ltr yet cherry is only 48p
I live in a remote part of Scotland and have a 4x4 which is needed unlike you city 4x4 owners i have to fill two jerry cans to ensure i have the fuel for a week and to travel back the 30 miles (single track road)to the petrol station tell me why i should pay even more for my travelling? i already pay a high price for road tax why because of possers in the city
abolish road tax and reduce the high tax on fuel £1.96 per ltr yet cherry is only 48p
Posted by
astateofdenmark
July 10, 2010 at 13:15
100% agree with this and I'm sure its been floated in the past.
Fuel - You fill the car up, pay the garage, then a percentage is sent to the government by the oil company. Simple, efficient.
Car Tax - You get sent a form, which comes from a database, which has to be staffed and maintained. The form is then taken to the post office (who get a %) to give you a disc which you then put in your car. DVLA, Police and local authorities then engage in a variety of anti-avoidance schemes, costing money and creating friction with the public. Complicated, inefficient.
Fuel - You fill the car up, pay the garage, then a percentage is sent to the government by the oil company. Simple, efficient.
Car Tax - You get sent a form, which comes from a database, which has to be staffed and maintained. The form is then taken to the post office (who get a %) to give you a disc which you then put in your car. DVLA, Police and local authorities then engage in a variety of anti-avoidance schemes, costing money and creating friction with the public. Complicated, inefficient.
Posted by
snowtigress1960
July 10, 2010 at 20:48
NO, this will hit the rural communities much harder, due to the mileages we have to travel to get to work, hospitals, and other essential services. This is without the transport infrastructure that exists in the towns and cities. I doubt if the investment would be forthcoming to bring the levels of transport in these communities up to the level of the cities would be forthcoming, without substantial raising of taxes on every other part of the economy.
Don't do this, it is a mistake and what's to stop a further Government introducing a steeper fuel escalator?
Don't do this, it is a mistake and what's to stop a further Government introducing a steeper fuel escalator?
Posted by
DaveBlaws
July 12, 2010 at 10:34
Spot on, the increase on fuel duty wouldn't need to be 10p as we would no longer need to pay the DVLA to administer. Insurance companies could do it for practically nothing as they already collect the data and dish out tons of paperwork - and they can still discount, so don't believe their screams that it would cost the motorist.
Special registration number sales could still be left in place and earn money.
Why this hasn't happened yet defeats me, I haven't heard a reason why this wouldn't work other than a political one, i.e. loss of employment at the DVLA in Cardiff - sorry folks!!!!
Special registration number sales could still be left in place and earn money.
Why this hasn't happened yet defeats me, I haven't heard a reason why this wouldn't work other than a political one, i.e. loss of employment at the DVLA in Cardiff - sorry folks!!!!
Posted by
DaveBlaws
July 12, 2010 at 10:43
ref the comment by snowtigress and the essentail services and rural communities;
The cost to essential services is likely to be invisible or at leats miniscule in comparison to their running costs and businesses recover fuel and taxation costs through their allowances against profit. There is a valid point regarding rural communities but other actions could be taken that should be taken irrespective of removal of car tax.... such as improved rural transport, including rail and especially at commuting times; there should be controls on fuel costs (fair profit) imposed on supermarkets and national companies - they tend to rake in as much money as possible where there is little competition - nothing to do with cost of provision! Yep Mr Supermarket and Mr Oil, you have a fair role to play as well.
The cost to essential services is likely to be invisible or at leats miniscule in comparison to their running costs and businesses recover fuel and taxation costs through their allowances against profit. There is a valid point regarding rural communities but other actions could be taken that should be taken irrespective of removal of car tax.... such as improved rural transport, including rail and especially at commuting times; there should be controls on fuel costs (fair profit) imposed on supermarkets and national companies - they tend to rake in as much money as possible where there is little competition - nothing to do with cost of provision! Yep Mr Supermarket and Mr Oil, you have a fair role to play as well.
Posted by
vanishingact
July 16, 2010 at 12:50
Good idea.
Posted by
foxcliffe
July 16, 2010 at 19:12
Of course the added bonus of this would be that drivers would no longer have to pay full month's road tax on vehicles they purchase just days before the end of said month. And, as has already been stated, all those who currently have to complete SORN registration will be absolved.
Bring it on and put paid to all those tax dodgers. Free the police up to do some real work for a change.
Rather than insurance companies being responsible for verifying valid MOT status the current MOT certificate could be replaced with an MOT disc and the garage take over the Post Office role in verifying that insurance on the vehicle exists. That way when the governement get around to including the price of 3rd party insurance in the cost of fuel there would be no further requirement to change the system.
Bring it on and put paid to all those tax dodgers. Free the police up to do some real work for a change.
Rather than insurance companies being responsible for verifying valid MOT status the current MOT certificate could be replaced with an MOT disc and the garage take over the Post Office role in verifying that insurance on the vehicle exists. That way when the governement get around to including the price of 3rd party insurance in the cost of fuel there would be no further requirement to change the system.
Posted by
simonham
July 19, 2010 at 12:33
I have 3 cars, one my wife's which I pay for, one my own which is a 'weekend working truck' and one a company car for which the RFL is paid.
So long as my fuel allowance was increased to cover the cost of the RFL on my company car I'm happy, and the car I do little mileage in at weekends [going to the skip] costs me two hundred and something a year in RFL which is ridiculous, so to save that would be a winner.
On top of all this, it would remove the ridiculous high bands on BRITISH MADE LAND ROVERS which can be doing their sales no good at all.
Seems like a great idea all round really.
Be nice if they could cut duty first though, else fuel's going to start getting ruddy expensive for my lawn mower!!!
Oh... that's a point.... what about all those gardeners who use petrol ride on lawn mowers... they're going to be paying loads more tax for nothing.... how will we get round that? They claim it back?
Sounds like a potentially disastrous loophole to me.... unless we start getting 'red' petrol too....?
So long as my fuel allowance was increased to cover the cost of the RFL on my company car I'm happy, and the car I do little mileage in at weekends [going to the skip] costs me two hundred and something a year in RFL which is ridiculous, so to save that would be a winner.
On top of all this, it would remove the ridiculous high bands on BRITISH MADE LAND ROVERS which can be doing their sales no good at all.
Seems like a great idea all round really.
Be nice if they could cut duty first though, else fuel's going to start getting ruddy expensive for my lawn mower!!!
Oh... that's a point.... what about all those gardeners who use petrol ride on lawn mowers... they're going to be paying loads more tax for nothing.... how will we get round that? They claim it back?
Sounds like a potentially disastrous loophole to me.... unless we start getting 'red' petrol too....?
Posted by
Trurider
July 19, 2010 at 19:21
I am with the 'Abolish Tax Discs' group. The DVLA records are so bad the policy have their own. We should however have discs issued by the Insurance Companies showing the car to be insured. They only need the sompany and the period on them not a policy number. The police have access to that data anyway. As to what to do with the DVLA staff, set them about tracking and removing the 2,000,000 + illegals that are here.
Posted by
Tembo11
July 20, 2010 at 22:54
QUOTE "Oh... that's a point.... what about all those gardeners who use petrol ride on lawn mowers... they're going to be paying loads more tax for nothing.... how will we get round that? They claim it back?"
They claim it as a business expense with receipts just as they probably do at present. It will just be a biggere amount that's all
They claim it as a business expense with receipts just as they probably do at present. It will just be a biggere amount that's all
Posted by
jgibson
July 22, 2010 at 08:52
I fully agree with this proposal. The people who use the roads most will pay the most. The people who use the most polluting vehicles will pay more. It may encourage people onto public transport - therefore it would be an environmentally friendly measure. It would be unavoidable except by not using the roads. Police time would be saved chasing untaxed cars. Revenue would be saved at DVLA. There would be less offences on the statute book, and less magistrate time used up. Win win win win win
Posted by
hyde
July 24, 2010 at 16:30
This a common sense way of getting all road user to pay for the upkeep of our roads, the more miles you travel and use the roads the more you pay and for those who do not do the normal 12k miles a year a bonus. As previously stated the cost has to be very carefully calculated so as to ensure we do not end up paying more, as it will be seen as a way of driving up their tax revenue. Lets hope the politicians listen to the voter and introduce this proposal.
Posted by
Bonehead
July 27, 2010 at 15:14
I agree 100%, all of these city dwelling morons who drive petrol guzzling 4x4's simply because they are fashionable or are seen as some kind of status symbol should pay through their teeth.
Posted by
Grimmy
July 27, 2010 at 19:31
We would save a lot on enforcement and admin.
But make motorists display proof that they are insured...
But make motorists display proof that they are insured...
Posted by
BJMorgan
July 29, 2010 at 10:46
I first heard this idea about 40 years ago. It's about time it was taken seriously.
Posted by
ThorsHammer
July 29, 2010 at 20:08
Tax on fuel only has to be the way forward. The creator of CO2 pays.
With so many supporting this proposal I hope it is considered.
Reference rural communities: This problem can be overcome by a different tax rate for rural filling stations, although a postcode certificate would be better.
I live in a rural location; 8 miles to the nearest bus or shop;13 to the nearest supermarket and 65 miles to the nearest major town. We do under 11,000 miles/year.
That should kill that excuse for not implementing this proposal!
With so many supporting this proposal I hope it is considered.
Reference rural communities: This problem can be overcome by a different tax rate for rural filling stations, although a postcode certificate would be better.
I live in a rural location; 8 miles to the nearest bus or shop;13 to the nearest supermarket and 65 miles to the nearest major town. We do under 11,000 miles/year.
That should kill that excuse for not implementing this proposal!
Posted by
Tembo11
July 30, 2010 at 18:37
Why another bit of paper or anothe government department administration costs?
Why not a specific allowance in your tax code. HMRC know your post code and it could be factored in automatically
Why not a specific allowance in your tax code. HMRC know your post code and it could be factored in automatically
Posted by
xyz001
July 31, 2010 at 13:38
We must bear in mind that car tax has a heavy administrative cost and that saving will cut the public sector and should reduce the tax burden on the citizen as well.
Wherever this tax is moved, that needs to be taken into account - it is not acceptable simply to collect the same amount and increase the effective taxtation. Any measures here should be revenue neutral for the Treasury.
The German system of MOT and insurance is also a good idea - they have small discs on their number plates set by the garage to show the status of these.
The same approach should be taken to TV licensing sine just about everyone watches TV the cost of administering a licence for the handful who do not is excessive. Since it funds BBC services that should simply be funded directly by government using a per capita costing as a guideline.
Wherever this tax is moved, that needs to be taken into account - it is not acceptable simply to collect the same amount and increase the effective taxtation. Any measures here should be revenue neutral for the Treasury.
The German system of MOT and insurance is also a good idea - they have small discs on their number plates set by the garage to show the status of these.
The same approach should be taken to TV licensing sine just about everyone watches TV the cost of administering a licence for the handful who do not is excessive. Since it funds BBC services that should simply be funded directly by government using a per capita costing as a guideline.
Posted by
peterpeter
August 02, 2010 at 05:55
In terms of tax fairness the idea is great - if I own a gas-guzzler but never use it, what harm am I doing, and why should I pay extra tax?
But abolishing RFL won't reduce the cost of running DVLC very much. The state has to have some way of knowing who owns each vehicle, and ensuring it is insured and MoT'd
But abolishing RFL won't reduce the cost of running DVLC very much. The state has to have some way of knowing who owns each vehicle, and ensuring it is insured and MoT'd
Posted by
Bonehead
August 05, 2010 at 13:30
This excellent idea has been around for some years now but no government has ever introduced it. Is that because the present system provides two opportunities to increase taxes on motorists rather than just the one? Is it because those in power tend to drive large, petrol guzzling cars whilst us working class plebs can only afford the more economical models?
If our new coalition government is genuine about listening to public opinion as reflected on this web site they will take notice of the overwhelming support for this idea and make tax discs a thing of the past. Don't go holding your breath though !
If our new coalition government is genuine about listening to public opinion as reflected on this web site they will take notice of the overwhelming support for this idea and make tax discs a thing of the past. Don't go holding your breath though !
Posted by
steve1959
August 06, 2010 at 07:25
This idea has been around for many years and it’s a good one.
Presently it doesn’t matter whether you travel 5 miles a day or 5000 you still pay the same rate, this is and will always be an unfair tax.
This tax should be abolished and applied to the cost of fuel, this should be calculated using the governments annual average mileage statistics based on the average family car user.
Look at the positive sides to this issue.
1/ Tax avoiders will be no more
2/ You pay for what you use on a daily basis.
3/ All vehicles using fuel in Britain will be paying road tax through fuel purchased.
3a/ Extra revenue for the taxman
Police, Ambulance, Fire and other essential services should be tax exempt.
Presently it doesn’t matter whether you travel 5 miles a day or 5000 you still pay the same rate, this is and will always be an unfair tax.
This tax should be abolished and applied to the cost of fuel, this should be calculated using the governments annual average mileage statistics based on the average family car user.
Look at the positive sides to this issue.
1/ Tax avoiders will be no more
2/ You pay for what you use on a daily basis.
3/ All vehicles using fuel in Britain will be paying road tax through fuel purchased.
3a/ Extra revenue for the taxman
Police, Ambulance, Fire and other essential services should be tax exempt.
Posted by
wearthefoxeshat
August 11, 2010 at 12:13
Lot's of agreement on this one issue. Let's hope HM Gov sit up and take note. No doubt all of us would like to know what percentage of the licence fee goes to running the department. On top of the benefits already mentioned such as tax evasion, there would be no need for the expensive adverts encouraging people to tax their cars.
Posted by
acawte
August 12, 2010 at 19:23
+1 for this one, there is no sense whatsoever in charging a punitive tax just to have a vehicle sitting on the drive doing no harm to anyone. Now we have computerised MOT and insurance databases, which the police can check almost instantly, there is no need to display an actual disc at all.
The disc, after all, only means that the vehicle had valid insurance and MOT on the day it was issued. Thereafter, it only means some money has changed hands.
I wonder how many people would find themselves better able to afford a smaller vehicle to commute in, if they weren't paying a large, fixed sum every year for the bigger car they need at weekends to transport the whole family?
Charging purely on the total amount of fuel used is perfectly - almost definitively - fair, simple to collect, hard to evade, and non-intrusive of privacy.
Seems the only detractors from this proposal are those who drive a lot of miles and who feel they should be entitled to some kind of special dispensation or exemption because of where they've chosen to live. Perhaps they could consider swapping the car for a motorcycle? My last bike did over 130 to the gallon, which even at today's prices is a fraction over 4p a mile in petrol...
The disc, after all, only means that the vehicle had valid insurance and MOT on the day it was issued. Thereafter, it only means some money has changed hands.
I wonder how many people would find themselves better able to afford a smaller vehicle to commute in, if they weren't paying a large, fixed sum every year for the bigger car they need at weekends to transport the whole family?
Charging purely on the total amount of fuel used is perfectly - almost definitively - fair, simple to collect, hard to evade, and non-intrusive of privacy.
Seems the only detractors from this proposal are those who drive a lot of miles and who feel they should be entitled to some kind of special dispensation or exemption because of where they've chosen to live. Perhaps they could consider swapping the car for a motorcycle? My last bike did over 130 to the gallon, which even at today's prices is a fraction over 4p a mile in petrol...
Posted by
rat
August 20, 2010 at 23:31
raising fuel in replacement of anything is a bad idea, due to it already being highly taxed. do you think the goverment can be trusted raising the price in fuel slightly? as it's track record has proven otherwise.
i can't afford to change my car, and don't feel i should be corned to either, as srapping my car and making another i feel would increase co2 levels anyway.
i do agree car tax should be scrapped, as very little is spent on the use it was invented for.
i can't afford to change my car, and don't feel i should be corned to either, as srapping my car and making another i feel would increase co2 levels anyway.
i do agree car tax should be scrapped, as very little is spent on the use it was invented for.
Posted by
samjam
August 27, 2010 at 11:40
1. Keep the disk as an insurance check, but costing something low or free from the insurer.
2. Recognize fuel duty as a road-usage charge
3. stop trying to introduce a new road-usage charge as something new with a load of expensive spy-equipment to track our every move.
4.realize that if road congestion is "so bad" but not bad enough to keep people off the roads at congested times that perhaps they really need to be on the road at that time and please stop making it more painful. ON THE OTHER HAND if people are still going on the roads during congestion time then the congestion obviously isn't bad enough to need special treatment.
2. Recognize fuel duty as a road-usage charge
3. stop trying to introduce a new road-usage charge as something new with a load of expensive spy-equipment to track our every move.
4.realize that if road congestion is "so bad" but not bad enough to keep people off the roads at congested times that perhaps they really need to be on the road at that time and please stop making it more painful. ON THE OTHER HAND if people are still going on the roads during congestion time then the congestion obviously isn't bad enough to need special treatment.
Posted by
peterrflynn
August 27, 2010 at 13:20
Completely agree.
Posted by
rwfreedom
August 27, 2010 at 17:34
This is a good idea and would encourage car owners to drive less.
Posted by
gkb
August 31, 2010 at 13:17
This is an excellent idea. Fiddling with bits of paper once a year is an outdated nuisance.
Please log in to add comments and rate ideas
Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate