# You don't pay road tax



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

Having read the argument and rebuttals against the moronic chant of 'you don't pay road tax' I am confused.

The rebuttal appears to rely on the fact that road building is paid for by general taxation and is based on emissions therefore cyclist have zero emissions therefore pay zero.

However I can't think of a way of driving on the road (legally) without paying tax to access them even if you have a very low emission car. 

So have the much derided motorists actually got a point? If so can we come up with a better rebuttal?


----------



## Theseus (28 Jul 2009)

Band A cars pay a VED of £0.00


----------



## Archie (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Having read the argument and rebuttals against the moronic chant of 'you don't pay road tax' I am confused.


Here's an easier one then. 

"What are you then, the tax inspector?"

Folk don't like being called that, for some reason.


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

User3143 said:


> No, because there is no such thing as road tax - only car tax which should be refered to as VED (Vehicle Excise Duty)



I'm fully aware of this but I see 'road tax' a generic catch all term rather than 'a tax that pays for roads'

The English language is full of such short cuts. When I go to the post office I don't ask for my Vehicle Excise Duty to be updated, I say can I have a new tax disk please. 

So let’s be clear to drive a car on the road you MUST pay tax. So I ask again have the motorists got it right (and if so do we need a better rebuttal)


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

Touche said:


> Band A cars pay a VED of £0.00




Yes but pay tax on fuel still!


----------



## marinyork (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Having read the argument and rebuttals against the moronic chant of 'you don't pay road tax' I am confused.
> 
> The rebuttal appears to rely on the fact that road building is paid for by general taxation and is based on emissions therefore cyclist have zero emissions therefore pay zero.



The main idea behind "you don't pay road tax" is that motorists are somehow a unique and oppressed entity that pay something that generously subsidise all us peasant pedestrians, cyclists and any other road users they don't like. 

As hypothecated taxes do no exist in this circumstance (and many others) that is pretty much all that needs to be said on the matter. That is to say that as it is out of general taxation, various other people are subsidising their motoring activities in a sense, not the other way round!


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

User3143 said:


> Indeed, which is based on either Carbon emissions or the size of the engine. A bike doesn't have any of these so therefore you don't pay.
> 
> I can see your point however when you look at the reasoning behind VED you realise that it does not apply to cyclists and therefore motorists don't have a point.




Don't forget fuel duty - and if it was purely for emissions can someone explain ‘red’ diesel to me!?!?!?!?


----------



## very-near (28 Jul 2009)

User3143 said:


> No, because there is no such thing as road tax - only car tax which should be refered to as VED (Vehicle Excise Duty)



How much is the VED on your lorry and why did they set the rate at 10 times that of a regular car ?


----------



## XmisterIS (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Yes but pay tax on fuel still!




Aye, but we pay tax on our "fuel" if it is classed as "non essential".

E.g. you pay tax on cake ...

.... Mmmm, cake!!!!!

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=6269602


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

marinyork said:


> The main idea behind "you don't pay road tax" is that motorists are somehow a unique and oppressed entity that pay something that generously subsidise all us peasant pedestrians, cyclists and any other road users they don't like.
> 
> As hypothecated taxes do no exist in this circumstance (and many others) that is pretty much all that needs to be said on the matter. That is to say that as it is out of general taxation, various other people are subsidising their motoring activities in a sense, not the other way round!



But there *IS* a direct correlation between using the roads and *HAVING* to pay for them if you are in a car. Drivers have to pay cyclists don't - drivers cost more to look after and build roads for but that doesn't mean cyclists are free to cater for - there is a direct cost of us using the road.

The rebuttal unfortunately is very weak as the motorists have a point. 

(Having said that the manner in which they make this point weakens this considerably.)


----------



## swee'pea99 (28 Jul 2009)

For most of us, the correct response is 'yes I do'. For those of us who don't have a car as well as a bike, might I suggest 'Up yours'.


----------



## Dan B (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> So have the much derided motorists actually got a point?


No. They pay road tax - I don't - so what? You don't see smokers demanding preferential treatment from the NHS because the duty on their fags helps fund it.

My favourite response to the chant remains "no, I don't pay for sex either", but it's unlikely ever to calm the situation.


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

User3143 said:


> You don't pay VAT on food or otherwise you could argue that. edit: It would appear that you do actually pay some sort of tax on food but not at the checkout. It is taxed very early on in the products life.
> 
> Fuel duty, well of course because it brings in an enormous amount of revenue to the Goverment. Also an enviromental issue as well (pay less fuel duty and VED buy a car with a bigger engine)
> 
> Red diesel is used for engines that don't travel on the road and is used to run machinery - however the duty is going up on this as well. Trust me -it's not as cheap as it used to be.



Always makes me smile the tax on food argument! 

The red diesel confirms in my mind that fuel duty is a direct (unavoidable) tax you must pay to use the roads – strengthening the drivers arguments and sense of injustice.


----------



## Dan B (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> But there *IS* a direct correlation between using the roads and *HAVING* to pay for them if you are in a car. Drivers have to pay cyclists don't - drivers cost more to look after and build roads for but that doesn't mean cyclists are free to cater for - there is a direct cost of us using the road.


Which cost is met through general taxation, into which pot I pay a goodly chunk every month.

But the fundamental premise is flawed: it's a tax (actually a duty), not a licence. There's nothing immoral about legally avoiding it any more than there is about minimising your exposure to any other kind of tax.


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

coruskate said:


> No. They pay road tax - I don't - so what?



The so what is that it is a cause of cyclist / car conflict - kinda key


----------



## ACS (28 Jul 2009)

Living in a rural area I often pass more people riding horses on the roads than other cyclist, does anyone know if horse riders suffer the same kind of abuse or is this 'pay road tax' a urban road user issue?


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

coruskate said:


> Which cost is met through general taxation, into which pot I pay a goodly chunk every month.
> 
> But the fundamental premise is flawed: it's a tax (actually a duty), not a licence. There's nothing immoral about legally avoiding it any more than there is about minimising your exposure to any other kind of tax.



Nor is there a suggestion from cyclists that it is - however it is a stick that is used to beat us with and as yet the resposne is a rather 'technical' (and I would argue flawed)explanation about how the tax system works. Hardly a pithy response to an idiot in a car!


----------



## blazed (28 Jul 2009)

Why do you need a clever rebuttal what do you think its going to change? You think they are going to remember it or even care? Here you are trying to find out some rebuttal on the internet whilst they are just getting on with their life not caring about some cyclist. That makes you the loser.


----------



## Crankarm (28 Jul 2009)

Archie said:


> Here's an easier one then.
> 
> "What are you then, the tax inspector?"
> 
> Folk don't like being called that, for some reason.




How about : 



> "The levy you refer to my {insert obsequious term of endearment} is actually known as Vehicle Excise Duty which is a tax on people who use polluting vehicles such as yourself. No, I don't pay it so whose the stupid one? Neither do I smoke which I see you are doing which attracts a lot of excise duty. To equate the payments of duty to HMRC as a permission to use the road network is fanciful. Anyway eveyone knows that general and local taxation is used to maintain and build roads and I pay enough of that as it is as I am a higher rate tax payer. Sorry your point was????"


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

blazed said:


> Why do you need a clever rebuttal what do you think its going to change? You think they are going to remember it or even care? Here you are trying to find out some rebuttal on the internet whilst they are just getting on with their life not caring about some cyclist. That makes you the loser.



Being called a loser brings back memories of the play ground - thanks for making me feel young again! - But be warned don’t push it any further because my dad is bigger than yours. 

But to deal with your point - there is a thread above this about myths and rebuttals and I assume that it is there to help cyclists persuade others to ride as well as dealing with tricky situations.

The rebuttal about road tax is flawed (in my view) and us trying to 'preach' about cycling and dealing with others (mis)perceptions to improve numbers, it kinda helps if we have a better rebuttal.

Hope that clears it up


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

User3143 said:


> What would you say to the driver of a car then?



Firstly I'd agreed with him we don't pay and point out the benefit of this to cyclists.

Secondly I would lower VAT on new bikes to 5% (the lowest allowable) and use the balance (10/12.5%) to form a fund that goes into uninsured drivers fund / general taxation thereby eliminating drivers concerns and providing valuable insurance cover for cyclists


----------



## redjedi (28 Jul 2009)

I don't know what could be better than "there's no such thing as road tax". I don't pay road tax, neither do motorists, what's the problem with that?

Why do you need a better argument than the truth? 

How long do you normally have to explain the errors of their ways to passing motorists?

Why let it bother you? If they want to be idiots and shout abuse from their cars, then let them. Keep on cycling past them in their traffic jam and get on with your life.


----------



## tandemman (28 Jul 2009)

There is no quick and pithy answer, why should there be???? 
Of course we don't pay fuel duty because we don't use fuel.
We dont pay "tax" because we are a "tax" exempt class of road user like horses, pedestrians and hand cart/barrow users,
I don't think dreaming up and using a witty remark will be much appreciated by an agressive road user in a large and potentially fatal piece of machinery, why would you want to goad them???


----------



## redjedi (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Firstly I'd agreed with him we don't pay and point out the benefit of this to cyclists.
> 
> Secondly I would lower VAT on new bikes to 5% (the lowest allowable) and use the balance (10/12.5%) to form a fund that goes into uninsured drivers fund / general taxation thereby eliminating drivers concerns and providing valuable insurance cover for cyclists



Pay through the cycle scheme and you don't pay any VAT.

If your worried about insurance, take out insurance. I'm about to do it (should have already  ), it will cost me £104 for the first year, covering me against theft, accidents and 3rd party cover.


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

redjedi said:


> I don't know what could be better than "there's no such thing as road tax". I don't pay road tax, neither do motorists, what's the problem with that?
> 
> Why do you need a better argument than the truth?
> 
> ...



See earlier posts for my view on what people mean by 'road tax'

Also this goes further than on road incidents it is more regularly mentioned to me by non cyclists friends / colleagues so you actually get a chance to explain


----------



## Crankarm (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Being called a loser brings back memories of the play ground - thanks for making me feel young again! - But be warned don’t push it any further because my dad is bigger than yours.
> 
> But to deal with your point - there is a thread above this about myths and rebuttals and I assume that it is there to help cyclists persuade others to ride as well as dealing with tricky situations.
> 
> ...



Anyway I can't say a driver has put this to me recently. In fact I can't remember the last time it was so long ago. Which goes to show the Government's fiscal strategy doesn't really figure in my commute or wider bike riding. For a motorist to state the bleedin' obvious would show that they probably have wider issues you should be more concerned with such as the electronic tag around their leg or the hospital wrist band they are wearing. Infact check out whether their vehicle is taxed or they are insured........


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

redjedi said:


> Pay through the cycle scheme and you don't pay any VAT.
> 
> If your worried about insurance, take out insurance. I'm about to do it (should have already  ), it will cost me £104 for the first year, covering me against theft, accidents and 3rd party cover.




Good point about ride to work and VAT

I am convinced that the majority don't have insurance so this would save you ££££ (other than the theft insurance)


----------



## NormanD (28 Jul 2009)

> does anyone know if horse riders suffer the same kind of abuse



Having worked in horse racing for many years (when I was younger), I never once had any abuse from drivers, even when I held them up for long periods, then again leading sixty horses the drivers would have had jaw ache before they arrived at me 

I look at it this way, I own a car / work / pay tax, I pay through the nose being taxed on this that and other that I buy, therefor I earn the right to use the roads no matter what type of transport I choose to use.

Saying that the last guy that complained, his Tax was out of date by two months and when I pointed this out, he drove off with the V sign 

How the goverment choose to waste the tax's I pay is not my problem.

Norm


----------



## fossyant (28 Jul 2009)

Given the amount I use my car these days, say on 3 days of a week (not for commuting) - £175 / 365 x 3 = £1.44 a day when I use it, so any mororist who has a go can do one...


----------



## Davidc (28 Jul 2009)

A number of issues.

Bicycles have VAT charged on them.

Local roads are maintained from local funds (Council Tax, the govt. grant to the authority, business rates etc.) which are paid by everyone.

Trunk roads are paid for centrally, from taxes paid by everyone.

A 1 Tonne (1000kg) car damages roads faster than a 100kg bike (incl. rider). It's a 4th power law so the rate is 10x10x10x10 = 10000 times as fast. If VED was based on that, and an average car VED was £150 then a bike should pay 1.5p a year!

The massive cost of signalling roads is only necessary because of car use.

Cars cause ill health and death. Bikes don't. Tobacco duty is justified on these grounds, no reason why motor vehicle duty shouldn't be as well. (I wouldn't push that one as it doesn't stand too much scrutiny for tobacco!)

IM (not at all H) O motor vehicles should be taxed enough to pay the costs of maintaining and building roads, to fund the total health costs of our using them, to compensate for the damage from pollution including that to buildings and agriculture, and anything and everything else that could possibly be attributed to them, then perhaps they'd go away!


----------



## redjedi (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> See earlier posts for my view on what people mean by 'road tax'
> 
> Also this goes further than on road incidents it is more regularly mentioned to me by non cyclists friends / colleagues so you actually get a chance to explain



If you've got time to discuss this with people, then explain to them the difference between VED, which is what they actually pay, and "road tax" which they haven't had to pay for many years (someone will know you the exact number of years).
Also mention that they don't have to pay "road tax" either. Give up their fuel/money guzzling car, and get a hydbrid/electric car or a money guzzling bike


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

Davidc said:


> A number of issues.
> 
> Bicycles have VAT charged on them.
> 
> ...



Agree with the last paragraph - as long as the equation is balanced by the good that they do.


----------



## Crankarm (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Good point about ride to work and VAT
> 
> I am convinced that the majority don't have insurance so this would save you ££££ (other than the theft insurance)



How long have you been cycling Lizban?

I would not let it get you down. Just cycle on and think of something else. Like a buterfly in the summer breeze....


----------



## Davidc (28 Jul 2009)

redjedi said:


> *Pay through the cycle scheme and you don't pay any VAT.*
> 
> If your worried about insurance, take out insurance. I'm about to do it (should have already  ), it will cost me £104 for the first year, covering me against theft, accidents and 3rd party cover.



I can't. It's discrimination against the self employed!


----------



## Lizban (28 Jul 2009)

Crankarm said:


> How long have you been cycling Lizban?
> 
> I would not let it get you down. Just cycle on and think of something else. Like a buterfly in the summer breeze....



Only 30 years! - Inaccuracy (from both parties) annoys me. Don't get me started about starbucks and their lack of an apostrophe!!!!


----------



## Davidc (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Agree with the last paragraph - as long as the equation is balanced by the good that they do.



Precious little in the case of cars. The Danes are leading the way in showing that all that comes from getting rid of them is benefts.

Most freight transport by road would use less energy and have lower environmental impact if by rail most of the way.

I think that leaves ambulances and fire engines....


----------



## skwerl (28 Jul 2009)

XmisterIS said:


> Aye, but we pay tax on our "fuel" if it is classed as "non essential".
> 
> E.g. you pay tax on cake ...
> 
> ...



no, you don't. No VAT on cake.


----------



## very-near (28 Jul 2009)

User3143 said:


> It's not my lorry and seen as you think that a truck and car with bull bars are the same you should know.




Put the argument another way.

HGVs cannot clearly be charged VED on the amount of damage they cause to the structure of the road because this would amount to far in excess of the £1850 you pay to use it on the road PA.

Estimates are that a single 44 tonne HGV passing over a stretch of road causes the same amount of structural damage as 40,000 cars.

Add to this this other issues about safety and pollution and it is quite clear that 



> HGVs cause more environmental damage
> 
> Lorries cause vastly more environmental damage and congestion than their share of Europe's road vehicles, according to a report by European environmental lobby group, Transport & Environment (TE). T&E says HGVs make up just 3% of total road vehicles and 7% of total vehicle kilometres, but the report by Dutch consultants CE Delft shows they are responsible for 20% of the congestion, *twice the number of road deaths per kilometre than passenger cars,* and that their carbon dioxide emissions will increase by 54% by 2030.
> 
> http://hgvireland.com/news09a/09hgv76.html



Now to be fair and put the boot on the other foot and go from one extreme to another, it could easily be argued that whilst cyclists do not damage the roads in any significant way, the roads still need to be constructed and maintained to a minimum standard irrespective of whether they get frost, sun, or flood damage which is an ongoing problem irrespective of what gets driven over them, and as a result there should be a direct correlation between the users benefit and the maintenance bills which allow their continued use.


----------



## Davidc (28 Jul 2009)

skwerl said:


> no, you don't. No VAT on cake.



But there is on biscuits (I think)


----------



## skwerl (28 Jul 2009)

Davidc said:


> But there is on biscuits (I think)



Correct. The great jaffa cake court case. Then recently the exact opposite where M&S were told to refund several hundred thousand pounds to customers for charging VAT on it's own version of the jaffa cake.

And the acid test, which McVities one with? Cake goes hard over time whereas biscuits go soft - brilliant.
I still find it odd that cake is classed as a necessity. Someone at HMRC must be a keen cyclist.


----------



## scottyD (28 Jul 2009)

Only chocolate coated biscuits. If the chocolate is pressed in, it doesn't count. That is why there have been cases in the house of lords about Jaffa Cakes. If it is a cake, they don't have to add VAT. If it is a chocolate coated biscuit, they do. It was finally decided, i think, based on cakes go hard as they go old, where as biscuits go soft. Jaffa Cakes go hard, so HMRC lost the case! Bored yet? I am!

But anyway, in terms of a response why not:
"No I don't do. but i am trying to save the planet while you are destroying it, so stop moaning"
(i'm not really a "green", but i imagine that would work!).


----------



## Landslide (28 Jul 2009)

Davidc said:


> I can't. It's discrimination against the self employed!



If you're using it for work, it may be tax-deductible. 
I don't know all the ins and outs, but I'm currently working with an IT contractor who buys a new Brompton every year, then flogs it on. By writing it off against tax, and helped by Bromptons' tendency to hold their value, it's barely costing him anything, and some years, he's pretty much turned a profit!


----------



## Arch (28 Jul 2009)

redjedi said:


> If you've got time to discuss this with people, then explain to them the difference between VED, which is what they actually pay, and "road tax" which they haven't had to pay for many years (someone will know you the exact number of years).



I belive a certain Mr Churchill abolished the term in 1935 or 6, reasoning that it would lead drivers to think they 'owned' the road.... Clever man, Churchill.

The main reason they come up with the whole 'you don't pay road tax' thing, I think is that they think that paying it gives them some greater right to be on the road, because they are paying for it's upkeep. So, explain that 'road tax' is not hypothicated (ringfenced) for the roads, but just goes into the whole taxation pot. Roads are paid for either from that pot, which also includes all the VAT we all pay, the fuel, booze and fag duty, income tax etc, or from council tax, which again, we all pay. If you have time to explain, try that one. Remember to use the word 'hypothicated' to confuse the dim ones.

Also, of course, cars cause much more damage to the road surface by virture of their greater weight, so it's only fair that they pay into the pot for repairs.


----------



## J4CKO (28 Jul 2009)

Was letting my mind wander, it got silly, my suggestions,

Just say you know about the tax thing, and you are truly sorry and that you will donate £210 or more every year to a charity for pompous, smug and unimaginitive drivers to fund the development of a new put down for cyclists as the old one is worn out.

Alternatively you can say, guess what, ride a bike and you too can avoid paying "Road" tax.

Or say, yes I save £210 plus every year and in not driving a (Insert appropriate make/model here, example BMW X5) plus everyone doesnt assume I am a c*nt !

Pretend to be deaf or Foreign, they love that 

Say that you have been stopped by the doctor from driving due to some dreadful medical condition (make one up, Screaming Dutch Cock Rot, Twartyfagitis etc) and they will probably back down.

Get your cock out, that usually shuts them up, especially if you are a woman.

Ask if they are either a member of her Majestys Constabulary or Her Majestys inspector of taxes, when they answer no say "well f*ck off then".

Go red and strain in the face like you are having a poo.

Collapse theatrically then stop moving.

When they point out the tax thing, agree wholeheartedley and then put your bike in their boot and climb in the passenger seat, thank them for saving you from commiting a tax fraud and ask to be taken to your destination, freak them out further by talking like a Sat Nav unit.

Bark or make Chimp noises at them.

Hop onto the pavement and say "Happy now you road Captain"

Start singing the Banana Boat Song

Root through your rucksack muttering "Gun, Gun, hmm now where did I put it"

Grab their tax disk, stick it to your bike and pedal off.

Tell them you are actually car driver working deep cover to gather information on cyclists who commit this vile fraud.

If there are other cars or passers by, lean to the window of the car are pretend you are being throttle or shaken by the person inside, fall to the floor.

Start talking to them normally but stroke your bike and say soothing things to it.

Say twenty five quid for a blow job or 40 for full sex very loudly if anyone is about.

Get your mobile out and ignore them, talk down it saying that some prick is harrassing you, yes the road tax thing again, third one today.

Point in the back of the car say "JESUS CHRIST, WHATS THAT" and pedal off like your life depended on it.

Lick their car

Hand them an internet device, with the url of this thread or if you dont have one scratch it into their paint with a protractor.


----------



## Jake (28 Jul 2009)

ROFL there were some great ones in there. i like nicking their tax disk


----------



## Arch (28 Jul 2009)

J4CKO said:


> Hand them an internet device, with the url of this thread or if you dont have one scratch it into their paint with a protractor.



A very excellent post, but...

I think you mean compasses. A protractor is just a plastic semi circle, and will probably make little impact on car paint....


----------



## very-near (28 Jul 2009)

User3143 said:


> Do you still go Green laning?



Not for a while, the car has been SORN'd since feb. 

Why ?


----------



## Ranger (28 Jul 2009)

Davidc said:


> A number of issues.
> 
> Cars cause ill health and death. Bikes don't. Tobacco duty is justified on these grounds, no reason why motor vehicle duty shouldn't be as well. (I wouldn't push that one as it doesn't stand too much scrutiny for tobacco!)
> 
> IM (not at all H) O motor vehicles should be taxed enough to pay the costs of maintaining and building roads, to fund the total health costs of our using them, to compensate for the damage from pollution including that to buildings and agriculture, and anything and everything else that could possibly be attributed to them, then perhaps they'd go away!



If I can dig far enough back in my memory, what Davidc is talking about here is referred to as externalities by economists. 

These are costs to society that are not met by the consumer in the price they pay for a good and hence it becomes in the interest of society to place a charge (or tax) on the product to reflect its real cost to society(e.g. health problems caused by pollution, loss/damage of the amenity near roads)

I think this is the rationale for taxes on such things as cigarettes, alcohol and fuel, i.e. this is how much it actually costs the State to allow this to happen so pay your bit.

Then again I may be talking rubbish


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (28 Jul 2009)

J4CKO - best post I’ve seen in a while.
Looking forward to trying some of them –

Seem to remember a story (probably apocryphal) of a traffic policeman who, when confronted by an angry motorist he had just pulled over for speeding, claiming that the weren’t, would get a Sooty glove puppet out of his pocket and have a pretend conversation with it, and then say something like “but Sooty says you _were_ speeding…”

Re the is there isn’t there VAT on Cake? – doesn’t it depend on where you bought and ate it?


----------



## NormanD (28 Jul 2009)

Damn you J4cko

thats another keyboard covered in coffee 

brilliant reply

Norm


----------



## Garz (28 Jul 2009)

It's sort of a no-brainer for the people who do pay road tax and ride a bike. The chanter doesn't obviously consider this?



J4CKO said:


> When they point out the tax thing, agree wholeheartedley and then put your bike in their boot and climb in the passenger seat, thank them for saving you from commiting a tax fraud and ask to be taken to your destination, freak them out further by talking like a Sat Nav unit.



Liked this one!

J4cko, what about pinning/mounting a 'I dont pay road tax on board' sign! Should wind them up.


----------



## sheddy (28 Jul 2009)

Liz, one simple response is - "It's not Road Tax, it's Car Tax, what part don't you understand ?"


----------



## wafflycat (28 Jul 2009)

I have been known to put on my best middle-aged matron of the parish voice and look to respond "Of course I don't pay road tax you silly little boy, because there is no such thing!" and then pootle off on my way. That flummoxes them completely.


----------



## HJ (28 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Having read the argument and rebuttals against the moronic chant of 'you don't pay road tax' I am confused.
> 
> The rebuttal appears to rely on the fact that road building is paid for by general taxation and is based on emissions therefore cyclist have zero emissions therefore pay zero.
> 
> However I can't think of a way of driving on the road (legally) without paying tax to access them even if you have a very low emission car.



Evidently you are not a tax accountant, cars that are electric, or with very low CO2 emissions of 110 grams or less per kilometre (g/km) driven, qualify for a 100 per cent capital allowance until 31 March 2013. Also cars in VED Band A (CO2 Emission up to 100 g/km) pay £0 VED. Of course there are other taxes which apply to these vehicles, such as 15% VAT when you buy them. Strangely enough this is the same rate of VAT as you pay on a new bike, but you don't get a £2000 subsidy when you scrap a ten year old bike... 




Lizban said:


> So have the much derided motorists actually got a point? If so can we come up with a better rebuttal?



No.

Once upon a time, long, long, ago there was a thing called the road fund, well from 1910 up until 1936 when it was abolished by Winston Churchill (who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time). For some strange reason many driver think that they still pay for the road fund, they don't roads are paid for out of general taxation. We all pay tax and the same proportion of that tax is used to pay for the roads. QED we all pay for the roads. 

Now if you do know of a way in which riding a bike make you exempt from tax, my account would very much like to know about it....



Lizban said:


> Don't forget fuel duty - and if it was purely for emissions can someone explain ‘red’ diesel to me!?!?!?!?



Red diesel is a tax exemption for certain industries, such as agriculture, you can not legally drive a vehicle using red diesel on the roads.


----------



## HJ (28 Jul 2009)

satans budgie said:


> Living in a rural area I often pass more people riding horses on the roads than other cyclist, does anyone know if horse riders suffer the same kind of abuse or is this 'pay road tax' a urban road user issue?



Even here in the middle of the toon, we have people who ride horses on the roads, and no one ever shouts "get off the road, you don't pay tax!" at them...

It might have something to do with them wearing jackets with Police written on them...


----------



## fossyant (28 Jul 2009)

I think...... "I don't emit enough CO2 you F***er (Flub...er) to pay it, you jelly face" might be enough...eh ? 

Erm.... I am no good with coming up with a good one liner that is polite but to the point. I did do "pointless" to a guy that overtook me, pulled in and mounted the kerb.....outside a paper shop.... then I got a load of verbal back... ah well......


----------



## Yellow Fang (29 Jul 2009)

I can't remember anyone ever saying this to me, but if they did I would tell them that vehicle excise duty is no more earmarked for road maintenance than cigarette duty is earmarked for the NHS. I expect they would just put on a silly voice and go nyeah, nyeah, nyer, nyeah, nyah


----------



## PBancroft (29 Jul 2009)

I don't think I've ever had anyone on the road accuse me of not paying road tax. In my experience drivers don't hang around very long. At most all I hear is _"Wankeeeeerrr...."_ as they drive past in their company liveried vehicles.

I have had the pleasure of people at work or friends being a bit put out that cyclists don't pay tax. When it comes down to it, most people are like Lizban seems to be suggesting - they don't actually care why they are taxed, and what the money is used for - they just care that drivers are taxed, and cyclists are not.

For many people driving is not seen as an option - its something "everyone" has to do, and to those people it seems unfair that they pay exorbitant rates to be on the road whilst others seem to be getting a free ride. And there's not a lot you can actually say to people to dissuade them of this opinion, especially when they get their arguments all in a muddle.

Lizban's argument about red diesel reminds me of the time when I was berated for not having to pay the M6 Toll as a cyclist, despite the fact that, as a cyclist, I couldn't use it. When I pointed this out they brought up red diesel, and how they saw a tractor on it which wasn't paying fuel duty and therefore cyclists should subsidise the road... I mean WTF? 

At the end of the day, most driver arguments can be responded to thus:-

_You don't pay road tax._ I pay council tax, therefore I pay for the road.
_But you don't pay car tax._ Because I'm not driving a car.
_But you don't pay fuel tax._ Because I'm not using fuel.
_You don't have insurance._ Yes, I do.
_Gerroff the road._ No.

When all else fails, do as Jacko suggests and play deaf.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (29 Jul 2009)

The “You don’t pay road tax” argument is about as flawed as if I pushed my way to the front of the supermarket queue with my trolley full of Stella and B&H claiming the moral high ground on the grounds that I was paying more tax than the rest of the queue…

Suppose it depends how you see the world – 

“Drivers” having to pay a tax to legally use the roads and when they fill up with fuel v “cyclists” who don’t have to, is rather a sad, and I think selfish way to look at it.
It’s as silly as moaning that “smokers” or “drinkers” have to pay more tax than “non-smokers” or “non-drinkers” – (and then moaning that the duty from fags and booze should subsidise ashtrays and pubs). Looking at the issue from this initial driver v cyclist standpoint is starting from the wrong angle and, therefore, I think the debate then becomes pointless and flawed. 

The alternative view is that we are all citizens (or to be more accurate, subjects) of the UK and are all equally responsible for paying taxes and duty. If anyone chooses to drive a car, they pay the tax, and if anyone chooses to cycle they don’t. Just as if you chose to smoke, or drink, buy a house etc. you pay the duty/tax. These rules are fairly applied to everyone. Anyone can use a bike to get from a to b and doing so does not exempt you from any tax or duty if you chose to drive a car to make the same journey. 

The “You don’t pay road tax” argument is about as flawed as if I pushed my way to the front of the supermarket queue with my trolley full of Stella and B&H claiming the moral high ground on the grounds that I was paying more tax than the rest of the queue…


----------



## Tynan (29 Jul 2009)

I use to hitch a lot and truck drivers usually mentioned that they paid over a grand for 'road tax' and therefore should have more right to the road than cars


----------



## Lizban (29 Jul 2009)

HJ said:


> Evidently you are not a tax accountant, cars that are electric, or with very low CO2 emissions of 110 grams or less per kilometre (g/km) driven, qualify for a 100 per cent capital allowance until 31 March 2013. Also cars in VED Band A (CO2 Emission up to 100 g/km) pay £0 VED. Of course there are other taxes which apply to these vehicles, such as 15% VAT when you buy them. Strangely enough this is the same rate of VAT as you pay on a new bike, but you don't get a £2000 subsidy when you scrap a ten year old bike...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



HJ thanks for the long expansive reply it has some good history in it, sadly it misses the point, I fully understand VED - and if read earlier in the thread that's clear - but you are missing the key element in fuel duty.

 So I repeat I don't know a way you can drive on a UK road without paying tax to do so. (Unless there is an electric car I'm unaware of that actually is practical)

So I further repeat the motorist saying you don't pay road tax have a point (they are simply not very precise with their language and we are trying wriggle an answer based on this lack of precession which I don’t think furthers the argument.


----------



## wafflycat (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> So I further repeat the motorist saying you don't pay road tax have a point (they are simply not very precise with their language and we are trying wriggle an answer based on this lack of precession which I don’t think furthers the argument.




No it's not that they are just not precise with language. They are this: wrong.

And I say that as a motorist as well as a cyclist and a pedestrian.

_EDIT: New member, 18 posts.. 15 of which are arguing about a non-existant tax which is used to erroneously berate cyclists about using the road. Do I smell a hint of troll here? _


----------



## Lizban (29 Jul 2009)

wafflycat said:


> No it's not that they are just not precise with language. They are this: wrong.
> 
> And I say that as a motorist as well as a cyclist and a pedestrian.



So how does a motorist drive on the road and not pay tax? 

(don't forget fuel duty before spurting the £0 VED band line )


----------



## wafflycat (29 Jul 2009)

More and more, hint of essence of troll.


----------



## Lizban (29 Jul 2009)

wafflycat said:


> No it's not that they are just not precise with language. They are this: wrong.
> 
> And I say that as a motorist as well as a cyclist and a pedestrian.
> 
> _EDIT: New member, 18 posts.. 15 of which are arguing about a non-existant tax which is used to erroneously berate cyclists about using the road. Do I smell a hint of troll here? _



Or someone who presents an alternative view to the majority to create debate - that's for people to decide - personally I think it has been a good discussion with different views presented you clearly don't (and haven't answered my previous question)


----------



## Landslide (29 Jul 2009)

http://www.greencarsite.co.uk/GREENCARS/GoinGreen-GWIZ-EV.htm

It can be done. Anything else that requires a motorist to pay some sort of tax purely associated with motoring does so as a lifestyle choice, not as a mandatory requirement.


----------



## BSA (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> So I repeat I don't know a way you can drive on a UK road without paying tax to do so. (Unless there is an electric car I'm unaware of that actually is practical)



I dont see how you can live as an adult without paying tax.


----------



## PpPete (29 Jul 2009)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> The alternative view is that we are all citizens (or to be more accurate, subjects) of the UK




Hello ! this the pedantry thread?
TC - we are Citizens of the UK - we are subjects of her Britannic Majesty
Sure my passport used to say something like that...


----------



## Lizban (29 Jul 2009)

BSA said:


> I dont see how you can live as an adult without paying tax.



Agreed. but if you pay more for somthing than someone else is it not human nature to want more from it?


----------



## ianrauk (29 Jul 2009)

You are Bonj and I claim my £5.00




Lizban said:


> Agreed. but if you pay more for somthing than someone else is it not human nature to want more from it?


----------



## Lizban (29 Jul 2009)

ianrauk said:


> You are Bonj and I claim my £5.00


Bank of New jersey?


----------



## Landslide (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Agreed. but if you pay more for somthing than someone else is it not human nature to want more from it?



To want, probably. To actually have a valid claim? Not necessarily.

Cars (by and large) are about ease and convenience. If you wish to pay a little extra for these "comforts", then go ahead, but don't presume that they are rights.


----------



## PpPete (29 Jul 2009)

My favorite riposte (not mine - just copied from elsewhere)


"You're right mate - cyclists should pay twice as much road tax"

pause for bafflement on part of eejit motorist

"after all, we've got 2 accelerator pedals"


----------



## Twenty Inch (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Agreed. but if you pay more for somthing than someone else is it not human nature to want more from it?




VED is a small part of a large general taxation pot, out of which roads are maintained. The far greater part is made up of income tax. I (and many other cyclists) earn more than the average wage, as we are better educated, fitter, healthier and less stressed. So we contribute more to general pot, while causing less damage to roads, the air, people's eardrums, buildings, the rivers, the geopolitical situation, and human rights in resource-rich-but-democracy-poor countries. So cyclists are already paying more for roads. So get your nasty smelly car out of my way, like a good chap.


----------



## Ranger (29 Jul 2009)

OK, so taxes are a pain in the arse and we don't like paying them. Tell me something new

However the fact that motorists have to pay tax is due to the cost to society for this activity (externalities remember) and so the people taking part in this are penalised financially.

Try to remember that the money taken in taxes from whatever are used for all sorts of things, some of which you may not agree with (e.g. wars in Iraq, propping up banks, animal testing) but frankly that is just tough, get on with your life


----------



## summerdays (29 Jul 2009)

A reasonable number of cyclists also have a car - so the I do pay "road tax" could be appropriate - then say you are really hard up and can't afford to keep paying these taxes so could you have £5 for some fuel please They don't need to know the fuel you want is CAKE!


----------



## XmisterIS (29 Jul 2009)

Just shout at them in the style of Father Jack, "Oi Loike CAKE!". Then ride off.


----------



## mm101 (29 Jul 2009)

Roads were originally built for the horse and cart. Then came the bicycle. Then the car. The car because of its very nature needs the infrastructure of traffic lights, carriageways, traffic calming, maintenance ad nauseum so it is right those choosing to drive a car should contribute.

As we know VED is not ring-fenced to pay for the roads. And as mentioned part comes from general taxation and part from local taxation, so _all_ tax payers pay for the roads

I don't think such a fatuous, ill-informed remark from a motorist requires anything but a bemused expression.


----------



## ianrauk (29 Jul 2009)

This is the expression I give to any dumb moton that uses the old 'Road Tax' chestnut


----------



## Lizban (29 Jul 2009)

mm101 said:


> Roads were originally built for the horse and cart. Then came the bicycle. Then the car. The car because of its very nature needs the infrastructure of traffic lights, carriageways, traffic calming, maintenance ad nauseum so it is right those choosing to drive a car should contribute.
> 
> As we know VED is not ring-fenced to pay for the roads. And as mentioned part comes from general taxation and part from local taxation, so _all_ tax payers pay for the roads
> 
> I don't think such a fatuous, ill-informed remark from a motorist requires anything but a bemused expression.




Let me try and explain this again - what you say is clearly correct to a point

BUT a motorist to use the road must pay tax - (either VED if requried or fuel duty) - The common parlance for this is 'road tax' - technically not correct for the reason you and others have listed but a neat little short hand.

Therefore to drive he must pay a tax that cyclists don't. So the simple reply of saying to the motorist you are wrong I think is in fact incorrect. Hence the point of this discussion


----------



## ianrauk (29 Jul 2009)

It's a moton's choice is it not that they pay the tax? They don't have to pay it. And if they don't want to pay it then get a bike or use public transport. As someone previously said, owning a car is a lifestyle choice, it's not an essential.



Lizban said:


> Let me try and explain this again - what you say is clearly correct to a point
> 
> BUT a motorist to use the road must pay tax - (either VED if requried or fuel duty) - The common parlance for this is 'road tax' - technically not correct for the reason you and others have listed but a neat little short hand.
> 
> Therefore to drive he must pay a tax that cyclists don't. So the simple reply of saying to the motorist you are wrong I think is in fact incorrect. Hence the point of this discussion


----------



## Theseus (29 Jul 2009)

So what? It is the choice of everyone how they get around. Be it bike, foot, bus, horse or car. If someone chooses to use method that the government take extra cash for, that is thier choice to pay it.

ETA: ian has the faster fingers


----------



## mm101 (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Therefore to drive he must pay a tax that cyclists don't. So the simple reply of saying to the motorist you are wrong I think is in fact incorrect. Hence the point of this discussion



I see, Liz. As a couple of other posters have pointed out, the only thing the motorist can do is sell his car and get a bike. Is all about choice i suppose. You pays your money you takes your choice.


----------



## BLAKEY063 (29 Jul 2009)

I do pay road tax, on two vehicles, I just want to cycle today!


----------



## CotterPin (29 Jul 2009)

At the heart of the issue is that some people just cannot conceive of the notion that they might not need, or could reduce their use of, a motor vehicle. For such people, driving is as natural as breathing - and who would put a tax on air????!!!!


----------



## snorri (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> BUT a motorist to use the road must pay tax - (either VED if requried or fuel duty) -


Not true.
Some motorists get along fine without paying VED, and by using red diesel.


----------



## Will1985 (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Let me try and explain this again - what you say is clearly correct to a point
> 
> BUT a motorist to use the road must pay tax - (either VED if requried or fuel duty) - The common parlance for this is 'road tax' - technically not correct for the reason you and others have listed but a neat little short hand.



Yawn 
You don't see people yelling at G-Wiz owners because they haven't paid any road tax do you? We have covered all this before - if the government wanted to issue "tax discs" to all bicycles, they could but we wouldn't have to pay anything for them....a pointless exercise I think you'll agree.
The change to emissions based VED has probably made it easier for the cyclist's argument.



> Therefore to drive he must pay a tax that cyclists don't. So the simple reply of saying to the motorist you are wrong I think is in fact incorrect.


But then most drivers are so ignorant that they think that "road tax" gives them the right over cyclists to use the road. We have to reach them on their own level.

  :troll: :troll:


----------



## PBancroft (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> BUT a motorist to use the road must pay tax - (either VED if requried or fuel duty) - The common parlance for this is 'road tax' - technically not correct for the reason you and others have listed but a neat little short hand.
> 
> Therefore to drive he must pay a tax that cyclists don't. So the simple reply of saying to the motorist you are wrong I think is in fact incorrect. Hence the point of this discussion



The point of saying "wrong" isn't just a semantic argument. A cyclist does pay for the road, through alternative means of taxation. VED is graduated, so lower emitting vehicles pay less tax as others have pointed out. If bikes were to be taxed, their rate would be £0. The reason that drivers pay this, and cyclists don't, is pretty much a no-brainer - it would cost much more to implement and run than would ever be recouped should cyclists be taxed, because the income would be exactly £0.

Similarly, cyclists don't pay tax on fuel, because they don't use fuel except what they eat (which may already be taxed at various points in its production). The Fuel Price Escalator was introduced as a means of stemming pollution and road building - more cars means more and bigger roads whilst bikes take up comparatively little space. Don't forget that fuel duty is actually Hydrocarbon oil duty, and that some vehicles receive a rebate - specifically bus operators. Would you suggest that cars have a greater right to use the road than buses as well?

There is an argument to suggest that red diesel should be taxed because the effect of its use is the same as other fuels - but that is hardly the fault of the cyclist.

Yes, drivers might feel that they have to pay when cyclists don't, and they may feel that this is unfair. It doesn't make them right, and in my humble opinion they are not.


----------



## BLAKEY063 (29 Jul 2009)

Thinking about this.. I hope my emissions arn't checked when I cycle!!


----------



## Lizban (29 Jul 2009)

Will1985 said:


> Yawn
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You've hit the nail on the head


----------



## skwerl (29 Jul 2009)

snorri said:


> Not true.
> Some motorists get along fine without paying VED, and by using red diesel.



tractor-driving teuchters don't count as motorists. they're only s'posed to be on the road to get from field A to field B


----------



## summerdays (29 Jul 2009)

User1314 said:


> I've been involved in two scenarios in the last couple of years:
> 
> Scenario 1:
> 
> ...



Neither does a pedestrian on their shoes


----------



## goo_mason (29 Jul 2009)

Can we make Jacko's post a sticky for what to do when challenged about road tax ?

I have tears running down my face and I hurt from the suppressed hysterical laughter !


----------



## HJ (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> So how does a motorist drive on the road and not pay tax?
> 
> (don't forget fuel duty before spurting the £0 VED band line )



You choose to drive, you choose to pay the extra tax, it has nothing to do with using the road, I pay duty on the fuel I use to heat my house, heating my house is my choice, I don't go around berating people have wood burning stoves because they "don't pay tax"...


----------



## Crankarm (29 Jul 2009)

"Look mate if you feel so strongly about it I suggest you write a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hazard a guess they will file your letter in the waste paper bin. Me I'm just trying to get to where I want to go so kindly get out my way."

"Look I'm just an ordinary chap exercising my right to be on this piece of road at this time. You probably beat your dog and starve your goldfish so leave me out of your petty quarrels."

"Does your nappy need changing?"


----------



## HJ (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Let me try and explain this again - what you say is clearly correct to a point
> 
> BUT a motorist to use the road must pay tax - (either VED if requried or fuel duty) - The common parlance for this is 'road tax' - technically not correct for the reason you and others have listed but a neat little short hand.
> 
> Therefore to drive he must pay a tax that cyclists don't. So the simple reply of saying to the motorist you are wrong I think is in fact incorrect. Hence the point of this discussion



No, there is a flaw in your argument, driver don't have to use motor vehicle in order to use the road, they choose to use motor vehicle and therefore they choose to pay extra tax. So they should stop whining about it, it is they own choice, they can blame us for it. It is really very simple...


----------



## malkie (29 Jul 2009)

Only time I had this one was from a "colleague" at work .
"You don`t pay road tax" was met with "I pay more than you f*ckwit"

Keep it simple , he wouldn`t have understood a reasoned argument...and I knew my car is higher rated than his.


----------



## mm101 (29 Jul 2009)

I don't think the 'you don't pay tax' comments deserve any kind of riposte at all.

Saying that to a complete stranger, minding their own business is 1) rude 2) mean spirited 3) petty minded. Anyone petty minded enough to do such a thing is not going to be open minded enough to take on board the counter-argument and are likely to have a selfish mindset generally. 

There is room for all. We all have to learn to fit in with each other and share


----------



## Lizban (29 Jul 2009)

mm101 said:


> I don't think the 'you don't pay tax' comments deserve any kind of riposte at all.
> 
> Saying that to a complete stranger, minding their own business is 1) rude 2) mean spirited 3) petty minded. Anyone petty minded enough to do such a thing is not going to be open minded enough to take on board the counter-argument and are likely to have a selfish mindset generally.
> 
> There is room for all. We all have to learn to fit in with each other and share



Agree.

What about to a colleague or other non cyclist person who yuo can have a conversation with


----------



## Arch (29 Jul 2009)

Lizban said:


> Agree.
> 
> What about to a colleague or other non cyclist person who yuo can have a conversation with



<sigh> Haven't we given you pages and pages of conversation you can have?


----------



## manalog (31 Jul 2009)

IHMO I dont think these people deserve a reply, just cycle on. I think they are so small minded that an explanation is just not worth a To55.


----------



## Lizban (31 Jul 2009)

The thread seems to be dying of natural causes so I'll summarize (hopefully not to controversially! )

There is no tax called 'road tax'. (with funding coming from general taxation.)
But you must pay tax to drive on the road (with VED lower for smaller cars) but having to pay fuel tax (duty). Which MAY be what motorists mean when they say 'road tax'

If shouted at along these lines on the road generally not worth responding.

However if in conversation with a reasonable person about this lines to use

Range from agreeing with the person and confirming that is (yet another) advantage of cycling to how on earth would you police it?


----------



## Landslide (31 Jul 2009)

To summarise:


Lizban said:


> There is no tax called 'road tax'. (with funding coming from general taxation.)
> But you must pay tax to drive on the road (with VED lower for smaller cars) but having to pay fuel tax (duty). *Which MAY be what motorists mean when they say 'road tax'*


It's not.


----------



## jay clock (31 Jul 2009)

[Ignoring the semantics of the expression "road tax"...]

To "you don't pay road tax" my answer is "yes I do", becuase like many cyclists I also have a car along with my 6 bikes....

Havig said that, no-one has ever said it to me.....


----------



## jezhiggins (31 Jul 2009)

Tynan said:


> I use to hitch a lot and truck drivers usually mentioned that they paid over a grand for 'road tax' and therefore should have more right to the road than cars



You were lucky. I always seemed to end up with the ones who listened to country music.


----------



## Typo (1 Aug 2009)

After reading all of this thread, if anyone accuses me of not paying road tax I think I'd fall off me bike laughing.


----------



## campbellab (1 Aug 2009)

'The roads have taken my blood, toil, tears and sweat, what more tax do you wish from me?'


----------



## PBancroft (2 Aug 2009)

Lizban said:


> But you must pay tax to drive on the road (with VED lower for smaller cars) but having to pay fuel tax (duty). Which MAY be what motorists mean when they say 'road tax'



It isn't, but if it is ever argued that this is the case (and I think it is the issue you have) it is worth remembering that fuel tax is a tax on fuel. Specifically it is Hydrocarbon oil duty, and that some vehicles receive a rebate - specifically bus operators. Would you suggest that cars have a greater right to use the road than buses as well?

The Fuel Price Escalator was a means to reduce the number of cars on the road. Ironically it could be argued that it is the fuel protests which caused the current situation, as it forced the Government's hand in no longer raising prices so steeply. In other words, fuel is now _just_ affordable enough for people to continue to see driving as a viable option, whereas if it had continued more people would have found alternative and cheaper forms of transport and wouldn't have to pay this so-called stealth tax at all.


----------

