Government (and EU) Road Toll Intentions

[Brock]

Muswell, the way to remove a wallpaper bubble is to prick it. Unfortunately, in this case it is the pricks causing the bubble!

 

You are right though. Governments need an income. It enables politicians to spend it on staying in power in the hope nobody notices. They will collect it one way or another.

 

Already we have road pricing through tolls - try using the Mersey Tunnel which charges people on the Wirral so they can spend it in Liverpool - and also through deals the Highway Agency has done where it pays firms to maintain roads based on usage.

[nowtelse2do]

Brock - 2015-01-07 4:45 pm

 

Already we have road pricing through tolls - try using the Mersey Tunnel which charges people on the Wirral so they can spend it in Liverpool - and also through deals the Highway Agency has done where it pays firms to maintain roads based on usage.

 

The new Runcorn - Widnes bridge will be a toll when finished. The old bridge will also be tolled for the 1st time.

 

That should stop the tourist flocking there. Pay to go in, get robbed then pay to get out. ;-)

 

Dave

[Brian Kirby]

Muswell - 2015-01-07 1:52 PM

 

The government has to raise a certain of amount in tax. It's like a bubble under wall paper, you move it around but it won't go away. Income tax, VAT, fuel duty, VED, road tolls who cares. Now when all vehicles are chipped so their mileage is logged and charged accordingly we should all be happy.

But, how much simpler (and IMO cheaper) it would be if VED were transferred to fuel tax. Fuel tax is already collected, so not additional cost involved. All the paraphenalia surrounding VED could then go, so a saving would result. V5C to be made proof of ownership. Licence plate to be issued to driver, not vehicle, as in Germany. So, continuous insurance links vehicle via VIN (now checkable through windscreen), and to driver via reg No. Any vehicle being driven will be taxed, its owner can easily be identified, and the owner of the reg No instantly checked. Any good? :-)

[Guest Joe90]

Brian Kirby - 2015-01-07 7:02 PM

 

Muswell - 2015-01-07 1:52 PM

 

The government has to raise a certain of amount in tax. It's like a bubble under wall paper, you move it around but it won't go away. Income tax, VAT, fuel duty, VED, road tolls who cares. Now when all vehicles are chipped so their mileage is logged and charged accordingly we should all be happy.

But, how much simpler (and IMO cheaper) it would be if VED were transferred to fuel tax. Fuel tax is already collected, so not additional cost involved. All the paraphenalia surrounding VED could then go, so a saving would result. V5C to be made proof of ownership. Licence plate to be issued to driver, not vehicle, as in Germany. So, continuous insurance links vehicle via VIN (now checkable through windscreen), and to driver via reg No. Any vehicle being driven will be taxed, its owner can easily be identified, and the owner of the reg No instantly checked. Any good? :-)

 

It's only any good if there is a modicum of common sense down Whitehall, plus my guess is any proposals to collect taxation through extra fuel tax wouldn't exactly go down well at the local Rotary club, unless that is they all switch to driving Citroen C1s instead of Range Rover Vogues.

[Rayjsj]

pelmetman - 2015-01-07 12:14 PM

 

Joe90 - 2015-01-06 8:03 PM

 

There are now countless numbers of cars not paying any "road tax" at all, the range of manufacturers and models is mind boggling, it seems more than a bit bonkers to me, they all use the bloody roads.

 

 

15 years time Horace will be road tax free B-) ..............I've also discovered he'll be LEZ compliant :D .........anyone know any campsites near Trafalgar square I can book for 2030? (lol) ............

 

 

Always the Royal parks, Caravans are barred, but motorhomes OK, just drive in and break down ! ;-)

 

There are countless Roma gypsies defacating all over the place, don't think you'll be noticed. (lol)

Ray

[Rayjsj]

Muswell - 2015-01-07 1:52 PM

 

The government has to raise a certain of amount in tax. It's like a bubble under wall paper, you move it around but it won't go away. Income tax, VAT, fuel duty, VED, road tolls who cares. Now when all vehicles are chipped so their mileage is logged and charged accordingly we should all be happy.

 

Any GPS or Mobile Phone Technology relies on a Radio signal of some kind and ALL active signals are screenable or jammable. Good old Tinfoil !

Not to save money I just hate this Surveilance Society, and I have nothing to hide, just love being the 'awkward sod'.

Ray

Cash or Cheque Only, No Direct debits or Credit cards, no Go-boxes or stickers, no automatic tolls paid.

[Rayjsj]

nowtelse2do - 2015-01-06 6:16 PM

 

So that's the answer. The rich can afford to pay so the serfs can use the back roads.

 

 

That has always been 'their' Way, hence the 'Rebecca riots' in Wales over a century ago.

 

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/rebeccariots.htm

 

 

Ray

[Guest Had Enough]

Rayjsj - 2015-01-08 9:41 AM

 

Any GPS or Mobile Phone Technology relies on a Radio signal of some kind and ALL active signals are screenable or jammable. Good old Tinfoil !

Not to save money I just hate this Surveilance Society, and I have nothing to hide, just love being the 'awkward sod'.

Ray

Cash or Cheque Only, No Direct debits or Credit cards, no Go-boxes or stickers, no automatic tolls paid.

 

You're quite right and if you really want to be safe I would advise covering all your windows with tinfoil. Some people say that we should line our hats with it as well, although I'm not sure about that.

 

I do think though, that you are being very foolish writing cheques. Every cheque that you hand out has on it your account number, sort code and, worst of all, a perfect facsimile of your signature.

 

Just imagine what 'they' can do with that eh?

 

Every month I make a 200 mile round trip and pay cash for my council tax, phone bill, broadband account, and about six other monthly bills. They're not luring me into this direct debit nonsense as I know that the first one I sign up to will steal all my money and leave me bankrupt.

 

I'm even considering not having a bank account at all and insisting that my pensions and dividends are all sent to me in cash by registered post.

 

I hate the bankers and I don't care if the innocent men and women who work in the retail banking side, which was nothing to do with the investment arms of banks, all lose their jobs and can't pay their mortgages. That's not my problem, all that matters is that I'm not inconvenienced in the slightest.

 

You should also really think about whether you need a computer at all. Just imagine how many filthy capitalists have made money from making and selling a PC to you. And then there's all those bloody Yankee software inventors who are millionaires just because they're geniuses who can invent Windows and Java and stuff. It's bloody annoying.

 

Then there's the risk. Just imagine what 'they' know about you from your internet activities. It really is scary.

 

You're a man after my own heart and if there were more like us the world would be a safer place. OK, it would be a bit like living in the 19th century, but surely that's a good thing?

 

Thank you for the link about that Rebecca girl by the way. I've not opened it of course in case it contains a nasty virus but I'm sure that it's a good read.

 

 

 

 

 

[nowtelse2do]

Rayjsj - 2015-01-08 9:50 AM

 

nowtelse2do - 2015-01-06 6:16 PM

 

So that's the answer. The rich can afford to pay so the serfs can use the back roads.

 

 

That has always been 'their' Way, hence the 'Rebecca riots' in Wales over a century ago.

 

http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/rebeccariots.htm

 

 

Ray

 

I like it. Cross dressing (antony...take note) Trash the toll booths then get sent to Australia for a long holiday......bring on the warmth B-)

 

Dave

[Guest Had Enough]

Brian Kirby - 2015-01-07 7:02 PM

 

But, how much simpler (and IMO cheaper) it would be if VED were transferred to fuel tax. Fuel tax is already collected, so not additional cost involved. All the paraphenalia surrounding VED could then go, so a saving would result. V5C to be made proof of ownership. Licence plate to be issued to driver, not vehicle, as in Germany. So, continuous insurance links vehicle via VIN (now checkable through windscreen), and to driver via reg No. Any vehicle being driven will be taxed, its owner can easily be identified, and the owner of the reg No instantly checked. Any good? :-)

 

Simpler but simplistic. We already pay fuel tax in proportion to how much we drive, so high mileage drivers pay lots of tax for the privilege.

 

VED then irons out the anomalies, one of which is me. Nowadays I do a very low mileage in my private car, so pay a relatively small amount of fuel tax. But because its engine is much larger than average and therefore more polluting I pay a much higher VED rate. Surely that must be fair? My engine may be twice as large but I do about a quarter of the average UK mileage, but my high VED makes up for the fact that I'm not contributing much fuel tax.

 

And of course having VED rates linked to emissions has focussed manufacturers' minds on improving engine cleanliness. If there was no VED and we all just put fuel in, where is the incentive to drive a less-polluting car?

 

So if we scrap VED, how do we penalise low-mileage drivers who have big polluting cars? How do we encourage makers to continue to improve emissions outputs? They'll still to try to get better mpg because that sells more cars but, let's be honest, many people couldn't care less about emissions.

 

 

[Guest Joe90]

VED has in effect been scrapped for thousands upon thousands of cars, and the number continues to rise, hardly any surprise to me that other forms of revenues are being looked at.

[AliB]

Joe90 - 2015-01-07 12:57 PM

 

10k a year nett before you're into taxation, sure you can can live on that...........pull the other one.

 

 

 

Actually just under £8K a year before you pay tax. You start paying National Insurance at that point. It is all tax payable to the Gov. whatever you want to call it.

[Hawcara]

My wife has a 107, which when we first bought it, VED was £30, this then dropped to £20, which I thought absurd. If we bought the newer version it is £0. Again ridiculous.

My 125 scooter, was £15 ( I think) and goes up by £1 every year it seems (far more than the rate of inflation). It is more polluting but does twice the mpg.

There is no logic to any of it.

 

 

:-D

[Brian Kirby]

Had Enough - 2015-01-08 12:48 PM.....................VED then irons out the anomalies, one of which is me. Nowadays I do a very low mileage in my private car, so pay a relatively small amount of fuel tax. But because its engine is much larger than average and therefore more polluting I pay a much higher VED rate. Surely that must be fair? ..................

But it seems to me that VED introduces as many anomalies as it irons out Frank. I just can't see its advantage. Your case would easily be dealt with by an increase in fuel tax, you would pay more for the fuel, but no VED, so your overall contribution to the treasury would fall. But, others, elsewhere, would pay more, so the contribution to the treasury in their cases would rise - unless they changed their driving habits or vehicles. The net overall effect on driving costs would be neutral, but there would be a saving to treasury from abolishion of VED (albeit some redundancies might result).

 

There are already regulations (on vehicles and fuel) to reduce vehicle exhaust pollution, and I can't see any reason to relax these if VED were dropped and fuel tax increased. It is already the case that different fuels carry differing levels of fuel tax. This is already exploited to encourage greater use of less poluting engines. I don't see why this would change.

 

Some of the degradation of roads is due to weather, some due to wear. Large vehicles cause more wear than small ones, but they also consume the most fuel, so do, and would still, pay more. Road construction and repairs are in any case paid for out of general taxation. Fuel tax and VED are not set aside for road spending. None of this would change.

 

But, drivers in rural areas, many of whom need cars because public transport is unreliable or scarce, many of whom are also hard up, often drive small annual mileages (like you, and me), and for them the additional cost of VED is burdensome. They would be better off, leaving major road users to pay the major cost.

 

Nothing is perfect, but to me it seems a fairer principle overall. It is only a means to an end, a simple to administer, and therefore efficient, tax. So, I remain unconvinced of the advantages of VED, which I see as comparatively costly to administer, and therefore relatively inefficient, tax. I think we must just agree to differ.

[EMS]

The tax on fuel is in two parts firstly a tax plus the cost of the fuel then secondly on the cost is added VAT.

Thus we pay VAT on the Fuel Tax!

 

Large heavy vehicles cause most damage to major roads, whilst minor roads are damaged by cars driving through wet puddled/flooded roads, the road is destroyed in a similar fashion to using a jet spray such as a Karcher.

 

The cost of using the Motorways in France has caused a lot of traffic when it can to bypass the country, using the free motorways in Belgium, Luxemburg(cheap fuel) and Germany.

 

[Dave225]

Brian Kirby - 2015-01-07 7:02 PM

 

Muswell - 2015-01-07 1:52 PM

 

The government has to raise a certain of amount in tax. It's like a bubble under wall paper, you move it around but it won't go away. Income tax, VAT, fuel duty, VED, road tolls who cares. Now when all vehicles are chipped so their mileage is logged and charged accordingly we should all be happy.

But, how much simpler (and IMO cheaper) it would be if VED were transferred to fuel tax. Fuel tax is already collected, so not additional cost involved. All the paraphenalia surrounding VED could then go, so a saving would result. V5C to be made proof of ownership. Licence plate to be issued to driver, not vehicle, as in Germany. So, continuous insurance links vehicle via VIN (now checkable through windscreen), and to driver via reg No. Any vehicle being driven will be taxed, its owner can easily be identified, and the owner of the reg No instantly checked. Any good? :-)

 

 

Because as we all know that down the line a future Government would re-introduce it. They would dress it up for any number of reasons: environmental is always a good one but there is no doubt that you would end up paying the higher VED, and road fund tax as well. Whatever the colour of the Government, they just cannot resist any opportunity to relieve the populace of money. It would all be ringfenced to improve the roads etc, at last initially, and then of course be used for any stupid idea they have at the time.

 

I doubt there is a Local Authority in the Uk that has not siphoned off the money allocated to repairing roads to another cause dear to their political hearts, and we all get the potholes as a result. They then blame it on central Government funding, or supposed lack off. My own dear Council has admitted, hidden in its accounts, it is cheaper to pay compensation for damage rather than actually fix the roads. In fact their latest wheeze is to introduce a blanket 20 mph speed limit in the whole city. Of course we all know that traffic will never actually get up to that speed with the holdups and poor roads we currently have, but the costs of all the new cameras and signage has to be paid for somewhere.

[nowtelse2do]

Dave225 - 2015-01-09 7:55 PM

 

My own dear Council has admitted, hidden in its accounts, it is cheaper to pay compensation for damage rather than actually fix the roads. In fact their latest wheeze is to introduce a blanket 20 mph speed limit in the whole city. Of course we all know that traffic will never actually get up to that speed with the holdups and poor roads we currently have, but the costs of all the new cameras and signage has to be paid for somewhere.

 

And I understand that other Scottish cities are watching closely to see the outcome of this to view implementing the same. So I think it's fair to say that English, Welsh and N Ireland cities and large towns will follow.

 

Looks like a case of 'On yer bike'

 

Dave

 

Dave

[nowtelse2do]

EMS - 2015-01-09 5:36 PM

 

The tax on fuel is in two parts firstly a tax plus the cost of the fuel then secondly on the cost is added VAT.

Thus we pay VAT on the Fuel Tax!

 

Large heavy vehicles cause most damage to major roads, whilst minor roads are damaged by cars driving through wet puddled/flooded roads, the road is destroyed in a similar fashion to using a jet spray such as a Karcher.

 

The cost of using the Motorways in France has caused a lot of traffic when it can to bypass the country, using the free motorways in Belgium, Luxemburg(cheap fuel) and Germany.

 

Large heavy vehicles will fill their tanks up with anything from 250lts to 500lts a time, so a lot of tax.

My son fills his truck up 3 times a week and on occasions 4 times.

.....................................................................................

 

This is the one that will cost. (note) ALL VEHICLE ON ALL ROADS.

 

Nasty EU.

 

Dave

 

 

 

Other interested parties

 

The Government is not the only interested party. The EU has a vision of compulsory road pricing for all vehicles on all roads, which it wants to pursue from 2015/6. (The 2014/5 timescale for its vehicle tracking Galileo satellite matches that proposed for the LRUC).

 

The EU also seeks to manage major routes as a ‘Trans European Network’ under a common approach, and wants a large increase in infrastructure investment to meet economic growth targets. Its own road pricing consultation was launched in August 2012.

[Brian Kirby]

Dave225 - 2015-01-09 7:55 PM....................Because as we all know that down the line a future Government would re-introduce it. They would dress it up for any number of reasons: environmental is always a good one but there is no doubt that you would end up paying the higher VED, and road fund tax as well. Whatever the colour of the Government, they just cannot resist any opportunity to relieve the populace of money. It would all be ringfenced to improve the roads etc, at last initially, and then of course be used for any stupid idea they have at the time. ...............

Forgive me Dave, but this is not an argument for, or against, VED, but an argument against government and how they spend tax. It won't matter a hoot how the tax is raised, what you say will remain as true, or untrue, as you hold it to be. Clearly, you think government should spend a lot less on certain things. These decisions are political: the outcomes of elections and electorates. This is what happens in democracies. So I think, with respect, that you are off at something of a tangent to the general topic: how much of the wider costs of motoring infrastructure should fall upon the road user?