[Closed] You don't pay road tax!

[i]And it looks like no-one may in the future:[/i]

No one has since 1937, or did I miss something?

or did I miss something?

the joke.
how likely is this to go through? or anything similar? I would welcome it.

No one has since 1937

A few years back, the Gubmint wanted to realign the VED rates, ostensibly to "encourage" us toward more efficient cars, however should the owner of a cooking VW Golf pay the same as someone with an Aston Martin? At least this plan goes some way to ensuring that this doesn't happen.

A better idea - quite radical actually as no-one at The Treasury seems to have cottoned on - is that hikes in one off VED or Fuel Duty help fund a cheaper public transport system...

[i]the joke.[/i]

well, I kindof did - it was the 'And it looks like no-one may in the future' bit that threw me.

oh well.

From the article:

The Office of Budget Responsibility this year cut its forecast for VED revenues by £100 million a year from 2014/15 to reflect the move towards cleaner cars.

Right, the "green nudge" from VED appears to be working.
So lets scrap it and try something else...

So as a confirmed second hand car buyer I (possibly) save?

What will the anti-bike brigade accuse us of then?

So an encouragement to keep cars for longer - or to buy 2nd hand cars? That'll be interesting.

So an encouragement to keep cars for longer - or to buy 2nd hand cars? That'll be interesting.

Aye. I always wondered about the level of energy/resources that go into making a new car vs the fuel/emmissions savings of having a newer, more efficient car.
ie Is having a new Prius etc on a scheme every 2-3 years more wasteful than keeping most average cars for 10? I think so, but it's just a guess.

Anyone with a Telegraph login care to respond to this muppet:

English Militia
14 minutes ago

Tax cyclist using the roads (40 pound a year) and make them do a bike test for the use of the roads (20 pound).

If we can tax people for watching TV on a computer in the UK, I see no excuse not to tax people using their cycles on the roads that have no cycle lanes and where the majority have no road sense.

After all, it is the Car tax that pays for the cycle lanes, So why shouldn’t the cyclist contribute money towards the use of the roads?

My response would be something like:

Brilliant - make cyclists pay £40 a year, a tenner more than a Band C car pays and twice what a Band B pays? Cyclists are Band A: £0 a year.

It's very sad that it all appears to be more about revenue raising than protecting the environment. The last bunch of imbeciles were spectacularly good at this too.

What an absolute muppet hey, Charging cyclist rad tax. Liek we cause so much road damage. The world is full of muppets!

Charging cyclist rad tax

If there's to be a rad tax, I think we all need to reconsider how much we shred the gnat!

Charging cyclist rad tax

You must shred the gnar considerably if you're getting taxed on your rad emissions.

I would like to ask him for his evidence of this:

the majority have no road sense

and this:

it is the Car tax that pays for the cycle lanes

If you rode a single speed I wonder if bike tax would be cheaper than geared 😛

After all, it is the Car tax that pays for the cycle lanes

Many if not most cyclists do pay "road tax" (sic), and we all pay tax VAT, PAYE etc, so it's actually cyclists who are subsidising motorists, because we contribute to the roads through our taxation, but when using our bikes instead of motor vehicles we aren't damaging the roads or the environment.

can't believe there are people who still believe this

Sadly I think he probably speaks for a sizable majority of the population based on my own conversations with bike-adverse drivers (including my own family 👿 )

It all seems really simple to me. Abolish VED and add a 1p per litre tax to fuel so the people who use the roads the most and/or have the highest emmissions, pay the most tax.

shred the gnat!

[img] [/img]

Aye. I always wondered about the level of energy/resources that go into making a new car vs the fuel/emmissions savings of having a newer, more efficient car.
ie Is having a new Prius etc on a scheme every 2-3 years more wasteful than keeping most average cars for 10? I think so, but it's just a guess.

I once read somewhere (although no guarantee that it is true) that the most environmentally friendly car (resources used over lifetime of vehicle) was the original Willys Jeep.

Average life expectancy of modern cars is only nine years, and there is no way a Pious makes less of an environmental impact than my 17yr old Micra.
They also weigh as much as my Jag (twice the weight of the Micra), so it's not like they couldn't be made more economical.

It all seems really simple to me. Abolish VED and add a 1p per litre tax to fuel so the people who use the roads the most and/or have the highest emmissions, pay the most tax.

What if you use a lot a fuel but have a really low emission car?

You'd lose out under that system, which undermines the "green nudge" approach.

grahamS, yeah that's my experience too, still have difficulty believing it tho

Have I missed sommat?
The holy trinity of Tax Disc/MOT/Insurance, if we remove the Tax Disc where is the cross check re insurance and MOT?
I know the system as it stands is imperfect, but this appears to make it worse.

grahamS, yeah that's my experience too, still have difficulty believing it tho

I've been saying for ages that CTC/Sustrans/BritishCycling/THINK/RoadSafe etc etc should get together and run a series of national cross-media adverts to dispel some of these stupid myths.

I think a series of ads explaining the truth of "road tax", primary position, cycle lanes, dangerous law-breaking, filtering, Advanced Stop Lines, correct overtaking, etc etc would be great.

page has gone, one minute worked, next disappeared. Conspiracy, no doubt.

I can't see this going far- in the current climate the revenue would have to be made up somehow, and there wouldn't be too many options that weren't self defeating- tax high emission vehicles too much, and the sales would fall, leading to a drop in revenue etc..

Then again, a few years down the line the government coud 'reassess' and reintroduce vehicle based taxtaion, fro a double slice of the cake.

good shout graham, nice idea

No one has since 1937, or did I miss something?

Shouldn't someone tell the government?
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_4022118

I'm all for Black boxes that issue on the spot fines for speeding and tax you per mile as well as within the current tax bands but that's a bit extreme for some people.

But yes, let's licence and tax cyclists!

But yes, let's licence and tax cyclists!

At what age does a cyclist have to obtain a licence and pay tax? The kids round our village are a real liability - can we start with them. They don't wear helmets either! 😯

Shouldn't someone tell the government?

I don't see anything about "road tax" there.
That's about "Vehicle Tax".

At what age does a cyclist have to obtain a licence and pay tax? The kids round our village are a real liability - can we start with them. They don't wear helmets either!

Well this is exactly it, sorry son, can't ride a bike until you've passed your test!

What if you use a lot a fuel but have a really low emission car?

You'd lose out under that system, which undermines the "green nudge" approach.

If you use a lot of fuel, you're hardly being green, are you?

I can't see anything, the link no longer works

English Militia
14 minutes ago
Tax cyclist using the roads (40 pound a year) and make them do a bike test for the use of the roads (20 pound).

If we can tax people for watching TV on a computer in the UK, I see no excuse not to tax people using their cycles on the roads that have no cycle lanes and where the majority have no road sense.

After all, it is the Car tax that pays for the cycle lanes, So why shouldn’t the cyclist contribute money towards the use of the roads?

What about replying that you think the government should refund some of the car tax paid by cyclists for cycling to work and leaving their car on their drive. (that will light the blue touchpaper)

If you use a lot of fuel, you're hardly being green, are you?

Well no, but that may be dictated by the nature of your job.

If you try to offset that a little by using the lowest emission engine you can then it would be good to reward that effort somehow, even by a relatively small amount, which is why graduated vehicle tax is separate from fuel tax.

Doing so upholds the principal of "polluter pays" - otherwise you're left with a situation where a low-emission car is paying the same as a crusty banger producing over twice as much CO2 per km.

That proposal is the complete opposite of what they should be doing.

Its car USAGE thats the problem and needs to be reduced. Lowering running costs in favour of up front costs would achieve the opposite.

Why not just abolish VED completely and have an additional tax added to the cost of fuel? The more you drive, the more damage / wear to roads, increased emissions, the more you pay?
Might actually make people think a little more about what they use their cars for.

The holy trinity of Tax Disc/MOT/Insurance, if we remove the Tax Disc where is the cross check re insurance and MOT?

You can keep the disc system, just don't charge for it. This is (or certainly used to be) the case for pre-1974 classics - the "tax" was free but you still had to toddle off to the post office with your documents and get a disc to put in your windscreen to prove to plod that you were all nice and legal. Is it not the case for Band A cars now, as well? (genuine question, never had a clean, green car and not had a classic for some years)

In practice, now they have ANPR and instant access to the insurance database, is the little round disc in the windscreen as important as it was for providing this assurance anyway?

I think a series of ads explaining the truth of "road tax", primary position, cycle lanes, dangerous law-breaking, filtering, Advanced Stop Lines, correct overtaking, etc etc would be great.

Well no, but that may be dictated by the nature of your job.

If you try to offset that a little by using the lowest emission engine you can then it would be good to reward that effort somehow, even by a relatively small amount, which is why graduated vehicle tax is separate from fuel tax.

Doing so upholds the principal of "polluter pays" - otherwise you're left with a situation where a low-emission car is paying the same as a crusty banger producing over twice as much CO2 per km...

... but being used half as much.
Seems fair to me.
My Jaguar uses less fuel and produces less pollution than the average vehicle over the course of a year.
Why should a conscientious driver like myself pay more for polluting less?
Don't forget also that the "crusty banger" is already in existence, so is likely to be less resource hungry than running [i]and[/i] building a newer car, as mentioned.

Why not just abolish VED completely and have an additional tax added to the cost of fuel?

[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/you-dont-pay-road-tax#post-4235405 ]Because...[/url]

... but being used half as much.
Seems fair to me.

Ahh but we didn't say that though.

Let's say there are two cars, both use 15,000 litres of petrol a year and get exactly the same mpg.

One spews out 230 g/km of CO2, the other is a new fancy engine with very low emissions (sub 100 g/km).

For a green nudge you need to punish the former / reward the latter.

If you just add tax to fuel you don't achieve that. Hence Vehicle Tax.

Let's say there are two cars, both use 15,000 litres of petrol a year and get exactly the same mpg.

One spews out 230 g/km of CO2, the other is a new fancy engine with very low emissions (sub 100 g/km).

You could use that as an example, but unfortunately it is not a situation that you will find in reality.
Emissions are proportional to fuel burnt, maybe not directly, but pretty damn close.

Have a look [url= http://greencarsite.co.uk/CONGESTION-CHARGE-EXEMPT-CARS-LIST.htm ]here[/url] and then find me a polluting old banger that matches the mpg figures.

Emissions are proportional to fuel burnt, maybe not directly, but pretty damn close.

So how do you encourage manufacturers to develop new engines which [i]do[/i] burn cleaner, if there is no reward in it for them or their customers (other than a slight smug feeling)?

Fuel efficiency is the reward.

I had a woman just last night shout that very thing at us as we climbed up towards Pensitone from Langsett. She sat behind us for about 8-10 seconds as we wound up the climb of blind corners with her parping her horn at us a couple of times for not removing ourselves from the road and for stopping her from getting home for her egg and chips.

As she passed, window down and bellows of "you don't pay road tax, I do!!"
After formuating a well thought argument I retorted with the snappy comeback of "f@@k off".

She got the message and now understands the merits of an emission based system for road using vehicles.

I can't see anything, the link no longer works

This has been kicked around before, I very much doubt it will happen, ie replace VED with upfront tax. What is perhaps more likely is a combination of both, ie more tax revenue overall but dressed up as being "environmentally sound".

Massively increasing tax on "gas guzzling" cars will hurt the luxury car industry and put at risk UK jobs, it will also fire up retaliation from foreign governments who will target taxes on UK businesses in retaliation. A huge mess.

We used to have 10% tax on all new cars (in addition to VAT) and it was abolished as it depressed demand for cars and was thus bad for tax revenues and jobs.

They Can't charge road tax on cycles because they Don't own them! They (DVLA) can only charge a tax on vehicles they own, you are only the registered keeper of your vehicle! Our cycles are Owned by us 🙂

Fuel efficiency is the reward.

Okay maybe my crusty banger was the wrong example:

Would you rather have engine A that does 60mpg and produces 80g/km of CO2, or engine B which does the say mpg but burns "dirtier" and produces 150g/km?

You need to tax in a way that encourages engine A.
Fuel tax doesn't do that. Vehicle Tax does, a bit.

car fuel taxes are a dead end. Petrol sales are going down so tax not sure about tax take. Miles driven are going down because fuel is costing more. Move to an electric transport fleet and the need for petrol and diesel collapses.

At some point you end up with the one man driving one mile in a petrol car and paying millions in tax to do so.

The future is road pricing and black boxes whether you like it or not, now how do you fit a black box to a bike?

The future is road pricing and black boxes whether you like it or not, now how do you fit a black box to a bike?

When motorists start paying by road use then they really will have a case against bikes. 😕

The future is road pricing and black boxes whether you like it or not, now how do you fit a black box to a bike?

Road pricing is really the only sensible answer. Cut VED massively (if not abolish it altogether). Cut the price of fuel. Then have road pricing - the technology already exists in applications such as Congestion Charging or you can phase it in in terms of all new cars having "black boxes" and run a twin tier system so that older cars pay VED and newer cars run on the road pricing system.

Lower insurance premiums for less driving (cos you're less of a risk). Road pricing by time of day, distance, type of road and maybe type of car. So driving 2 miles at rush hour in a city in a massive 4x4 costs a bloody fortune. Driving 200 rural/trunk road miles at night in an economical car costs peanuts. Fairly simple matrix to calculate all of that.

ALL the money raised from road pricing goes back into the road network and public transport.

Okay maybe my crusty banger was the wrong example:

Would you rather have engine A that does 60mpg and produces 80g/km of CO2, or engine B which does the say mpg but burns "dirtier" and produces 150g/km?

[b]You need to tax in a way that encourages engine A.[/b]
Fuel tax doesn't do that. Vehicle Tax does, a bit.

I disagree (with my emboldened bit).

I drive my weekend bit of fun (engine B if you like), but commute by bike during the week.
I do few miles a year (in the car) and produce X amount of pollution.

My neighbour drives his engine A car everywhere, producing 2X amount of pollution.

Why should we incourage the neighbour?

ETA: your example still isn't realistic, cars aren't efficient or inefficient enough to give that great a disparity between CO2 and mpg.

@edlong - it was not so much the little disc, as you say ANPR can gather all the facts a plod needs so I guess a disc is almost redundant other than to allow the old g1t down the lane a reason to knock on my door pointing out that my sorned Karmann Ghia is not taxed and he's going to report me. Bless.

I'm all for Black boxes that issue on the spot fines for speeding and tax you per mile

Like duty on fuel, except that fuel duty is progressive: taxing more for inefficient cars. And doesn't require "black boxes" which can be fiddled and cost tonnes of tax £££ to implement.

Scrap VED, forget black boxes and tolls and simply increase duty on fuel. It will be cheaper for us.

I have a mate who skates all over and uses the road, and he gets loads of abuse of motorists and the common theme is no road tax too

To be fair to all the normal people out there, the government were still referring to VED as "road tax" as little as two years ago.

Would you rather have engine A that does 60mpg and produces 80g/km of CO2, or engine B which does the say mpg but burns "dirtier" and produces 150g/km?

I don't think that's possible. The carbon in the fuel has to go somewhere and is mostly emitted as CO2. (probably some CO as well). I would have thought mpg is inversely proportional to CO2 g/km. As my Mrs has just opened a bottle of red someone else can do the research....hic!

geordiemick00 - Member
I have a mate who skates all over and uses the road, and he gets loads of abuse of motorists and the common theme is no road tax too

TBF skaters are a nightmare because they take up so much of the road.

[b] Especially for Carlton Reid [/b]

Yes, we do know about http://ipayroadtax.com/ and yes you are [i]"generalising terribly[/i]". 😛

(see https://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/253802398089359360 )

To be fair to all the normal people out there, the government were still referring to VED as "road tax" as little as two years ago.

Of course, and most normal people do as well. It’s a colloquialism, rather like alcohol tax and tobacco tax. And guess what; none of those taxes get spent exclusively on roads, alcohol or tobacco.

And for those that think road tax is all about emissions, please explain why two identical cars, with identical emissions, don’t pay identical road tax if one is used only in closed course competitions (no requirement for road tax)? It’s called road tax, because it IS a tax we pay to use the roads.

It’s a very silly argument; even sillier to have a whole website to explain why it most certainly isn’t road tax! I can only guess the author either has issues spotting the blatantly obvious, or is a few months short of a 12 month tax disc.

When cyclists have a motorist shout 'You don't pay road tax', the correct response is one of the following:

'I'm not required to by law, bye'

'I know, good isn't it?'

'I do, I buy some for my imaginary car car to appease uneducated tabloid reading knuckle dragging motorists like you'

'Do I look like I care?'

They Can't charge road tax on cycles because they Don't own them! They (DVLA) can only charge a tax on vehicles they own, you are only the registered keeper of your vehicle! Our cycles are Owned by us

Facepalm

Lawmanmx - I am the registered keeper of our vehicle. My girlfriend and I are joint owners of the vehicle. I am not leasing it from the DVLA.

Davesmate/slob spot on!

If you use lots of fuel, you have a gas guzzler and/or you do lots of miles. Therefore emissions are high.

Therefore tax on fuel is fairer. My T5 can easily do 40+mpg but gets taxed in band K!!

But someone who drives an old Defender doing 22mpg can be in several bands down? Fair? Environmentally friendly? I think not! (Before someone lectures me on how long a defender lasts vs a Commercial van, it's a non argument as the VW has a higher duty life)

When cyclists have a motorist shout 'You don't pay road tax', the correct response is one of the following:

'I'm not required to by law, bye'

'I know, good isn't it?'

'I do, I buy some for my imaginary car car to appease uneducated tabloid reading knuckle dragging motorists like you'

'Do I look like I care?'

I like "I also don't pay for sex
<if time, pause to look closely at driver>
Looks like I'm two for two on you!"

When cyclists have a motorist shout 'You don't pay road tax', the correct response is the following:

"**** off and die in a fire you oxygen thief"

Fixed that for ya. 😉

And for those that think road tax is all about emissions, please explain why two identical cars, with identical emissions, don’t pay identical road tax if one is used only in closed course competitions

I suspect for exactly the same reason that on private land you don't need a driving license, or mot, or need to wear at seatbelt, or need to obey speed limits, or be over 17...

It’s called road tax, because it IS a tax we pay to use the roads.

So why don't cyclists, horses and pedestrians (and 2 million cars) pay it then?

There's no point getting into semantics. It's a tax on motor vehicles used on the public highway. It is not ringfenced to pay for roads; it is simply part of general taxation. Its bands are set according to emissions. There, easy.

It's a tax on motor vehicles used on the public highway.

Except the ones that have low emissions.

[url= http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/who-pays-road-tax/ ]Or mobility cars. Or police and emergency vehicles. Or really old cars. [/url]

😀

I defined emissions when i said the banding is set by emissions, just didn't specify that some bands could be zero rate. And yes, there are of course exceptions.

Looked at 'Infiniti' cars in a showroom a few weeks back (The Nissan version of Toyota's Lexus brand). Yikes! Frightening prices and frightening emissions. Nice finish on the interiors though.

It’s called road tax, because it IS a tax we pay to use the roads.

No, it's a tax you pay to drive a certain type of car on the roads.