"Road Tax"

[User269]

No point I'm sorry oldroadman, as has been pointed out above, the argument is futile.
The correct reply to "you don't pay road tax", " get off the road", "use the cyclepath", "you clanger" (think that's what he said) etc, etc, is ;
"Half past five mate." With a cheery wave

......or just tell them

Roads are paid for out of council tax. Motorways and some trunk roads are paid out of general taxation, of which VED (car tax) represents a tiny proportion.
Cyclists pay council tax, which pays for the roads. In any case, the roads are for all of us to use, not just motorists.

​

 

[Mugshot]

......or just tell them

Roads are paid for out of council tax. Motorways and some trunk roads are paid out of general taxation, of which VED (car tax) represents a tiny proportion.​

Cyclists pay council tax, which pays for the roads. In any case, the roads are for all of us to use, not just motorists.​

​

​

I shall remember to do that next time someone hollers at me as they drive past, I'm not sure they'll have a chance to hear it all so I'll have some leaflets printed up which I can sling through peoples windows.

 

[DiddlyDodds]

I do pay road tax, bloody £244.75p today for 6 months

What do you drive , a car transporter !

 

[subaqua]

What do you drive , a car transporter !

depending on its suspension and weight it could be about that cost !!

my currnt vehicle which did about 6K miles last year is nearly £500 to VED ! would much rather pay it on the fuel

 

[sirmy]

Roads aren't paid for by council tax. Each council receives a settlement from the government. They add to this the money raised from the council tax. It is therefore not possible to say exactly where money spent on the roads comes from. It generally best to say that roads are paid for by general taxation rather than any specific tax

 

[col]

[QUOTE 1688917, member: 45"]Stop calling me Bob![/quote]
How about dick?

 

[brokenflipflop]

I'm probably missing something obvious, but sticking the VED on fuel has always struck me as a good idea.

The more miles you drive, the more you pay. The less efficient your engine is, the more you pay. Isn't this what is meant by a "progressive" tax?

No need to classify vehicles as this or that and no need for the bureaucracy associated with issuing the discs.

But the greatest benefit must surely be, that by putting it on the pump price,it is unavoidable: no more "tax" dodgers!

It is also feasible to include the cost of compulsory Third Party liability insurance too (underwritten by a state insurance company, such as the Motor Insurers' Bureau) which would solve the problem of uninsured drivers too.

But like I said I'm probably missing something obvious...

I'm just guessing and I'm not very clever but with the current car tax system the government probably gets quite an accurate projection as to the revenue they get each year. It probably wouldn't be very palatable for them to leave this revenue in the hands of the people who buy petrol because they wouldn't be able to anticipate what revenue they'd get and they may get a lot less due to the perceived increased fuel prices putting people off usage of their vehicle. Also they obviously have 2 tax incomes at the moment, VED and fuel duty and they probably see just one as a step backwards for taxation.

 

[youngoldbloke]

But I thought we were supposed to reduce our car usage - so wouldn't a huge increase in fuel price be 'a good thing'. What is going to happen to the tax take when everyone is driving low emission/electric cars or using public transport? (Or riding bikes).

 

[Matthew_T]

If you think about this logically then it would make sense to have tax on bikes because it wouldnt change a thing.

The amount of VED you pay depends on the emmisions of your vehicle, thats why electric cars dont pay anything. On that basis, if bicycles were charged for VED, we would not pay anything because we emmit no emmisions (apart from the odd fart). So I dont understand why people argue about not charging bikes VED because even if the government did, it wouldnt change anything (just create a lot of unneccesary paperwork).

Another thing to think about is that if someone in a G-Wiz passes you and shouts "Get off the f*cking road, you don't pat road tax!" (They would have time to say all that), then you could simply increase your speed to 25mph which the electric turd is limited to and explain that neither does the twonk driving the little peice of roadkill.

 

[User269]

Roads aren't paid for by council tax. Each council receives a settlement from the government. They add to this the money raised from the council tax. It is therefore not possible to say exactly where money spent on the roads comes from. It generally best to say that roads are paid for by general taxation rather than any specific tax

Roads are paid for from council tax. Read the documents that come with your annual council tax bill. Or ask your MP. Or ask your local council.

 

[Matthew_T]

But who would pay to administer this?

Us of course....Silly.

 

[TheDoctor]

Just as an aside - it's utterly feasible to have a state-provided third party liability scheme.
NZ does it. You can buy extra cover, but you don't have to.
So yes, whack that on fuel too.

EDIT Occurs to me that that gets rid of the 'All cyclists should have insurance' argument too!!

 

[fenlandpsychocyclist]

Bu99er the road tax/ved/whatever ... its the tax i've paid on the petrol that bugs me!

My 4.4litre v8, averages 24mpg. I've done 11000 miles in 2011 meaning i've certainly paid for my "use" of the roads.

 

[fenlandpsychocyclist]

1/10

Hehehe!! Just messing around.

 

[brokenflipflop]

Bu99er the road tax/ved/whatever ... its the tax i've paid on the petrol that bugs me!

My 4.4litre v8, averages 24mpg. I've done 11000 miles in 2011 meaning i've certainly paid for my "use" of the roads.

At risk of a sarcastic come back from my homeboy Adrian....you and me both and just to upset my homeboy even more, the majority of my miles were pointless, unnecessary journey's of less than 5 miles