No more Zero vehicle band tax on electric cars

This was announced in a budget.  It is inevitable that if the push towards EVs started to “work” that the fall in VED revenue would require a rethink on policy, especially as those vehicles only produce 5% vat on their energy and no fuel duty.

Seems premature, and leaves the tax system in a mess.  A dirty diesel spewing pollution ends up less than an EV producing nothing.  Time for a reset on all bands.

The diesel pays far more tax overall though in fuel duty and VAT and is more expensive to buy as a company car.

Time for a reset on all bands.

So you're saying that someone who can afford a shiny new electric car should pay less tax than someone who cannot?

The diesel pays far more tax overall though in fuel duty and VAT

But isn't the tax band supposed to be representative of emissions? I agree that electric vehicles need to pay their fair share of the costs associated with providing infrastructure, but this tax change is merely to appease the anti-EV lobby / climate change deniers.

A dirty diesel spewing pollution ends up less than an EV producing nothing

Yep ours is £20 a year. There's plenty of other incentived for EVs, particularly via salary sacrifice so it makes sense. In a few years they'll be cheaper than the equivalent petrol cars so no need for other tax payers to subsidize their use

Bound to get re-set when the Govt start losing money ! If you can afford £40k plus cars, you can afford the measly amount of VED.

 I agree that electric vehicles need to pay their fair share of the costs associated with providing infrastructure

End of conversation then?

(It was never meant to be an emissions tax but like everything.... stuff changes)

A dirty diesel spewing pollution ends up less than an EV producing nothing.

Although it's not nothing, obvs.

Surely the +£40k addition is irrelevant of emissions, so ought to paid?

The money raised from VED isn't used for the road infrastructure, it goes into central funds.

Inevitable that this would happen, but if a private company had lured a consumer into buying a product with a free subscription & then started charging once they were tied in I suspect most people would cry foul.

So you’re saying that someone who can afford a shiny new electric car should pay less tax than someone who cannot?

People who choose to run dirty cancerwagons shouldn't be financially penalised?

Bound to get re-set when the Govt start losing money ! If you can afford £40k plus cars, you can afford the measly amount of VED.

Except, of course, that thanks to inflation that £40,000 should actually be closer to £50,000.

It's hard to take a tax described as a "luxury car" tax seriously when the owner of a Rolls Royce pays exactly the same as a Golf or Citroen DS4.

Or is this the STW theme of "they earn more than me so they're bastards who should be taxed until their take-home is the same" kicking in? I would guess from the space between the last word in the sentence and the exclamation mark you're of the typewriter generation?

Before getting his Tesla a neighbour had an Audi S5, range rover & a rolls - ved alone must have been near £1.5k let alone what he paid over in fuel duty - now he pays just £16 to fill up his EV & only 5% of that is tax, so inevitable that zero tax bands had to come to an end at some point.

Inevitable that this would happen, but if a private company had lured a consumer into buying a product with a free subscription & then started charging once they were tied in I suspect most people would cry foul.

It happened with petrol cars too - there were loads with zero or £20/year VED. You won't find one now with tax that low.

Electric cars still cause indirect pollution and damage to roads - they don't drive along emitting rose petals.

They should've tiered it on efficiency and kept extra low rates to reward you for buying smaller cars with small kWh batteries to continue the push for efficiency.  Buy a 3 ton electric SUV that only manages 3miles/kWh then pay more tax.

VED was originally set based on engine size and CO2 emissions, then it changed slightly in 2017 to an initial payment based on emissions and then a flat rate for each year afterwards.

EV and Hybrid were obviously low/zero tax to provide an incentive to buy one over a petrol or diesel car which would incur an extra cost at time of purchase (although obviously that doesn't apply if you're buying S/H).

But yes, there was always going to be a financial black home in the future based on lower income from both VED and from fuel duty. The obvious answer is pay-per-mile but that's political suicide which successive Governments of both colours have shown no inclination to address. Even Sadiq Khan was forced to rule it out in the recent Mayoral election, largely based on Tory lies that he'd be introducing it. However, it was (to all intents and purposes) not far off being given the green light - TfL have done *loads* of work on this, far more than DfT have managed.

spooky_b329

Full Member
They should’ve tiered it on efficiency and kept extra low rates to reward you for buying smaller cars with small kWh batteries to continue the push for efficiency.  Buy a 3 ton electric SUV that only manages 3miles/kWh then pay more tax.

Totally agree, a missed opportunity.

People who choose to run dirty cancerwagons shouldn’t be financially penalised?

Vast numbers of people don't have a choice..... but you may not see that from your high horse.

Jesus ...... this place!

Vast numbers of people don’t have a choice….. but you may not see that from your high horse.

Jesus …… this place!

Yep, around our place most folk drive 10 year or older cars and don't tend to have the ability to nip down the local garage and chuck 50k on a car, or get the finance or tax benefits via their job to fund one.

But yes, there was always going to be a financial black home in the future based on lower income from both VED and from fuel duty.

Agreed, but when you look at the forecast VED from the OBR for the next few years the amount of increase in revenue is significantly more than the last 30 years.  In other words we are all getting our pants pulled down.  https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/vehicle-excise-duty/

"Inevitable that this would happen, but if a private company had lured a consumer into buying a product with a free subscription & then started charging once they were tied in I suspect most people would cry foul."

This is what just about every private company in the world does with every subscription product.

(OK sometimes it's just a discount rather than exactly free, but it's hardly unusual behaviour and I suspect approximately zero people will be surprised by the ending of the zero tax rate for EVs.)

Any tax on vehicles (I think) should be based on mileage and use regardless of what you drive, can't be that difficult to work out considering most of us have to have an MOT every year that records mileage. If you use it a lot you pay more, simple. Rich Santa Cruz owners in their 3 ton EV monster trucks breaking up the roads doing 30k miles a year should pay more than the old lady in her old Nissan Micra at £250 a year in a village in Kent going to Tescos once a week.

Any tax on vehicles (I think) should be based on mileage and use regardless of what you drive

It mostly already is. Around 50% of the pump price of petrol and diesel is tax and duty. Of course maybe you want to disadvantage rural commitments even further - you know, the ones with shitty public transport links and higher distances to services etc?

People who choose to run dirty cancerwagons shouldn’t be financially penalised?

Yes they should

www.theconversation.com/air-pollution-from-brake-dust-may-be-as-harmful-as-diesel-exhaust-on-immune-cells-new-study-129594

www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/23/health-impact-tyre-particles-increasing-concern-air-pollution

If you use it a lot you pay more, simple.

...let's apply that same theory to council tax! Got loads of people living in your house using council resources? Why not tax them individually - we could call it Poll Tax. Don't think that went down well!

By default, if you drive more it costs you more in fuel/leccy/repairs/tyres/pasties at services etc., and brings in tax revenue on all those products.

Vast numbers of people don’t have a choice….. but you may not see that from your high horse.

Jesus …… this place!

No doubt it we scoot over to the other political forums the same posters will be crying out about the working classes. I guess people only really give a **** about them up until the point it no longer serves their political bias or pocket...

don’t tend to have the ability to nip down the local garage and chuck 50k on a car, or get the finance or tax benefits via their job to fund one.

Me neither, still have an EV though. I can't afford a new ICE car either. Used cars are a thing.

They should’ve tiered it on efficiency and kept extra low rates to reward you for buying smaller cars with small kWh batteries to continue the push for efficiency.  Buy a 3 ton electric SUV that only manages 3miles/kWh then pay more tax.

As @multi21 says, a missed opportunity. Recent Harry's Garage video revisiting the Model 3 was an eye opener for me. I didn't realise how crap the efficiency of some EVs is - he singled out things like the BMW i5, some big Lotus thing as being particularly poor, with the Model 3 getting 75% better efficiency with over 4/miles/kWh or something. Sub £40k and 1750kg for the basic Model 3 explains it I guess.

Yeah been on its way for along time. No matter to me as I’m going back to IICE due to a change in personal circumstance,, shame as much preferred the `EV.

Any tax on vehicles (I think) should be based on mileage and use regardless of what you drive, can’t be that difficult to work out considering most of us have to have an MOT every year that records mileage. If you use it a lot you pay more, simple. Rich Santa Cruz owners in their 3 ton EV monster trucks breaking up the roads doing 30k miles a year should pay more than the old lady in her old Nissan Micra at £250 a year in a village in Kent going to Tescos once a week.R

What a weird statement.  You have taken a position and then blurred it by varying a different control factor.

Just out of interest, who do you think should pay more between:

Rich Santa Cruz owner in their 3 ton EV breaking up the local roads doing their monthly trip to the local TC.

Old lady in her Nissan Micra in a village in Kent doing a weekly trip to the not very local Aldi

They should’ve tiered it on efficiency and kept extra low rates to reward you for buying smaller cars with small kWh batteries to continue the push for efficiency.  Buy a 3 ton electric SUV that only manages 3miles/kWh then pay more tax.

I agree, at some point they're going to have to do something because:

a) Roads need paying for if people want to drive

b) Car sizes are getting out of hand.

I got overtaken riding home on Sunday by an I7 on Caversham bridge which is 4 (admittedly narrow) narrow lanes and it simply didn't fit in a lane, it had to straddle both lanes, and carry on doing that at the roundabout blocking both the left turn and straight ahead lanes.  It's absolutely insane.

Not just EV's either, there's a Ford Raptor and a couple of W**kPanzers that between them pretty much block through traffic on the nearby housing estate.  It was originally built with a bus gate to make it an LTN but the council took it out as the parking meant there was no foreseeable way they could ever have driven a bus through. Should have been double yellowed form the start.

Road pricing would seem to be at least a partial way forward, and an excellent way to make people think twice before hopping in the car for short trips, but good luck to the political party who tries to introduce that.

Any tax on vehicles (I think) should be based on mileage

It mostly already is for ICEs, by far the most tax you pay is on fuel.

VED based on weight&emissions maybe? As heavy vehicles wear the roads more.

IMO it should be based on some kind of size/weight class, as well as (maybe) annual mileage.

Continually having more and more (bigger) vehicles on our already-struggling road network is just not sustainable (both for actual driving and also for parking reasons). We need to discourage car ownership & use much more - especially the fashion for (unnecessarily? large vehicles) - the only way to do that is through peoples' pockets it seems.

Any tax on vehicles (I think) should be based on mileage and use regardless of what you drive, can’t be that difficult to work out considering most of us have to have an MOT every year that records mileage. If you use it a lot you pay more, simple.

Well done. You have just made the islands, highlands, rural Lakes, Wales and Southwest England even more damn expensive to live, on top of the fuel poverty that already exists in those areas. Additionally you have penalised all the care workers or NHS workers (etc) on low pay who support our most vulnerable in society etc etc.

Pay per mile is deeply unfair.

A combination of emissions, weight, car value, congestion, urban and miles, now that makes some more sense.

We need to discourage car ownership & use much more, the only way to do that is through peoples’ pockets it seems.

I fully disagree.  You cannot simply penalise people for doing what they need to do.  It's unfair to those who have no alternative, and is also deeply unpopular and in a democratic country, that's a problem.  You need to provide effective and attractive alternatives, then incentivise people to use them.

VED based on weight&emissions maybe? As heavy vehicles wear the roads more.

The weight is a red herring as whilst heavier cars do wear the road more, it's insignificant to the damage caused by HGVs which are largely needed.

You have just made the islands, highlands, rural Lakes, Wales and Southwest England even more damn expensive to live

You cannot simply penalise people for doing what they need to do.

You need to provide effective and attractive alternatives, then incentivise people to use them.

You need to both discourage the behaviour that you want less of and encourage the behaviour you want more of.

The lesson of the Netherlands is that it both needs to be easier to use public transport +/- bicycles and harder to use cars. Paradoxically this also makes it easier to use cars, because when it’s successful traffic is massively reduced.

Of course maybe you want to disadvantage rural commitments even further – you know, the ones with shitty public transport links and higher distances to services etc?

The problem is big cities have made cars rubbish on their own with traffic and parking and by taxation, emissions zones, etc.  Which then means there's a political will to sort out public transport .

Rural areas have crap public transport because cars are still cheap (there's free parking everywhere) and easy (there's no traffic).

If you made the parking at Ribblehead as expensive as central London I guarantee that all those people driving there to look at the train line would realize you can actually get a train there.  Same with locals, if Aldi and Lidl in Catterick charged £10 to park,  then people in Hawes in their Nissan Micras (Sorry Kojak / Generalist I don't know Kent)  wouldn't drive there and would shop locally at Elijas instead.

or even zero-rate it for those who are genuinely isolated or have no option other than to commute long distances by car

And therein lies a problem.

There's a difference between between the local rural economy (which probably involves very little actually driving, Farmers aren't known for their commutes), and people who live in rural areas. If you live in Hebden, Kirkby Lonsdale, or Hawes and commute in Manchester you are not the victims of this, you are the problem.

I agree, at some point they’re going to have to do something because:

a) Roads need paying for if people want to drive

Any old public money can pay for roads and vehicle excise duty can pay for, you know... that expensive thing... the NHS.

I agree that electric vehicles need to pay their fair share of the costs associated with providing infrastructure

VED doesn't fund infrastructure, it goes into the general taxation pot. Even if it did, it wouldn't come close to providing enough money - we all fund roads from general taxation, whether we own a car or not.

The lesson of the Netherlands is that it both needs to be easier to use public transport +/- bicycles and harder to use cars. Paradoxically this also makes it easier to use cars, because when it’s successful traffic is massively reduced.

Problem comes when one political party is bleating about the War on Drivers, and the other goes on about hard working motorists despite 1:3 households in the UK not having a car, and 1:4 people not being able to drive.

It's hard to believe anyone enjoys sitting in a traffic jam and given that building more roads doesn't work, the solution is exactly as you describe.

You cannot simply penalise people for doing what they need to do.

I thought that was exactly how it works.

Developing tax policy to inhibit non-preferred behaviours is a thing.  I'm not denying that.  Just saying that taxes always get set according to political affordability which only becomes linked to individual voter affordability if the overall revenue curve from an increase reaches an inflection and the opposition drive a wedge into that particular issue in order to screw us elsewhere.  We pay what can be afforded (cf. price of bikes/e-bikes) and we get a chance to cast our vote for one or other pack of scoundrels to form our government.  These rules seem to be constant.

I feel a wee bit guilty now - my 'dirty diesel' attracts £0 VED and doesn't even meet Euro 6!

We all know deep down that road pricing is probably the answer.

They should’ve tiered it on efficiency and kept extra low rates to reward you for buying smaller cars with small kWh batteries to continue the push for efficiency.

Bang on. Should have revised VED for electrics to be based on weight. Want (and can afford) an expensive lightweight electric car... knock you socks off. Want to drive an electric tank, at any cost... pay your way/weigh.

weight x miles x list price x annually escalating constant = tax would be hard to argue against.

Could be made palatable by abolishing VED and fuel taxes.

The challenge is how do you log miles. It's easy to say it's recorded with the annual MOT , but that's open to being easily fiddled. It would need some sort of black box system, and that wouldn't be popular with the liberal right wing.

You cannot simply penalise people for doing what they need to do.

You can, you just push them into making a decision about how much they need to do it.

Smoking, drinking, gambling, driving.

I thought that was exactly how it works.

Developing tax policy to inhibit non-preferred behaviours is a thing.

Only when there's a viable and decent alternative.

You need to both discourage the behaviour that you want less of and encourage the behaviour you want more of.

Yes, but that can only be done when the behaviour you want is actually achievable.   It's fine to dissuade people from driving and encourage them to use trains or busses instead, but when there isn't a bus or train to the place you need to be, then what are you supposed to do? You're forcing people to pay the penalty when they have no choice. This is both immoral and deeply unpopular.

weight x miles x list price x annually escalating constant = tax would be hard to argue against

I don't think so.  Driving 20 miles across rural Wales between towns to get to work is not the same as driving 20 miles across congested Bristol.  And the weight thing is a red herring - efficiency is the important metric.

There’s a difference between between the local rural economy (which probably involves very little actually driving, Farmers aren’t known for their commutes)

Hah.  Most people who live in the countryside aren't farmers.  They are people who need jobs, but due to the density of business activity they need to drive to other towns or villages to work, and do stuff like take their kids to school. Then they need to go to another village to get their car serviced or another place to get a thing they need etc etc.  It's pretty rare that you can do all these things with public transport.  Out of all car users in the country, rural inhabitants are the last ones you want to go after.

You can, you just push them into making a decision about how much they need to do it.

Getting to work is quite high on most people's list of priorities.

weight x miles x list price x annually escalating constant = tax would be hard to argue against.

Works for me, I'd make it so the 'ordinary' driving licence allows you drive say; up to a  1.5lt 4 door, maybe 2 tonnes, after that you want more engine? more people? you take an annual [paid for] test and pay more tax. You want a 4x4? prove that you live on a farm, or in the highlands, I'd ban the sale of things like Range Rovers or Q7s etc anyway, and make max curb rate weight rules for everything else.

I'd make the Daily Mail readers faint. It'd be fun.

If you want to discourage the use of heavier cars, just ban power steering.

Getting to work is quite high on most people’s list of priorities.

Yes, but why do they need to live 20 miles away.

Ramping up car taxes and abolish stamp duty to encourage people to co-locate near their employment would be beneficial to everyone.

Hah.  Most people who live in the countryside aren’t farmers.

I agree, I grew up in a succession of "Turn right at the signpost in the middle of nowhere and go a couple of miles further" type places.

Commuting is killing actual local economies.  I went to my parents in the Dales a couple of weeks ago and couldn't get anything to eat as every restaurant in Hawes was shut and it's because people working in catering trades have been priced out of the area by commuters.

People should not be living in rural areas and commuting 20 miles into town by car, its not sustainable.

Out of all car users in the country, rural inhabitants are the last ones you want to go after.

Congestion charge, parking charges, parking permits, ULEZ, and general self limiting by congestion has already "gone after" urban car users.

Rural areas have crap public transport because cars are still cheap (there’s free parking everywhere) and easy (there’s no traffic).

City dweller me thinks.

I used to be all for road/milage pricing... but I think the switch to electrics reduces the need for this now... the environmental cost of cars will be shifting fast to the negative effects of production and away from fuel costs.

They have crap public transport because the usage is so low that the bus companies, for example, don't bother providing the services as it will lose them money.

I use to get the bus to work on the 07:15 bus and 90% of the time I was the only person on it for 10 miles trip it was making.  Would have made more sense just to send a car to take me!  Not surprisingly the service was cancelled leaving just the 11:00 bus now so great if you want to get to work at 12:00 but may be more use to people going to town to do shopping but I have no idea how many people use it.

City dweller me thinks.

@tonyF1

I've moved to a big village, it's practically cosmopolitan now the pub has re-opened. Before that growing up:

<1997

I think the nearest house was 2-3 miles away?

<2008

It was a joke that we'd moved out of the sticks because there was a postbox < 2 miles away, but you still had to go 3 miles in the opposite direction to see a streetlamp.

What I'd rather is people started campaigning for and using public transport rather than campaigning to keep their cars cheap.

A simple tax by listed wet weight would be sufficient.
maybe make under 1000kg free for the Ami and similar to encourage them for those who need them, and really ramp it up for over 2000 for the ****panzers however they are propelled.
sliding scale in between to make manufacturers really think about the car weight in the same way they were able to amazingly come in just under the emission bands once they put their minds to it.
the difference between EV and ICE can be done by adjusting fuel duty, eg ICE will pay more per mile.

If the per mile is done via fuel duty (bonus for efficiency baked in) then by weight is going to pretty much correlate to resources used to build and eventually scrap; and damage/wear to roads.

Localised pollution dealt with by LEZs and congestion charging as currently.

no need for black boxes or any other charge by mile scheme.

If the per mile is done via fuel duty (bonus for efficiency baked in) then by weight is going to pretty much correlate to resources used to build and eventually scrap; and damage/wear to roads.

I agree with the principle but then you need to meter the electricity.

City dweller me thinks.

ayjaydoubleyou has it spot on

Yes, but why do they need to live 20 miles away.

Good grief.  You say you grew up in the countryside but either it was a very posh middle-class version of countryside or you had your eyes and ears very firmly closed.

Moving house is difficult, expensive and disruptive. Finding a job is also difficult - if you live in a village (where you might've been born and brought up, and your support network might be) and you are lucky enough to find a job ten miles away, forcing people to move or refuse the job would cause terrible problems.  Mobility is important for the economy and for the workforce, if you restrict it you will have more unemployment. Sure, people could move to a city, but that's going to demolish rural communities even more so than they already are.  See 19th century Scotland for an example of how this can end up.

Commuting is killing actual local economies.  I went to my parents in the Dales a couple of weeks ago and couldn’t get anything to eat as every restaurant in Hawes was shut and it’s because people working in catering trades have been priced out of the area by commuters.

There's a difference between rural people working the only job they can find in the next town (or working several jobs, or doing temporary work) and middle class people who work in the big city pricing locals out of the area.

People should not be living in rural areas and commuting 20 miles into town by car

Sometimes it really is the only option.  You may not be aware of this, but it really is.  Life happens.  As for sustainability - go stand by a roadside in rural Herefordshire and count the cars.  Are you willing to destroy local communities to get so few cars off the road?  Now go stand by the M25 and count the cars, tell me which one you want to fix first.  You could fix them both and yes, it would be brilliant, but you need to work out the most effective way to spend the money first to have the biggest impact.

What I’d rather is people started campaigning for and using public transport

That is literally what I am advocating, scroll back a bit, it was the first thing I said.  What I am objecting to is the order in which things are done. You cannot penalise people when there isn't a choice.  Give them a choice first THEN encourage them to use it.

I went to my parents in the Dales a couple of weeks ago and couldn’t get anything to eat as every restaurant in Hawes was shut and it’s because people working in catering trades have been priced out of the area by commuters.

No, the reason is Brexit. Same for lots of places in the Dales, eg. Dent where I had a good chat with the landlords and the local farmer* who used to have the Brewery on his land. One pub is now two days a week, the other relies on family members to keep it open. No European workers has pubs and other hospitality businesses on their knees. Similar stories in the Highlands as well (one pub/restaurant I know there is now completely staffed by South Africans to keep going... not every business owner has the contacts, means and scale to make that kind of more distant staffing happen though).

[ * this old guy was awesome... insisted we called the village "Town" and had a good pretend argument with the family I was visiting with, who all have the surname "Dent"... where as he shared a surname with the guy on the old monument in the centre of the "town".  Had a good old chat about the Brewery with him... it was when it was shutting down production... we were there to help finish the last few casks at one of the pubs. ]

Another recent anecdote... The Torridon @ Torridon... was in their bar getting, er, wasted after a weekend of riding... lovely staff... most of the French... one from Barbados (via Salford... what a contrast)... the UK playing "boo foreign workers bad" needs to be reversed if we want to keep rural businesses, especially hospitality, open.

"VED doesn’t fund infrastructure, it goes into the general taxation pot. Even if it did, it wouldn’t come close to providing enough money – we all fund roads from general taxation"

Motoring taxes raise around £40Bn. Roads spending is around £11Bn.

https://ifs.org.uk/books/road-map-motoring-taxation

https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-national-roads/

"pay their fair share of the costs associated with providing infrastructure"

I would expect better this forum.
VED doesn't pay for infrastructure, either construction or maintenance - this comes from general taxation.

The most significant tax loss going from liquid fuels to electricity is tax - Petrol and Diesel are very heavily taxed to the point that it in effect a pay-per-mile tax with a weighting towards less efficient vehicles paying a higher rate.

The only real way to replace this is a pay per mile system based on actual miles driven. Not that will NOT be popular (however remember it effectively already exists, just indirectly as a tax on fuel).

People should not be living in rural areas and commuting 20 miles into town by car

So who should be living in the millions of rural houses?

Farm workers?  No, farms need a fraction of the workers they used to have because of mechanisation.  In a village of 500 there are maybe 15 local jobs.

Retired people? No, they move back to towns when they get old as they struggle to drive and there are no local services.

Working from home?  Not a chance.  We get 0.5mp/s on the phone line or around 3mb/s on a 4g router, that now only works intermittently as the 3g is turned off and 5g is years away.

So is it better for the environment for my house to be knocked down and a new house to be built for me in the suburbs, or to commute 15 miles in an EV powered mostly by the solar panels on my roof?

Good grief.  You say you grew up in the countryside but either it was a very posh middle-class version of countryside or you had your eyes and ears very firmly closed.

No I grew up a leftie thinking how can this be made better for those who can't afford "to commute 15 miles in an EV powered mostly by the solar panels on my roof?" rather than assume everyone can bootstrap themselves out of the problems in a sustainable way.

People should not be living in rural areas and commuting 20 miles into town by car

On a purely selfish note I'd rather live in a rural community and commute to work.

I have zero desire to live in a town or city.

I simply don’t buy the emissions claims any more. With ice engines the fuel tax was close enough but surely EV emissions is dependent on how the electricity was being generated at the time you happen end to charge the car so it could 100% green or 100% fossil fuel depending on the lap of the gods.  Also surely my 8 year old car I bought used is still better for the environment than me buying a brand new ev or having work provide me with one which they would.

It feels a little soon to let a disincentive to buy an EV creep in. However it would be good to do something to incentivise smaller lighter EVs to continue adoption beyond the largest models in a manufacturers lineup

ircFull Member
“VED doesn’t fund infrastructure, it goes into the general taxation pot. Even if it did, it wouldn’t come close to providing enough money – we all fund roads from general taxation”

Motoring taxes raise around £40Bn. Roads spending is around £11Bn.

And the total costs of motoring are many times the road spend.  Death and disability caused by cars, diseases of inactivity, all that land tied up by parked cars, damage to buildings, cost of enforcing motoring law etc etcv

Rural public transport?  Back in the 70s the village I lived in 20 miles north of Glasgow had 2 buses an hour into town.  I worked on a golf course 10 miles away - I got the bus there at 6 am.  Last bus home 11 pm.  Now 2 buses a day.  Its perfectly possible to have decent rural public transport.  It just needs political will and money - and that money could easily come from raised taxes on drivers.  Take 20 years to change it all now of course but we could make a start.

but surely EV emissions is dependent on how the electricity was being generated at the time

Partly true. With our current energy mix, the carbon emissions of ICE vehicles is still many fold that of any electric vehicle charged at any time of day.

By 2030 (assuming the Tories are kicked out) all electric vehicle charging will use renewable energy only.

Needs a lot of work going into grid upgrades and resilience though (again, will happen if Tories are moved on).

Even sooner than 2030 it will be possible for all electric cars to be charged at off peak times without using fossil fuels.

Of course most of us will still be using ICE cars for years (decades) to come... if only because we can't afford new cars... but a simple weight based charge for the larger EVs is probably sufficient to encourage take up of more efficient vehicles that cause less road damage and create fewer non-fuel particulates. Charging based on energy usage for EVs is probably overly complicated and unnecessary. Keeping fuel duty for our ICE cars to keep pressure on milage/usage still makes sense though. And should be increased (I say this despite it hitting me).

On a purely selfish note I’d rather live in a rural community and commute to work.

I have zero desire to live in a town or city.

Same for me.  I moved out of town 25 years ago and am never going back.  As said up there though, I did actually use the bus and then walk remaining 3 miles to work most days before the service was canned so we only needed one car.

Back in the 70s...

Back in the 60s my grandad was one of a handful who owned a car in his village. Proper Lord of the Manor!

No point quoting 50 year old tales of happy bus journeys when car ownership was low and bus, bike or motorbike were most peoples only transport options.

And back then 'leisure' wasn't the thing it is now. Most peoples leisure was down the local of a weekend. And holidays were 'factory fortnight' on the train to Skegvegas. Now people are traipsing all over the country every weekend.

Society has changed and putting that mobility genie back in the bottle will take a lot of doing.

Personally I think the only thing that will change things radically it is self driving vehicles where you just book one on your phone and it comes to your door.

And the total costs of motoring are many times the road spend. Death and disability caused by cars, diseases of inactivity, all that land tied up by parked cars, damage to buildings, cost of enforcing motoring law etc etcv

If you're trying to calculate the indirect costs you should also add in the indirect benefits, the massive boost to the economy (and thus general taxation) that fast, flexible, nearly ubiquitous personal transport at a low cost provides. That far outweighs any of your proposed costs you've added - eg the costs of the traffic police is less than £100m - insignificant

What I’d rather is people started campaigning for and using public transport rather than campaigning to keep their cars cheap.

Problem is no one will pay for this as the cost is always going to exceed revenue. I live in a smallish village of 500 and one bus a day at 11:00 that comes back next day.

Car ownership is an absolute necessity here and a lot of folk locally wouldn’t consider cars cheap as they make minimum wage.

eg the costs of the traffic police is less than £100m – insignificant

Which is a small part of the costs of enforcing motoring law

No point quoting 50 year old tales of happy bus journeys when car ownership was low and bus, bike or motorbike were most peoples only transport options.

I was talking about the late 70s not the 30s and the point of the story is that good rural bus services are possible.  Deregulation and subsidy cutting is what has done for rural buses not an inherent difficulty

If you’re trying to calculate the indirect costs you should also add in the indirect benefits, the massive boost to the economy (and thus general taxation) that fast, flexible, nearly ubiquitous personal transport at a low cost provides. That far outweighs any of your proposed costs you’ve added – eg the costs of the traffic police is less than £100m – insignificant

Which then misses the point that those benefits are usually quoted against staying at home doing nothing (or sitting in a traffic jam doing nothing).

When people quote the economic benefit of cycling, trains, busses, or anything that isn't a car they're usually giving the delta to a car. E.g the economic benefit of Crossrail is largely the result of getting people off the M4 and north circular.  The economic benefit of HS2 was in getting freight off the M40, the economic benefits of cycling are the health benefits and local spending Vs sitting in a car.

And just imagine what an economy would look like balanced away from cars (and housing but that's a different but linked argument).  Those thousands of pound's currently spent my every household on personal transport which ultimately ends up either aboard, or concentrated with shareholders. Plus the drain they put on local economies because if you're getting in the car to dive somewhere, it's more likely you'll drive a bit further to the big out of town warehouse shops.  What if it was instead spent locally? Spend the cost of your new car on home improvements with a local builder. £60 tank of petrol on the drum lessons you always wanted. The service and MOT bill on snazzy moleskins from a local trouser company.