tinyurl.com/8rlazvq
(link to The Sunday Times website)
This has to be one of the most ill-conceived, idiotic ideas dreamt up by those in power for quite some time. How on earth do they think that this will work and improve our roads? I would imagine it's more a case that they've done the maths and have worked out that most people drive on major A-roads or motorways at least once a month and so will pay the higher rate just in case.
I'm not sure that I like having my dander up this early on a Sunday morning.
|
|
If they want to tax car use why not transfer all car related taxes to petrol and diesel. The system is already in place to administer it.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 28 Oct 12 at 09:30
|
>> If they want to tax car use why not transfer all car related taxes to
>> petrol and diesel. The system is already in place to administer it.
>>
It seems so obvious. I'd have thought it would appeal to a cost-cutting government.
If road tax was abolished there would be no need for the DVLA, apart from a few staff operating a database of registration numbers.
It's not often they get the chance to shut down an entire government department.
|
>> It's not often they get the chance to shut down an entire government department.
Trouble is that the DVLA is the only efficient gov department.
|
>> If road tax was abolished there would be no need for the DVLA, apart from
>> a few staff operating a database of registration numbers.
>> It's not often they get the chance to shut down an entire government department.
>>
Wishful thinking ??
We would still be charged to remain on the database and we know how expensive it is to move ££s around so there will still be lots of jobs for our friends over the border.
|
>> I'm not sure that I like having my dander up this early on a Sunday
>> morning.
you sure?
|
|
Idiots. Then again so was Gordy. "Brown's Bottom" (The Gold fiasco) to name one.
|
Don't some countries aready have such a system? Switzerland and its vignette for motorway use springs to mind.
I guess the aim would be to reduce motorway travel and hence the need for further roadbuilding. Politically it would be easier than increasing fuel tax as the government would avoid criticism from country dwellers on low incomes who need their car for work.
Don't have any motorways in Norfolk. Nearest is 50 miles away.
It only a bit of kite flying anyway.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 28 Oct 12 at 10:02
|
|
Great - the unwashed blocking all the good A roads and spoiling my fun days. I'd happily pay the extra as long as I can go faster as well.
|
A bankrupt nation, whos current failed admimistration desperately seeks to bring in a few quid in order not to be the party holding the torch when it all goes bang....hardly news is it, just another bright idea to extract a few more quid from those already paying 50 to 80% of their incomes back in taxes of one form or another.
Zil lanes for those exempt no doubt.
|
As CGNorwich says, it's kite flying. Patently unenforceable, yet we are paying for dreamers to come up with hare-brained schemes like this.
Once the number of cameras required is worked out and costed, it'll be dropped.
|
>> A bankrupt nation, whos current failed admimistration desperately seeks to bring in a few quid
>> in order not to be the party holding the torch when it all goes bang...
It has already gone bang. We are just gently scraping along the bottom.
So in what way is this different from the swiss system? or toll roads extensively used all over the world?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 28 Oct 12 at 10:34
|
>> This has to be one of the most ill-conceived, idiotic ideas dreamt up by those
>> in power for quite some time. How on earth do they think that this will
>> work and improve our roads?
Idiots!
All that would achieve would be blocking up towns and villages.
Have they forgotten the reason behind bypasses?
|
>> most ill-conceived, idiotic ideas dreamt up by those in power >>
How do you know it is a Coalition idea?
Doesn't "officials are examining plan " means that Civil Servants are examining it, and that it is not a proposal?
No different to the London congestion charge, and should be easy to implement with ANPR cameras at entry and exit of Motorways, and at borders with the separatist Scottish and Welsh nations.
Last edited by: John H on Sun 28 Oct 12 at 11:53
|
|
As cars become more economical, people are downsizing, and alternative fuels become viable the government (whoever they are) will have to raise the money to service debt, wage war, pay benefits, and remember they are the biggest employer, a big wage and pension bill.
|
>> >> most ill-conceived, idiotic ideas dreamt up by those in power >>
>>
>>
>> How do you know it is a Coalition idea?
>>
>> Doesn't "officials are examining plan " means that Civil Servants are examining it, and that
>> it is not a proposal?
>>
Answering my own question:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224349
"... idea is part of a review by civil servants from the Department for Transport and the Treasury ..."
|
|
I would imagine someone ie the Minister would have told them to start the review. I doubt they would be doing all this off their own backs.
|
|
As they should, its their job to explore and provide the government with options. Ministers know sod all about taxation.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 28 Oct 12 at 14:21
|
>>Ministers know sod all about taxation
The one time they have so much in common with the electorate.
|
I have just written to my Conservative MP re this madness. Some of the pros of the increased fuel tax idea that I could come up with include
1. The system for collecting it is already in place, at the pumps
2. It cannot be evaded
3. The tax would be related to mileage and road use, instead of a flat rate windscreen disc.
4. Foreign visitors would contribute to the use of our roads.
5. Road charging would require costly infra-structure to collect and enforce. No UK Government has any good record in the introduction of large computer systems (NHS and MOD procurement come to mind)
6. How much does the current disc system cost DVLA to run?
The last figure I saw for HMRC was that it cost 3% of the total to collect income tax
Last edited by: Meldrew on Sun 28 Oct 12 at 14:28
|
>>4. Foreign visitors would contribute to the use of our roads.
Nah, they will fill up in Calais with enough fuel to last the journey. That's what the truck drivers claim!
|
>> >>4. Foreign visitors would contribute to the use of our roads.
>>
>> Nah, they will fill up in Calais with enough fuel to last the journey. That's
>> what the truck drivers claim!
>>
Absolutely. Check out the size of the tanks on most European trucks compared to ours. Even allowing for the loss of payload it's a sizeable saving on running costs.
|
|
A tourist in a car on a 7 day holiday here will buy some fuel and that contribution, however small, is better than no contribution.
|
>> A tourist in a car on a 7 day holiday here will buy some fuel
>> and that contribution, however small, is better than no contribution.
>>
True, I have filled the car at Ullapool, toured from Stornoway through the Outer Hebrides for a week to Castlebay and driven off the ferry at Oban running on the smell.
|
>> The last figure I saw for HMRC was that it cost 3% of the total
>> to collect income tax
Thats pretty good as it happens.
|
|
Yes I agree! My comment was intended to be favourable!
|
>>6. How much does the current disc system cost DVLA to run?
I agree with Meldrew that collection through fuel duty is the answer. Easy to collect from a handful of large Oil Cos and hard to avoid the tax -(Unlike smuggled Cigarettes that are 25% of the market)
However I would keep the RFL at a nominal sum - £20 / year for example. the penalties for not having RFL being £100/£200 fine.
The RFL involves a check for Registration Details ie Owner Address.
It checks for MoT (which proves it was roadworthy on 1 day at least - all the lights worked and it had roadworthy tyres (thinking about Clocks going back and the soon slippy roads)
It checks Insurance - I know there are on-line systems but the local less do wells (the few who or who claim + work) leave home early / under darkness etc, use back roads are not caught by motorway cameras -local bobbies have the video cars out but only on nicer sunny days on broad roads with a lay-by - they do not like getting wet!)
£20 - £2/£3 to the PostOffice for the checks, £2/£3 to pay DVLA costs and say £15 for the Govt to squander on MP's expenses.
Seriously, TAXES need to be proportional to use, easy/cheap to collect and little scope for evasion - in 2 words Fuel Duty
|
>> Seriously, TAXES need to be proportional to use, easy/cheap to collect and little scope for
>> evasion - in 2 words Fuel Duty
>>
I agree, unfortunately there are politicians involved
|
|
Ah -but! RFL is an existing tax that the "Populous" are used to paying, and Mp`s don`t like to lose an accepted tax (which they can tweak and manipulate to squeeze a few drops more now and then) in favour of an already existing one. £100+ per year per motorist plus "X" pence per litre on fuel, is a "nicer little earner" than a fairer "XX" pence just on fuel.
|
Blimey i hope dick turpin and his merry men don't read this thread...people actually asking to pay more fuel tax, instead of VED...great idea seeing as many VEDs are now miniscule...BUT, they'll still be bringing in road pricing so paying twice again but more, brilliant.
still if you've got money to burn carry on...;)
|
|
Are they trying to soften us up for a scheme we wouldn't like but wouldn't be as bad as this one?
|
VED should be a simple flat rate like the standing charge used to be on utility bills. £150-£200 would be about right.
That way we all pay the same tax on the convenience/pleasure or whatever of car ownership.
Fuel duty would reward the economical and cover green objectives.
|
That's far too sensible Bromp.
:-)
|
If people were logical then there wouldn't be such a rush to dump CO2/km levels as there has been.
But they're not.
Whether real world economy has improved greatly is debatable but I'm with the 'tax usage not ownage' brigade on this one.
Live in the sticks? Expensive petrol? Blah blah blah?
Tough teetee - that's why your house is cheaper than the city.
|
Why should the simple ownership of a car be taxed at all? It's not as though VED was ever ring-fenced for use in providing & maintaining roads. If it was, there would be logic in a fixed "supply" charge.
We all know motorists are seen as cash cows for the general taxation pool, so it seems sensible that all motoring related tax (HUH!) raised, is by way of a charge on fuel purchased.
|
>> Why should the simple ownership of a car be taxed at all? It's not as
>> though VED was ever ring-fenced for use in providing & maintaining roads. If it was,
>> there would be logic in a fixed "supply" charge.
As Mark will be along to remind us in a minute government has to get it's money from somewhere. We all want better services but want them paid for either by taxes on other people or from cutting services used by other people.
Cars, like cigarettes and alcohol, impose a cost on society. Not just in the provision of roads but via accidents and the effects of polution. Why should that not be reflected in a fixed tax on their ownership?
The treasury don't like taxes earmarked to a particular purpose and despite recent kite flying by Ministers over hypothecating part of VED I don't think it will happen soon.
|
>>As Mark will be along to remind us in a minute government has to get its money from somewhere
You do well, Grasshopper.
>>Why should the simple ownership of a car be taxed at all?
This is not a moral decision, it is a financial one. Every area of activity or expenditure has some margin. That margin represents the difference between what people are paying for something and what they will pay for something - essentially a potential taxation target. The art of successful taxation is to remove that margin without harming the primary activity, with sound understanding of the impact of that margin not now being spent elsewhere.
Taxation is required to support the society and services required by the members of that society. Albeit that the members and the funders will, almost by definition, not be identical despite a strong overlap.
There is no neccessary relationship between the activity which is taxed and the use of that taxation revenue beyond the need for marketing. Neither can there be nor should there be.
As I am known to say, there is no necessity for any activity, product or service to be taxed. You merely have to either identify what you would like taxed instead or decide which funded service or facility you will manage without.
And then gain sufficient support for that approach from the electorate.
Simples.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 31 Oct 12 at 15:09
|
>> We all know motorists are seen as cash cows for the general taxation pool,
]
And yet we carry on paying it, rarely squeaking that much, so its a a lifestyle choice thats clearly not hurting much.
Funny thing is, Motoring is still cheaper than it was 50 years ago.
|
>> Are they trying to soften us up for a scheme we wouldn't like but wouldn't
>> be as bad as this one?
>>
That's not a bad point actually!
By the way Sandgrown, you don't hail from Southport by any chance...?
|
>> By the way Sandgrown, you don't hail from Southport by any chance...?
>>
No, but just up the coast in Blackpool.
|
Has the Coalition gone completely mad? - Old Navy
