# Car tax disc to be axed after 93 years



## siadwell (5 Dec 2013)

The tax disc to show motorists have paid vehicle excise duty is to be replaced with an electronic system, Chancellor George Osborne is to announce in his Autumn Statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25223631

I notice they manage to avoid calling it "road tax". In fact, there's a snippet from Hansard when vehicle tax was introduced in 1888 which shows how the principle behind the tax:

*Chancellor George Goschen*: Apart from the Carriage Tax, which is a tax mainly on the more luxurious carriages - carriages, used for pleasure - there is at present no tax on any other vehicles, however much they may destroy the roads.
We propose to put a duty of £1 a-year upon every vehicle exceeding 10 cwt. in weight, a very moderate limit to take.
Members will acknowledge that the principle that all those who use the roads should pay for them, and should pay in some proportion to the wear and tear that they cause, is just. But I have not yet exhausted the subject. We propose, also, to put a very small Wheel Tax upon every vehicle.


----------



## davefb (5 Dec 2013)

the whole article they managed to avoid using the incorrect phrase... so finally the wheel turns, the point is made..


when the disc gets abolished


----------



## Scoop940 (5 Dec 2013)

Monthly DD, about time!


----------



## Markymark (5 Dec 2013)

Scrap the whole thing and stick it onto the cost of petrol. Will eliminate tax dodgers and save a fortune in admin. Let those that cause the most pollution by driving the most pay the most. The more efficient the car and the more efficiently it is driven the less petrol (therefore tax) is paid.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Scrap the whole thing and stick it onto the cost of petrol. Will eliminate tax dodgers and save a fortune in admin. Let those that cause the most pollution by driving the most pay the most. The more efficient the car and the more efficiently it is driven the less petrol (therefore tax) is paid.



Sticking it on petrol makes the revenue generated from VED more variable.


----------



## numbnuts (5 Dec 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Scrap the whole thing and stick it onto the cost of petrol. Will eliminate tax dodgers and save a fortune in admin. Let those that cause the most pollution by driving the most pay the most. The more efficient the car and the more efficiently it is driven the less petrol (therefore tax) is paid.


 I would love it to go on fuel as I only drive about 1000 miles a year.


----------



## Markymark (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> Sticking it on petrol makes the revenue generated from VED more variable.


Absolutely correct. But, it will stop tax dodgers (apart form those dedicated enough to convert to making their own petrol from chipfat!) and charge those that use use it the most to pay the most. I am sure analysts can look at yearly petrol consumption and make it work.

If there's a drop in car useage, then the drop in petrol tax would be offset by the savings of less car emissions.


----------



## davefb (5 Dec 2013)

User13710 said:


> Amazing. Did they also manage to avoid incorrectly calling a car a bicycle?


errr
not sure.... I'm missing a point here aren't I


----------



## classic33 (5 Dec 2013)

Would it see an increase in "make offs" or "bilking" though!


----------



## Markymark (5 Dec 2013)

classic33 said:


> Would it see an increase in "make offs" or "bilking" though!


Garages I see often have a pre-pay only option during certain hours which may get extended if the problem increases.


----------



## classic33 (5 Dec 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Garages I see often have a pre-pay only option during certain hours which may get extended if the problem increases.


True. The number of such incidents locally is on the increase as more pressure is put on them to have a valid VED disc though.


----------



## albion (5 Dec 2013)

"The Treasury said it showed government was moving "into the modern age"."

Are they bonkers?
Surely electronically tagging the disc on display would massively cut fraud.


----------



## zimzum42 (5 Dec 2013)

numbnuts said:


> I would love it to go on fuel as I only drive about 1000 miles a year.


I think this is a good reason to keep it as it is, the more it goes up the more low mileage car owners may think it's time to give up their motor and join car clubs etc... Fewer cars in existence!


----------



## Paul99 (5 Dec 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Absolutely correct. But, it will stop tax dodgers (apart form those dedicated enough to convert to making their own petrol from chipfat!) and charge those that use use it the most to pay the most. I am sure analysts can look at yearly petrol consumption and make it work.
> 
> If there's a drop in car useage, then the drop in petrol tax would be offset by the savings of less car emissions.


Or an increase in people using red diesel.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> If there's a drop in car useage, then the drop in petrol tax would be offset by the savings of less car emissions.



But that's not monetary.

The govt needs to raise a certain amount of revenue. If that's not coming from VED it will come from somewhere else.


----------



## Markymark (5 Dec 2013)

zimzum42 said:


> I think this is a good reason to keep it as it is, the more it goes up the more low mileage car owners may think it's time to give up their motor and join car clubs etc... Fewer cars in existence!


I think most people see owning a car as a necessity and a right. I doubt many would stop buying a car due to VED. If it was scrapped and replaced with higher tax on petrol, I think there would still be as many cars but people would be more cautious when using it thus reducing miles driven.

If a car trip to the out of town shops costs £5 or £10 more some people would maybe think twice and walk to the local shops instead.


----------



## Markymark (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> But that's not monetary.
> 
> The govt needs to raise a certain amount of revenue. If that's not coming from VED it will come from somewhere else.


Wouldn't fewer cars on the road cost less money with the maintenance and pollution costs? Maybe not equal but someway towards it?


----------



## zimzum42 (5 Dec 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I think most people see owning a car as a necessity and a right. I doubt many would stop buying a car due to VED. If it was scrapped and replaced with higher tax on petrol, I think there would still be as many cars but people would be more cautious when using it thus reducing miles driven.
> 
> If a car trip to the out of town shops costs £5 or £10 more some people would maybe think twice and walk to the local shops instead.


Fair point, and I can't disagree, but the way I see it someone who only does 1000 miles a year is wasting the car and cluttering up the streets. I would rather fewer cars being properly used and empty roads without old rusters that go nowhere clogging the place up


----------



## Archie_tect (5 Dec 2013)

siadwell said:


> The tax disc to show motorists have paid vehicle excise duty is to be replaced with an electronic system, Chancellor George Osborne is to announce in his Autumn Statement.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25223631
> 
> ...


Aw Shad, why did you have to bring up 'wheel tax'.... can anyone hear floodgates opening.?


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

You've widened it to include maintenence which is in part correct.

There is no direct pollution cost to the govt? That's a whole new discussion by the way.


----------



## Markymark (5 Dec 2013)

No direct costs but less miles (yes miles can be less not fewer!) will ultimately cut pollution, ease up the roads for industries that need it and perhaps make us all fitter which will save the government £ over time.


----------



## robjh (5 Dec 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Absolutely correct. But, it will stop tax dodgers (apart form those dedicated enough to convert to making their own petrol from chipfat!) and charge those that use use it the most to pay the most. I am sure analysts can look at yearly petrol consumption and make it work.


 
Putting it on fuel seems like the blindingly obvious conclusion, but fuel duty is a highly politically sensitive subject, and even the tinyest rise will get the motor lobby and their allies in the disreputable press screaming blue murder, and the government - of whatever stripe - will be tempted to give in to them, as has happened before. VED gets far less attention, so things being as they are it may be best left untouched.



="0-markymark-0 said:


> If there's a drop in car useage, then the drop in petrol tax would be offset by the savings of less car emissions.


Wonderful as that would be, it takes a much bigger price hike to get people thinking twice about driving than the one that would be likely to result from a redistribution of VED income.


----------



## numbnuts (5 Dec 2013)

zimzum42 said:


> Fair point, and I can't disagree, but the way I see it someone who only does 1000 miles a year is wasting the car and cluttering up the streets. I would rather fewer cars being properly used and empty roads without old rusters that go nowhere clogging the place up


 
I only do 1000 miles per year as I use my bike, when I do use the car is for my monthly shop, fishing and kayaking. This year I have only used my car 65 times !!


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

I don't think I could manage if it got stuck into fuel as it would be a massive increase for me at over 16000 miles per year commuting alone, unfortunately I work in a very small industry with a specialised skillset that means that it is near impossible to find more local work at the a comparable rate of pay, the next option would be to pay an extra £150 per month in rent, and move into a city centre, 1 bedroom apartment rather than an end terraced with gardens, drive and a garage


----------



## Markymark (5 Dec 2013)

Why not live on the outskirts of a city and cycle commute in?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

Unfortunately, Greater Manchester is either expensive, or pretty damn rough, I'm in Warrington currently, so is only 25 minutes by motorbike or 40 in a car, but even then, to park a car at work is £18 per day, so that only goes when ice is on the road


----------



## sazzaa (5 Dec 2013)

zimzum42 said:


> Fair point, and I can't disagree, but the way I see it someone who only does 1000 miles a year is wasting the car and cluttering up the streets. I would rather fewer cars being properly used and empty roads without old rusters that go nowhere clogging the place up



I think the type of person who only does 1,000 miles a year probably really needs the car to do those type of things. For me it's things like shopping, getting to work on days like today, or dropping off/picking up the kid from anywhere. There are loads of things which aren't practical on a bike or even a bus.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

sazzaa said:


> I think the type of person who only does 1,000 miles a year probably really needs the car to do those type of things. For me it's things like shopping, getting to work on days like today, or dropping off/picking up the kid from anywhere. There are loads of things which aren't practical on a bike or even a bus.


 
I have to agree with this, the bicycle is still mainly for fun rather than transport, commuting and solo travel by motorcycle, and if I need to pick something large up, shopping, or go out with the mrs (who will not getting on a bike), we use the car.


----------



## wait4me (5 Dec 2013)

Judging by the majority of comments the Op should have titled this "Car Haters Click Here"


----------



## XRHYSX (5 Dec 2013)

sazzaa said:


> I think the type of person who only does 1,000 miles a year probably really needs the car to do those type of things. For me it's things like shopping, getting to work on days like today, or dropping off/picking up the kid from anywhere. There are loads of things which aren't practical on a bike or even a bus.


 this might help


----------



## Markymark (5 Dec 2013)

wait4me said:


> Judging by the majority of comments the Op should have titled this "Car Haters Click Here"


I love cars. Have 2 - both German - 1 a 4x4 and the other a fast convertible!!

Love my bike too and use it more often than the cars. Happy to see the cars as a luxury and should pay for what the cause.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I don't think I could manage if it got stuck into fuel as it would be a massive increase for me ...


 
How much do you currently pay in VED?


GC


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

130 pa for the car and about 70 for the bike.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Dec 2013)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> 130 pa for the car and about 70 for the bike.


 
I'm just curious about what are you basing your calculation of a massive increase on. I don't think anyone's yet put a figure on the pence per litre that would be necessary.

GC


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'm just curious about what are you basing your calculation of a massive increase on. I don't think anyone's yet put a figure on the pence per litre that would be necessary.
> 
> GC



Based on my calculations for my cars 45mpg, the £130 is equal to around 25p per litre increase, but that is neither here nor there, as if worse comes to worse the car isn't a necessity.

My bike at 50mpg, is just under 5p per litre to make up the VED on it.

I reckon 25p per litre is more likely than a 5p rise, and 25p per litre even on a bike will add just over £350 per year to the fuel bill that is already high, and ever increasing insurance costs, etc.


----------



## PaulSecteur (5 Dec 2013)

As someone that does high miles (due to commuting to work) and with a car that is road tax exempt (due to low emissions) al I can say is...

BOOOO!!!!

How long before there is a double whammy "price for petrol plus sliding scale for C02"?

So someone with an efficient super mini will pay £1.40 per litre plus 5p for road tax, but someone with a Range rover will pay £1.40 plus 40p?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Happy to see the cars as a luxury and should pay for what the cause.



I see my motorbike is a requirement, and the bicycle as a luxury. That is the only issue with categorising stuff like this for tax purposes


----------



## Frood42 (5 Dec 2013)

PaulSecteur said:


> So someone with an efficient super mini will pay £1.40 per litre plus 5p for road tax, but someone with a Range rover will pay £1.40 plus 40p?



What is this "road tax" of which you speak? <scratches head and looks perplexed>
.


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

Woohoo, I use the 4x4 for 4 or 5 months of the year, and the motorbike for the rest (when not cycling). To be able to pay specifically for what I use on both vehicles is a massive improvement for me as the bike sits idle in the winter, and the car sits idle in the summer (for the time being )


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> Woohoo, I use the 4x4 for 4 or 5 months of the year, and the motorbike for the rest (when not cycling). To be able to pay specifically for what I use on both vehicles is a massive improvement for me as the bike sits idle in the winter, and the car sits idle in the summer (for the time being )



An ideal situation, but once the pricing is in place, then we can see the costs being ramped up year on year,


----------



## growingvegetables (5 Dec 2013)

Hmmm - put the tax on fuel? How about charging by the space the vehicle takes up on the road. A tax on fat-***ed SUVs, on those who claim vast amounts of space for their over-sized egos?


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

growingvegetables said:


> Hmmm - put the tax on fuel? How about charging by the space the vehicle takes up on the road. A tax on fat-***ed SUVs, on those who claim vast amounts of space for their over-sized egos?



I couldn't agree more....and further to that, I've gone off and got the dimensions of a regular car and a 4x4 so everyone else in your camp can actually also either look stupid or disagree with you 
Mondeo Estate, (5 seats) 2011: Length 4837 mm, Width 2092 mm
Long wheelbase Mitsubishi Shogun (7 seats), 1992-97: Length 4,740 mm Width 1,786 mm

Now given that the height of a vehicle makes absolutely no difference at all to the size of its footprint on the road (or congestion to that matter), How much more do you think they should charge a Mondeo owner to use the roads over as you put it 'fat-assed SUVs as you have just destroyed any moral high ground you might have thought your case has ?

Now additionally, the advice given to motorists is 'give a cyclist as much room as a car'.....does that mean that cyclists should also pay to use the roads in the same way as well as cyclists should be given the same amount of room ?

I have to pay £70 VED on my motorcycle when vehicles are judged on emissions and not on their footprint, a motorcycle filtering is going to be vastly cleaner than a zero VED rated Prius sat in a queue of stop start traffic, the batteries don't stay charged very long in those conditions, and then it is just like any other overweight hybrid shopping trolley dragging its battery pack around on hydrocarbons....why is that ?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (5 Dec 2013)

New mini has the same wheelbase also as the original land rovers!


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> I couldn't agree more....and further to that, I've gone off and got the dimensions of a regular car and a 4x4 so everyone else in your camp can actually also either look stupid or disagree with you
> Mondeo Estate, (5 seats) 2011: Length 4837 mm, Width 2092 mm
> Long wheelbase Mitsubishi Shogun (7 seats), 1992-97: Length 4,740 mm Width 1,786 mm



Be more consistent with the age as we all know cars have ballooned in size over the years.

2013 X5
length 4886mm, width 2184mm


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> Be more consistent with the age as we all know cars have ballooned in size over the years.
> 
> 2013 X5
> length 4886mm, width 2184mm



With your argument, they should ban all new cars from the roads


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> With your argument, they should ban all new cars from the roads



well, there is something to be said for VED being extended/changed to allow for car volume/footprint to be honest.


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> well, there is something to be said for VED being extended/changed to allow for car volume/footprint to be honest.



Volume as in BHP/CC or volume as in hitting transit van owners with a massive hike ?

The arguments against 4x4s in this instance are irrational, and motivated by envy or other emotions...emotion shouldn't determine who pays what..emotions have no place on the roads !


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> Volume as in BHP/CC or volume as in hitting transit van owners with a massive hike ?
> 
> The arguments against 4x4s in this instance are irrational, and motivated by envy or other emotions...emotion shouldn't determine who pays what..emotions have no place on the roads !



volume as in space a car takes up on the road. Possibly floorpan area rather than volume.

Note the word "car".


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> volume as in space a car takes up on the road. Possibly floorpan area rather than volume.
> 
> Note the word "car".



Would I be wrong in feeling that you are looking to manipulate the rules to fit in with your prejudices ?

For the record, how do you define a 'car' ?


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> 1. Would I be wrong in feeling that you are looking to manipulate the rules to fit in with your prejudices ?
> 
> 2. For the record, how do you define a 'car' ?



1. WTF are you on about?

2. something that is not classed as a commercial vehicle.


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> 1. WTF are you on about?
> 
> 2. something that is not classed as a commercial vehicle.



Looking at 1. footprint being the overall area it takes when parked on the road....I've already given examples...the floorpan is irrelevant when measuring the size of parking space it needs. A Mondeo clearly needs a bigger one.

2. fair doo's


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> Looking at 1. footprint being the overall area it takes when parked on the road....I've already given examples...the floorpan is irrelevant when measuring the size of parking space it needs. *A Mondeo clearly needs a bigger one*.
> 
> 2. fair doo's



why? compared to what?


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> why? compared to what?



The examples I just gave.....a 1997 Mondeo estate is still longer than the 4x4 I used as an example, although 30mm narrower.....both cars will still fit into a supermarket parking bay so I don't really get the haters arguments about the size

Hate the fools who drive them without regard for others...fine, but if that is the case you must rightly also hate the fools who also drive the 4x4's badly


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> The examples I just gave.....a 1997 Mondeo estate is still longer than the 4x4 I used as an example, although 30mm narrower.....both cars will still fit into a supermarket parking bay so I don't really get the haters arguments about the size
> 
> Hate the fools who drive them without regard for others...fine, but if that is the case you must rightly also hate the fools who also drive the 4x4's badly



And if you read my reply (perhaps it wasn't clear?), I said you weren't comparing like with like. Most people would consider a 4x4 one of the modern variety and not a 20 year old version (which, relatively speaking, would have been bigger than a mondeo type estate car ath that time). I also said cars are getting bigger in general. Space is at a premium so there is something to be said for allowing for volume/floorpan area in VED type charge.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> Hate the fools who drive them without regard for others...fine, but if that is the case you must rightly also hate the fools who also drive the 4x4's badly



And I don't hate someone that drives a particular car - that would be silly and I'm not sure where you've got that impression from?


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> And if you read my reply (perhaps it wasn't clear?), I said you weren't comparing like with like. Most people would consider a 4x4 one of the modern variety and not a 20 year old version (which, relatively speaking, would have been bigger than a mondeo type estate car ath that time). I also said cars are getting bigger in general. Space is at a premium so there is something to be said for allowing for volume/floorpan area in VED type charge.



It is cheaper to tax and insure a 7.5 tonne horsebox lorry of comparable age than a 2 tonne 4x4 under the current rules. 

As for volume this is my A-class merc with a 125 scooter in it. Now I can get a few cycles stood up in the back of my 4x4, but don't have to the room in it to do this
The SWB version of my 4x4 has about the same amount of space in the cabin as a Fiesta. They don't have a floorpan BTW, they are an independent ladder chassis for strength with a body mounted on them.


----------



## simon.r (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> I have to pay £70 VED on my motorcycle when vehicles are judged on emissions and not on their footprint, a motorcycle filtering is going to be vastly cleaner than a zero VED rated Prius sat in a queue of stop start traffic, the batteries don't stay charged very long in those conditions, and then it is just like any other overweight hybrid shopping trolley dragging its battery pack around on hydrocarbons....why is that ?



Motorcycles aren't charged VED based on their emissions, just a very crude engine size banding system.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> It is cheaper to tax and insure a 7.5 tonne horsebox lorry of comparable age than a 2 tonne 4x4 under the current rules.
> 
> As for volume this is my A-class merc with a 125 scooter in it. Now I can get a few cycles stood up in the back of my 4x4, but don't have to the room in it to do this
> The SWB version of my 4x4 has about the same amount of space in the cabin as a Fiesta. They don't have a floorpan BTW, they are an independent ladder chassis for strength with a body mounted on them.



do you have a point?


----------



## growingvegetables (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> I couldn't agree more....



A huge amount of our road infrastructure built in the 60's or before; or since then, to the standards of the 60's.

And a typical car of the 60's - take the Ford Cortina Mk 1. Width 1.588m. Your Mondeo is 30% wider. Aye, and not only are cars now 30% bigger, but there's far more of them.


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> do you have a point?


 I'm trying to fathom yours if I'm honest.

Are you are looking to penalise a 4x4 because it is a 4x4, or are you looking to penalise a car with a large footprint ?


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

growingvegetables said:


> A huge amount of our road infrastructure built in the 60's or before; or since then, to the standards of the 60's.
> 
> And a typical car of the 60's - take the Ford Cortina Mk 1. Width 1.588m. Your Mondeo is 30% wider. Aye, and not only are cars now 30% bigger, but there's far more of them.



A Mk1 Cortina is a death trap by comparison, and you only have to look at the KSI stats of the day to see that. The roads statistically are much safer now despite having many more vehicles on them.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> I'm trying to fathom yours if I'm honest.
> 
> Are you are looking to penalise a 4x4 because it is a 4x4, or are you looking to penalise a car with a large footprint ?



I'm suggesting that we could look at penalising cars with a large footprint.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> A Mk1 Cortina is a death trap by comparison, and you only have to look at the KSI stats of the day to see that. The roads statistically are much safer now despite having many more vehicles on them.



Why have you brought the relative safety of cars into the discussion?


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> Why have you brought the relative safety of cars into the discussion?



Because the footprint of new cars has increased to accommodate the safety equipment they carry which helps to reduce the amount of fatalities. To reduce that level of equipment would be a step back (IMO)


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> I'm suggesting that we could look at penalising cars with a large footprint.



You mean like 7 series BMW's, Mondeo estates, and Audi A8's ?
They are already penalised...they are very expensive to run, very expensive to tax...and very expensive to buy (well maybe not the Mondeo's)


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> Because the footprint of new cars has increased to accommodate the safety equipment they carry which helps to reduce the amount of fatalities. To reduce that level of equipment would be a step back (IMO)



Only in a small part. 

Driving has become an extension of lifestyle. Sound deadening, ICE and general more roominess accounts for most of the increase in size.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> You mean like 7 series BMW's, Mondeo estates, and Audi A8's ?
> They are already penalised...they are very expensive to run, very expensive to tax...and very expensive to buy (well maybe not the Mondeo's)



Yes.

Are you getting my point now?


----------



## growingvegetables (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> They are already penalised...they are very expensive to run, very expensive to tax...and very expensive to buy


Penalised? 

Linford - sorry, mate, but martyrdom doesn't become you.






Makes me giggle though.


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> Yes.
> 
> Are you getting my point now?



You feel that there is already a fairly hefty penalty paid when running a large (thirsty) car without the requirement to penalise them more ?

if so,we are in agreement...that is why I only do about 2k PA in mine.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> You feel that there is already a fairly hefty penalty paid when running a large (thirsty) car without the requirement to penalise them more ?
> 
> .



No, the opposite.

I'm trying hard here. I'm not sure how else I can put across the point that :it might be worth extending VED to cover volume/floorspace of the vehicle: ?

A car can be large and not thirsty. I have a Mundano estate and get 50mpg out of it. In fact, you can see, that I would be paying more for my suggestion.

Penalise is an interesting word. No-one is forced to own such a car.


----------



## screenman (5 Dec 2013)

Mass exodus of people moving from rural areas into cities to cut down on mileage, would make the roads in some places a tad congested.

In truth I think most Brits would just suffer quietly.


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> No, the opposite.
> 
> I'm trying hard here. I'm not sure how else I can put across the point that :it might be worth extending VED to cover volume/floorspace of the vehicle: ?
> 
> ...


You seem to be at cross purposes. Owners of thirsty cars pay proportionately more due to fuel duty. If you want to discourage people taking their vehicles on the highway, make those vehicles thirsty, and load fuel duty..thus lowering the number out there as they only really use them as luxury or neccessity vehicles and not clutter up the roads with all the other 50mpg mundano's doing big mileage and spending a lot more time congesting the system....or does this seem a bit obvious ?


----------



## 400bhp (5 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> You seem to be at cross purposes. Owners of thirsty cars pay proportionately more due to fuel duty. If you want to discourage people taking their vehicles on the highway, make those vehicles thirsty, and load fuel duty..thus lowering the number out there as they only really use them as luxury or neccessity vehicles and not clutter up the roads with all the other 50mpg mundano's doing big mileage and spending a lot more time congesting the system....or does this seem a bit obvious ?



I give up.

The end.


----------



## mickle (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> I give up.
> 
> The end.


You should have known better.


----------



## Linford (5 Dec 2013)

400bhp said:


> I give up.
> 
> The end.


My 4x4 has not turned a wheel since last march and has been on sorn since august due to cheaper alternatives at my disposal. If it did 50 mpg, i'd not have bought an a class and just done the miles in it. Running costs on it are so high, i can save money by taxing, testing and insuring another vehicle. Most 4x4 owners also do this unless it is a company car and they don't care. It is not a daily drive...


----------



## sazzaa (6 Dec 2013)

What about the people who actually need a 4x4? I can think of a few cases with people I know who stay in pretty remote areas with no tarmac leading up to their doors...


----------



## Linford (6 Dec 2013)

sazzaa said:


> What about the people who actually need a 4x4? I can think of a few cases with people I know who stay in pretty remote areas with no tarmac leading up to their doors...



The standard argument trotted out in the past was that 'they should be living and working in a city and then won't need one'

I do find it quite sad that whenever taxation on cars is discussed, the prejudiced few always draw 4x4's into the debate....


----------



## sazzaa (6 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> The standard argument trotted out in the past was that 'they should be living and working in a city and then won't need one'
> 
> I do find it quite sad that whenever taxation on cars is discussed, the prejudiced few always draw 4x4's into the debate....



Yeah those farmer types should stop making a living out of our countryside and just get a city job!


----------



## Dave the Smeghead (6 Dec 2013)

The solution to vehicle excise duty, car insurance and valid mot is so easy it is ridiculous.
When a vehicle owner has paid the ved, has valid car insurance and a valid mot they get issued with an electronic card. This card has to inserted into a reader on the petrol pump before it will dispense the fuel. No valid card - no fuel - no vehicle on the road.
There is an easier solution though - use a bicycle and you won't need fossil fuels, ved, mot or insurance!
A bit awkward for me to do all the time - my commute is 115 miles each way... call me a wimp if you like but I am not up to cycling that distance then doing a days work then cycling it home again!


----------



## Linford (6 Dec 2013)

Dave the Smeghead said:


> The solution to vehicle excise duty, car insurance and valid mot is so easy it is ridiculous.
> When a vehicle owner has paid the ved, has valid car insurance and a valid mot they get issued with an electronic card. This card has to inserted into a reader on the petrol pump before it will dispense the fuel. No valid card - no fuel - no vehicle on the road.
> There is an easier solution though - use a bicycle and you won't need fossil fuels, ved, mot or insurance!
> A bit awkward for me to do all the time - my commute is 115 miles each way... call me a wimp if you like but I am not up to cycling that distance then doing a days work then cycling it home again!



I take it you don't commute that distance every day ?


----------



## sazzaa (7 Dec 2013)

Dave the Smeghead said:


> The solution to vehicle excise duty, car insurance and valid mot is so easy it is ridiculous.
> When a vehicle owner has paid the ved, has valid car insurance and a valid mot they get issued with an electronic card. This card has to inserted into a reader on the petrol pump before it will dispense the fuel. No valid card - no fuel - no vehicle on the road.
> There is an easier solution though - use a bicycle and you won't need fossil fuels, ved, mot or insurance!
> A bit awkward for me to do all the time - my commute is 115 miles each way... call me a wimp if you like but I am not up to cycling that distance then doing a days work then cycling it home again!



I kinda like that idea, but garages can't even get pay at the pump to work so I doubt that could get any other card system working... 

115 miles is a bit ridiculous, not thought about moving/getting a job closer to home?


----------



## Linford (7 Dec 2013)

You would just get people filling jerry cans. The best solution is that the mot stations issue a disk for a test pass which fits the tax disk holder. The rest can be done through a central database


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Dec 2013)

Dave the Smeghead said:


> The solution to vehicle excise duty, car insurance and valid mot is so easy it is ridiculous.
> When a vehicle owner has paid the ved, has valid car insurance and a valid mot they get issued with an electronic card. This card has to inserted into a reader on the petrol pump before it will dispense the fuel. No valid card - no fuel - no vehicle on the road.



It is ridiculous, you're right. Uninsured driver with no mot or ved just has to borrow his mate's card. Fill 'er up!

GC


----------



## Linford (7 Dec 2013)

Invest billions into transport infrastructure in cities to the detriment of rural communities, and make private car ownership so expensive that only the very rich can afford to run them....that is a good way to promote social mobility among the classes....


----------



## Dave the Smeghead (7 Dec 2013)

Linford said:


> I take it you don't commute that distance every day ?


No I don't. Currently staying in pretty awful digs Monday to Thursday. Will trying to get something else sorted in the new year. And nowhere secure to lock my bike at the digs!


----------



## Dave the Smeghead (7 Dec 2013)

sazzaa said:


> I kinda like that idea, but garages can't even get pay at the pump to work so I doubt that could get any other card system working...
> 
> 115 miles is a bit ridiculous, not thought about moving/getting a job closer to home?


I would get a job closer if I could but nothing doing at the moment. Recession has hit kind of hard in my industry. It is tough for the family and for me. My daughters hate it, and so do I as I am missing so much of them including the Christmas show this coming week.


----------



## Dave the Smeghead (7 Dec 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It is ridiculous, you're right. Uninsured driver with no mot or ved just has to borrow his mate's card. Fill 'er up!
> 
> GC


That is a possibilty and I didn't say my solution was perfect. No doubt there are bugs that would need to be worked out.
Perhaps linked with the number plate recognition system that a lot of garages have already and a link with the system that the police use for checking on mots and insurance etc to make sure the vehicle that came in is the same as the registration number linked to the card. That may also include a feed back to the police so that if a car that isn't insured or whatever comes on to the forecourt they are notified so they stand a better chance of catching those drivers.
There has to be a way of working all this out and pulling it all together. I suppose with a bit more thought I might be able to start planning out a system - after all I am an engineer!


----------



## Amanda P (7 Dec 2013)

The trouble with cars is that driving is free.

It's only the filling-up process that's expensive.

If you had to put real folding money into a slot in the dash before the car would start every time, many people would think a lot harder about how much they needed to drive round the corner to the paper shop or ferry the kids half a mile to school.


----------



## machew (7 Dec 2013)

I think that the Daily Mash has got it right http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...adge-of-superiority-to-cyclists-2013120681761


----------



## Dave the Smeghead (7 Dec 2013)

Uncle Phil said:


> The trouble with cars is that driving is free.
> 
> It's only the filling-up process that's expensive.
> 
> If you had to put real folding money into a slot in the dash before the car would start every time, many people would think a lot harder about how much they needed to drive round the corner to the paper shop or ferry the kids half a mile to school.


Thats very true and something I keep on at my wife about. My daughters school is only 1/2 a mile away and when I was last on leave we walked it twice a day (with the dog). My wife just won't do that because there is a "main road" between us and the school (alright it is the road with the worst accident record in Essex) but even so it is only 1/2 a mile!


----------



## Linford (8 Dec 2013)

Uncle Phil said:


> The trouble with cars is that driving is free.
> 
> It's only the filling-up process that's expensive.
> 
> If you had to put real folding money into a slot in the dash before the car would start every time, many people would think a lot harder about how much they needed to drive round the corner to the paper shop or ferry the kids half a mile to school.


That 'only' bit is the reason why i only do 2k PA in my car...it only does 15mpg and costs £2.50 for a 5 mile commute. If all people paid this then the miles would drop to essential only


----------



## Cycleops (8 Dec 2013)

Uncle Phil said:


> The trouble with cars is that driving is free.
> 
> It's only the filling-up process that's expensive.
> 
> If you had to put real folding money into a slot in the dash before the car would start every time, many people would think a lot harder about how much they needed to drive round the corner to the paper shop or ferry the kids half a mile to school.



Want to bet? They would still do it.


----------



## nikkiss (21 Sep 2019)

siadwell said:


> The tax disc to show motorists have paid vehicle excise duty is to be replaced with an electronic system, Chancellor George Osborne is to announce in his Autumn Statement.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25223631
> 
> ...



yeah with this electronic tax system nobody will be able to avoid the taxes unfortunately. like we don't pay already enough taxes


----------



## burntoutbanger (22 Sep 2019)




----------



## winjim (22 Sep 2019)

nikkiss said:


> yeah with this electronic tax system nobody will be able to avoid the taxes unfortunately. like we don't pay already enough taxes


I think you might be on the wrong forum.


----------



## Drago (22 Sep 2019)

Car tax? Oh, I remember that.



nikkiss said:


> yeah with this electronic tax system nobody will be able to avoid the taxes unfortunately. like we don't pay already enough taxes



When it comes to motoring we don't pay nearly enough taxes. The biggest non natural killer after suicide, and the biggest contributor of CO2 in the transport category, and users complain they pay too much tax? Erm...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (22 Sep 2019)

If drivers paid the cost of the amount of road their cars permanently occupy they'd pay £6,800 PA on top of everything else. That'd make everyone think twice.


----------



## Rusty Nails (22 Sep 2019)

Drago said:


> *Car tax?* Oh, I remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to motoring we don't pay nearly enough taxes. The biggest non natural killer after suicide, and the biggest contributor of CO2 in the transport category, and users complain they pay too much tax? Erm...



Everyone knows it's not car tax, it's road tax. So cyclists should pay it as well.


----------



## winjim (22 Sep 2019)

Rusty Nails said:


> Everyone knows it's not car tax, it's road tax. So cyclists should pay it as well.


If you rode tacks you'd get a nasty puncture.


----------



## Rusty Nails (22 Sep 2019)

winjim said:


> If you rode tacks you'd get a nasty puncture.



That's happened in the Wales Velothon and the Taff Trail in the past. Not to me luckily.


----------



## winjim (22 Sep 2019)

Rusty Nails said:


> That's happened in the Wales Velothon and the Taff Trail in the past. Not to me luckily.


I know, I hesitated before making a joke about it. Some nasty people out there.


----------



## HMS_Dave (23 Sep 2019)

Can no longer avoid paying "road" tax? Then trade in for a more economical mode of transport https://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/driving-costs/car-tax You could pay £0.00 legitimately!


----------



## Drago (24 Sep 2019)

Linford said:


> That 'only' bit is the reason why i only do 2k PA in my car...it only does 15mpg and costs £2.50 for a 5 mile commute. If all people paid this then the miles would drop to essential only



Mine does over 70 to the gallon and I did barely 1500 miles last year, on course for 1200 this year. This because I like to practice what I preach about air pollution, whereas most people wail and gnash their teeth about climate change and health but still carry on driving because they are thoughtless and bone idle lazy. That being the case, you are right - price them off the roads if they won't do it because it's the sensible thing to do.


----------

