CliveH Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 On the news this morning the Transport Select Committee (TSC) stated that the botched introduction of the increases to the Road Fund License were counter productive as people saw it for what it was a cynical revenue gaining exercise. As such it has turned the population against “Green Taxes”. They also stated that Parking Charges actually WERE revenue generators - something that most of us have long suspected after seeing yellow lines suddenly being put down in business and industrial areas. Finally the big one! - They advocated that the Road Fund Licence should be scrapped and the levy put on fuel. The also mentioned some sort of voluntary pay as you go scheme – not sure how that would work if the levy was put on fuel??? The question is – will any of this ever be put in place? I am not holding my breath but I do live in hope. For those of us with MH’s and for those with Tugs that only get used for a few thousand miles a year this has got to make sense! I saw a client yesterday who has a company car and does 35,000 miles a year. He pays less RFL than I do (well his company does and so gets tax relief on it) whereas I pay the full wack on my Discovery Tug that did 4000 miles last year. So seeing as this committee has flagged it up, I am beginning to see a chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klyne Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Paying tax on fuel where you pay according to fuel used/miles covered would certainly be fairer for those of us that don't travel a massive number of miles each year. But you can see the protests from people who have to use their cars for work, company car owners and busineses. I am not supporting their case but just pointing out what sort of reaction the idea is likely to get. Even when Dennis Healey was Chancellor they were thinking of putting tax on fuel rather than duty. I wonderwho much fuel would have to go up to cover not having fuel duty? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 And even better - tax on fuel would make Johnny Foreigner contribute to our tax revenue - but not, I hasten to add - to our road repair and replace programme - if we ever get one again? If it happened, I feel that the MOT and Insurance certificates should then be issued in tax disc format and their display made compulsory under pain of scrapping for failure to display without a valid reason - like it fell off and was laying on the floor! In fact why not do that anyway and make the roads a safer place for all us law abiding motorists? It would also make it easier for me to indulge my love of Jaguars! As to whether we are getting anywhere - somehow I doubt it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J9withdogs Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I totally agree - why should I have to have RFL on both of my vehicles when I can only drive one at a time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted July 24, 2009 Author Share Posted July 24, 2009 Good point about the oversees drivers Tracker. This is how it is reported on Yahoo News:- Treat road users fairly, urge MPs Friday, July 24 06:05 am Motorists appear mistrustful of the Government's road user tax measures, a report from MPs has revealed. Drivers don't trust ministers on "unfair" taxes Motorists 'Mistrust' Reasons For Road Tax The Government has been inconsistent in the way it has justified motoring taxes, added the report from the House of Commons Transport Committee. Road users remained "an important source of revenue" but needed to be treated "fairly and with openness", the MPs said. The committee's chairman, Louise Ellman (Labour, Liverpool Riverside), said: "The Government handled a phased set of increases to Vehicle Excise Duty (car tax) so badly they tarnished the image of environmental taxes." The report said: "The Government has been inconsistent in the way that it has justified motoring taxes. Fuel duty has been presented, at different times, as a tool to reduce carbon emissions, a source of general revenue, and a means to fund transport investment. "We are concerned that motorists are mistrustful of the Government regarding taxes. The Government needs to improve the consistency and transparency in the way it justifies taxes on road users." The committee went on: "Major issues remain to be resolved in relation to taxes and charges on road users. "Road users are, and will remain, an important source of revenue for Government expenditure, beyond that spent on the road network. If their trust in the taxation system is to endure, they must be treated fairly and with openness." Mrs Ellman said: "We believe taxation based on car usage - through fuel duty - remains fairer than any approach based on car ownership and does more to encourage fuel efficiency or reduce CO2 emissions. "We recognise that economic factors will limit how much revenue can be raised by this method. We call on the Government to develop other measures to address the problem of congestion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Environmental taxation is a load of b*****ks! It's all just a government scam to lie and deliberately mislead in order to raise more money to fund their excesses by as many stealth taxes as they can get away with on a gullible electorate. Incentive is the best way to encourage environmental awareness not punishment but that is alien to any control freak government of which the current bunch of crooks are about the worst that I have ever had the dubious pleasure of living through! Not that I'm biased! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spospe Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Many overseas HGV's have extra large fuel tanks fitted (I have often noticed this) so that they can complete their trip to the UK and back without having to buy any of our fuel. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 spospe - 2009-07-24 12:03 PM Many overseas HGV's have extra large fuel tanks fitted (I have often noticed this) so that they can complete their trip to the UK and back without having to buy any of our fuel. :-S Oh bugger - just the cars and Motorhomes then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Still think foreign vehicles, in particular lorries, should have to have a box that charges them to use our roads (as in Austria). I too support being charged more fore fuel and having no VED but is it not a little more difficult now that there are differing VED rates. For instance we have one vehicle that attracts none, one that is £135 and several that are £180 or £190, so how can you differentiate the value of the VED between vehicles in terms of petrol price increase? Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Basil - 2009-07-24 12:20 PM Still think foreign vehicles, in particular lorries, should have to have a box that charges them to use our roads (as in Austria). I too support being charged more fore fuel and having no VED but is it not a little more difficult now that there are differing VED rates. For instance we have one vehicle that attracts none, one that is £135 and several that are £180 or £190, so how can you differentiate the value of the VED between vehicles in terms of petrol price increase? Bas And some that are £405 - rising to £435 next year! I can't see the NIL VED folk liking it being abolished? So it strikes me that the government have got themselves into yet another mess with this by their ill conceived and ill thought out ongoing war against the motorist. If it wasn't so serious it would be farcical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred22 Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 I understand that in some countries(?USA) the police can tell at a glance if you car is insured by the style of registration plates you display. Can't see anything wrong with this and probably better than another disc to put in your front window and certainly more obvious. Even better if you have to submit your MOT to your insurance company before they will issue new plates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 If the police are able to tell from their in car ANPR cameras whether your car has insurance, VED and MOT perhaps access to the MOT and VED computerised database could be made available to the Insurers? I don't see new plates every year as a viable alternative - unless secure Insurance stickers front and rear could be applied to existing number plates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syd Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Tracker - 2009-07-24 12:17 PM spospe - 2009-07-24 12:03 PM Many overseas HGV's have extra large fuel tanks fitted (I have often noticed this) so that they can complete their trip to the UK and back without having to buy any of our fuel. :-S Oh bugger - just the cars and Motorhomes then! Oh Tracker, you disapoint me Where is your usual cunning, tax the blighters on the amount of fuel that is in their tanks at the point of entry into this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Syd - 2009-07-25 4:34 PM Oh Tracker, you disapoint me Where is your usual cunning, tax the blighters on the amount of fuel that is in their tanks at the point of entry into this country. I do so apologise Syd - that's my failing in life - far too bloody reasonable! Good job I'm not PM or we would all be treated fairly and all be getting vfm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
602 Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Hi. It wasn't so long ago that trucks were visiting France, just to fill their fuel tanks. On the other hand, I seem to remember reading about C&E charging duty on fuel carried in belly tanks on UK trucks coming home. I' have mixed feelings about moving VED onto petrol. My wife's KIA is only £35 a year to tax, and my 1960 Land Rover is tax exempt. But we also have a taxable LR Discovery. Where's my calculator? Of course, I guess there will still be an admin fee payable to DVLA. If you buy a car, or paint it a different colour, or change the engine, or type of fuel, or change your name or address, you get a new V5 free of charge. But if you lose your V5, it costs you £20 to replace it. Why? Because they can! 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted July 26, 2009 Author Share Posted July 26, 2009 We have three vehicles, one runs on LPG and so gets a small RFL discount (£15 a year!), but of course the main benefit is that LPG carries half the existing fuel tax because it is such a clean fuel. (50.9 p a litre I can live with!!) What get me about how unfair the current system is that it affected the poorer members of society more than anyone else as they tended to have the older cars and would not be able to commit huge sums to buying a new car even with the scrapage scheme. If you are buying a new Merc, Jag, Range Rover whatever - is a few hundred £ RFL going to influence your choice if the vehicle costs many tens of thousands of £'s?? Then we have the company cars that are doing tens of thousands of miles a year, get tax relief of the RFL that the private owner cannot, all for the same RFL cost that we would pay for doing the average few thousand miles a year. Scrapping the RFL is a good idea because from what I understand about 30% of the cost goes in just administrating this tax. Sticking a few extra pence on fuel to replace it will be far cheaper and easier to administer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.