Masklin
Member
I think it actually all depends on which of their mate’s companies they can give the contract to, rather than what the most efficient outcome for the end user may be.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Alternative to UK VED (car tax)
- Thread starter MrBadger
- Start date
I think it actually all depends on which of their mate’s companies they can give the contract to, rather than what the most efficient outcome for the end user may be.
phil4
Member
Exactly that... or who lobbies the hardest. For example the big oil companies might want road pricing because that might lead to lower petrol prices, and thus keep more people buying petrol.
Traffic cameras - what you need to know | RAC Drive
More than 1,500 traffic cameras monitor traffic across motorways and major trunk roads. Here's our guide on what they are and how they're used.
www.rac.co.uk
Lord Farquad
2022 MYLR W/B/20s/Tow bar. Previously 2021 M3SR+
There is no way they’ll go for tracking every journey using your vehicle. Whilst this is the favoured method of the industries and government, and possibly even the fairest, it infringes on civil liberties too far. They may use ANPR to track journeys on main routes, but this will just force users onto back roads, causing congestion and collisions.
Plus the public transport infrastructure is so poor, that any road charging scheme will disproportionately effect those who can least afford it (nurses shift working etc). Making it hugely unpopular and politically toxic.
Plus the public transport infrastructure is so poor, that any road charging scheme will disproportionately effect those who can least afford it (nurses shift working etc). Making it hugely unpopular and politically toxic.
The report makes the observation that fuel duty doesn't get spent of roads, but notes how it's contribution to the exchequer has equivalence to the spend on policing, education and the armed forces. As there is no strong causal link between the two, I don't really see why there should be the same taxation based on mileage. The country needs these services, and we don't charge for them based on usage, they should be funded from income and corporation taxes. These are far fairer as individual elements are based on people's ability to pay rather than their need to travel, distribute that cost to those of us that are higher tax payers. Why should needing to travel become something that needs wealth, that sounds very regressive.
In total, I think that what's missing is that the government should have an active strategy to reduce the number of journey that people need to make, that has the most direct potential to save carbon emissions, avoiding building new infrastructure that is hugely expensive in money and carbon, and would increase the time available for economic activity (no one is making money during travel).
Ban office blocks, we know we don't need them anymore, introduce more flexible hours for the types of premises that still need to exist such a manufacturing, schools, hospitals etc. so we can then easily live within the roads we already have rather than the current madness where everything is scalled to allow all working people to move from home to work by 9am then home at 5:30pm each day.
In total, I think that what's missing is that the government should have an active strategy to reduce the number of journey that people need to make, that has the most direct potential to save carbon emissions, avoiding building new infrastructure that is hugely expensive in money and carbon, and would increase the time available for economic activity (no one is making money during travel).
Ban office blocks, we know we don't need them anymore, introduce more flexible hours for the types of premises that still need to exist such a manufacturing, schools, hospitals etc. so we can then easily live within the roads we already have rather than the current madness where everything is scalled to allow all working people to move from home to work by 9am then home at 5:30pm each day.
phil4
Member
I'm afraid you make far too much sense
Yes they should be from generally taxation but then general taxation already includes receipts from VED and fuel duty. So you still have the issue of a hole in receipts
Putting up income tax isn’t likely because the government prefers a low headline rate and squeeze you with indirect taxes and hope you don’t notice
Putting up income tax isn’t likely because the government prefers a low headline rate and squeeze you with indirect taxes and hope you don’t notice
Lots of good points there! As well as bringing in money to the general pot the VED is also used to modify behaviour. There is an intention to penalise large less efficient vehicles and to encourage more efficient vehicles ... which is a good thing (if it works). I'm pretty confident that nowadays the number of ICE cars driving around without requiring to pay VED is actually larger than the number of EVs with the same concession (we haven't paid VED since 2013 yet only got an EV in 2019). Of course the changes proposed in your final paragraph seem worthwhile but probably could only be quickly achieved by a totalitarian government! Commercial benefits and democratic ways of influencing such things can achieve something similar but unfortunately seem to require glacial time scales!
Yes, unfortunately it's politics that is the killer. We have all been preconditioned to believe that direct general taxation is automatically bad. In terms of income tax it becomes a number that is simply seen as "lower is good, higher is bad". The percentage is waved around and it becomes a badge of honour for a political party to claim "no increase in income tax" ... whilst increasing other less fair taxation to fill the gap! The recent proposal to increase the National Insurance rate would have been far more equitable if it were on income tax ... but the government can't be seen to break a promise.
I would have thought it possible to come up with a secure taximeter type device for cars ... recording mileage and with a facility to split work and personal miles. Determined criminals will always come up with a way of circumventing these things but in reality "determined criminals" are a very very small percentage of our population, thankfully.
Join with me comrades, the proletariat will overthrow the bourgeoisie.
It's not even low though is it on a global scale, and the (checks news) current government is already increasing NI, but only because that's guaranteed to impact the poor more than the rish.
do we think there is any particular need to ’tax’ inefficient EVs more than efficient ones? No CO2 to consider but an increased burden on the grid and generation? But even poor ones are only slightly worse - not like they’re rolling coal or anything. So straight miles driven woudl be a reasonable basis for how much you pay, not based on what you drive?
phil4
Member
There's -some- CO2 to consider. Our power generation isn't entirely green (we'd not be paying gas prices for our leccy if that were the case), and while we're getting much much better, I'd still say there's some CO2 to consider, and the more inefficient the more there is generated.
As someone said, it's using the tax as a lever to try and promote better behaviour... at the moment ICE is far far more CO2, so persuading people to move makes sense. Once we're closer to 100% BEV, well then we can start to look at promoting efficient BEVs.
Yachtsman
Member
Why not simply meter EV charging separately and tax by higher cost. If you don’t drive you don’t use it but you still paid for the full tank.
Or is this simple low implementation cost to easy to be viable.
Or is this simple low implementation cost to easy to be viable.
Why not simply meter EV charging separately and tax by higher cost. If you don’t drive you don’t use it but you still paid for the full tank.
Or is this simple low implementation cost to easy to be viable.
I think because it's not at all simple. People charge their cars in many different ways. Even if all new charge points monitored their through-put how do you cover for people using a UMC plugged into an ordinary socket or a commando socket or charging off solar. It wouldn't just be the "determined criminals" circumventing that one! Also this is about levelling the playing field for all car types, whether EV, hybrid or ICE and having different measures is an issue. The only thing that is the same for all vehicles is a measure of how far they drive.
and how are you going to do that?!Why not simply meter EV charging separately and tax by higher cost. If you don’t drive you don’t use it but you still paid for the full tank.
Or is this simple low implementation cost to easy to be viable.
Never assume government is about efficiency or money saving or even logic. They could just as easily dispense with VED and fuel duty and insurance and stick the loss on banded income tax with free public transport. The well off guys would be paying a higher proportion to go with their likely car ownerships and it'd free up personnel to either pick the fruit or (heaven forbid) pick up a phone in the tax office and get more people off the roads. No, this is all about stealth tax and tracking people and job creation that leads to shortages in other sectors.
curmudgeon
Member
Similar threads
