Off Topic Budget 2015

Currently reading:
Off Topic Budget 2015

It's got nothing to do with punishment, the whole idea of the current taxing system was to make people more conscious of the environmental impact of their car. If you're happy to spend £100k on the car and getting only 18mpg then spending £500 on tax isn't going to be much of a punishment, now they have effectively removed the incentive to buy a more economic and less polluting car.

Although they may have narrowed the goal posts on the cost of taxing a diesel or a petrol it will still work out Cheeper to tax a diesel from new versus an equivalent petrol car

The current system failed, it was never enough of your annual motoring costs to really matter. Those who could afford it carried on regardless, those who would appreciate an extra 100 quid a year couldn't really afford to buy an eco car anyway so had to struggle on with what they could afford. It did allow the manufacturers to market a whole raft of much more brittle cars, adding complexity and cost that will be a liability once the warranty is over but are on the whole once out of the lab only vaguely more efficient than the cars they replaced. It was a gift that kept on giving for the SMMT, I'm not surprised they are sad to see the back of it.

Regards petrol vs diesel..it's the correct direction road fund is not going to be more than 100 quid in diesels favour. It would be better if the cost the same...but it's better than them being cheaper year on year.
 
Last edited:
The current system failed, it was never enough of your annual motoring costs to really matter. Those who could afford it carried on regardless, those who would appreciate an extra 100 quid a year couldn't really afford to buy an eco car anyway so had to struggle on with what they could afford. It did allow the manufacturers to market a whole raft of much more brittle cars, adding complexity and cost that will be a liability once the warranty is over but are on the whole once out of the lab only vaguely more efficient than the cars they replaced. It was a gift that kept on giving for the SMMT, I'm not surprised they are sad to see the back of it.

Regards petrol vs diesel..it's the correct direction road fund is not going to be more than 100 quid in diesels favour. It would be better if the cost the same...but it's better than them being cheaper year on year.


Ok so how exactly has it failed?

If it was never enough of your motoring cost to matter then why do you immediately then talk about people who would really benefit from having cheaper tax.... (Clearly it does matter)

If cars are more brittle then why has reliability of cars improved significantly since 2001

Although the mpg figures are not hugely different these days from what they were 14 years ago, the pollution emitted now by cars is considerably lower.

Finally diesel tax is very rarely £100 cheaper than petrol cars a current diesel panda costs £20 a year while the petrol model is £30 a year, that sort of money wouldn't even buy a round of drinks most places.

This new system does nothing to promote greener vehicles nor will it do anything to dissuade people from buying diesel cars as they still largely work out Cheeper than a petrol over the same period of time.
 
Ok so how exactly has it failed?

If it was never enough of your motoring cost to matter then why do you immediately then talk about people who would really benefit from having cheaper tax.... (Clearly it does matter)

You've missed the point entirely if you can afford a new car straight up then v.e.d. is not even 1% of what it's going to cost you. If you're at the point where the cost of your v.e.d. is make or break on a buying decision you aren't in the market for a new car . High fuel prices have done far more than this system ever has to incentivise good behaviour.

If cars are more brittle then why has reliability of cars improved significantly since 2001

it would be interesting to see what the average garage bill has done in the same time frame.

Although the mpg figures are not hugely different these days from what they were 14 years ago, the pollution emitted now by cars is considerably lower.

Which this system hasn't encouraged as it only focuses on CO2 which is directly linked to fuel consumption and it gives no tax breaks between say a Euro iv, v or vi car.

Finally diesel tax is very rarely £100 cheaper than petrol cars a current diesel panda costs £20 a year while the petrol model is £30 a year, that sort of money wouldn't even buy a round of drinks most places.

Some examples for you Ford Focus, Vauxhall Astra I would suggest you check out the tax difference between the cheapest petrol and diesel engines in both ranges.


This new system does nothing to promote greener vehicles nor will it do anything to dissuade people from buying diesel cars as they still largely work out Cheeper than a petrol over the same period of time.

Probably not as fuel costs are still and always have been the major driver in this, I refer back to my 1st point. But diesels paying the same tax as petrol where they previously paid less or none is a step in the correct direction

:)
 
Last edited:


This seems very much to just be your opinion rather than based on anything? Essentially your argument of all cars paying the same tax is a positive step in the right direction? It really is not a positive forward movement, this is the same system we had back in the 80s when all cars paid the same tax, it's just this time they've added a complicated extra charging system for people buying band new cars. You're foolish if you think this has anything to do with evening the balance between petrol and diesels, realistically all this achieves is more cash in the government's pocket and still favours diesel cars over petrol which burn less fuel and still cost less to tax overall anyway.

Your opinion seems to be they've done this to even the balance between diesels and petrol which is clearly not the case.
 
I never said this is the solution to diesel health concerns, by now the phrase "a step in the right direction" may be familiar however if after my previous posts you think the only reason I think that bringing a bunch of cars that belong in the tax into the tax system and making everyone pay for the roads they use is a good idea. Then we're done here.
 
I never said this is the solution to diesel health concerns, by now the phrase "a step in the right direction" may be familiar however if after my previous posts you think the only reason I think that bringing a bunch of cars that belong in the tax into the tax system and making everyone pay for the roads they use is a good idea. Then we're done here.


But as you've pointed out a multitude of times you pay for the amount you use the roads, by the mile in fuel duty just because a car doesn't pay road tax doesn't mean it's not paying into the pot.


Interestingly the cheapest place for petrol and diesel near me has both at 114.9p a litre so no difference in the price of the different fuels.
 
Last edited:
But as you've pointed out a multitude of times you pay for the amount you use the roads, by the mile in fuel duty just because a car doesn't pay road tax doesn't mean it's not paying into the pot.


Interestingly the cheapest place for petrol and diesel near me has both at 114.9p a litre so no difference in the price of the different fuels.

Fuel duty and VAT on fuel is not ring fenced for roads, the new RFL is. If you use the road in a motor vehicle you pay for it, doesn't get much more simple than that.
 
Fuel duty and VAT on fuel is not ring fenced for roads, the new RFL is. If you use the road in a motor vehicle you pay for it, doesn't get much more simple than that.


As someone else has already pointed out this system of using car tax to directly pay for the roads was ended in the 1930s because of the problem with people thinking they own the roads if they drive a car. And we already have a big enough problem with car v cyclist v lorry v busses v pedestrians this will see the daily battle between differing groups intensify.

In addition if the road network was purely funded just by road tax then investment in the road networks would drop significantly even with the new system in place, so it's all fairly irrelevant as additional finding still needs to come from somewhere.
 
As someone else has already pointed out this system of using car tax to directly pay for the roads was ended in the 1930s because of the problem with people thinking they own the roads if they drive a car. And we already have a big enough problem with car v cyclist v lorry v busses v pedestrians this will see the daily battle between differing groups intensify.

In addition if the road network was purely funded just by road tax then investment in the road networks would drop significantly even with the new system in place, so it's all fairly irrelevant as additional finding still needs to come from somewhere.

If we take your argument to the logical conclusion regards who pays for the roads I'd be careful driving the mini after 2017 people will be running you off the roads you don't pay for....the animosity between parties is there if it wasn't road tax it would be something else.

The additional funding needs to come from somewhere indeed, so making those who use the roads pay more towards them isn't preferable to raising tax for all? Perhaps they can't get all the funding from RFL but it will obviously get them more money for roads otherwise why would they bother? If anything I'll be happier to pay my tax knowing it's actually going to be used on the roads!
 
It so happens that we have a 1.6 16v Clio and we pay over £200 a year to tax her, but our 500TA has a zero rate ............... and so do my bicycles. If we sold the Clio, we would contribute nothing to the new RFL until we replace the 500TA.

Meanwhile, my bicycles will still be zero rated, just like all the other zero emissions vehicles.

Cheers,
Mick.
 
There are plenty of cars at the moment with Zero VED but it's much harder to know what cars do and don't pay road tax while you're driving a long in your own car. However cyclists don't pay road tax, so there is a growing problem especially in London and other big cities between cyclists and drivers because certain drivers think they have more rights as they pay tax where cyclists don't. This problem is only going to get worse once this new system comes into swing as the new problem will be these drivers now literally thinking they own the roads as their road tax goes directly towards paying for them, where as before the money from road fund licence and a number of other taxes all went in one big pot and was dished out accordingly to different funding areas.
 
There are plenty of cars at the moment with Zero VED but it's much harder to know what cars do and don't pay road tax while you're driving a long in your own car. However cyclists don't pay road tax, so there is a growing problem especially in London and other big cities between cyclists and drivers because certain drivers think they have more rights as they pay tax where cyclists don't. This problem is only going to get worse once this new system comes into swing as the new problem will be these drivers now literally thinking they own the roads as their road tax goes directly towards paying for them, where as before the money from road fund licence and a number of other taxes all went in one big pot and was dished out accordingly to different funding areas.

People already call VED road tax and assume it pays for roads so I'm not entirely sure what difference it would make regards whether any parties would feel more entitled or not. If you've ever had the misfortune of walking along a busy cycle route/footpath at 5pm then you know it doesn't require a taxation reason for people to be dicks to each other. If you ever do the same thing on a bridleway on a Sunday take a helmet, a heady mix of joggers, walkers, children, dogs, horses and bike's none of whom pay any tax to do what they do and yet people still get annoyed with each other...

Then there's also the point that a large percentage of pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders e.t.c. will have a car and pay tax on it or use a taxi or bus that will pay into the taxation system.

In Winston Churchill's day it made more sense, bit no one commutes on a horse these days...or uses a horse drawn vehicle as there primary means of business/transportation.
 
Last edited:
If you've ever had the misfortune of walking along a busy cycle route/footpath at 5pm then you know it doesn't require a taxation reason for people to be dicks to each other. If you ever do the same thing on a bridleway on a Sunday take a helmet, a heady mix of joggers, walkers, children, dogs, horses and bike's none of whom pay any tax to do what they do and yet people still get annoyed with each other...

Then there's also the point that a large percentage of pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders e.t.c. will have a car and pay tax on it or use a taxi or bus that will pay into the taxation system.

Whether or not someone pays into the system is irrelevent when it comes to a face off between a cyclist and a motorist, and you're clearly commenting on your own opinion of the situation rather than look at what's already going on.

In 2013 local to me a 21 year old girl knocked a cyclist off his bike on a country lane, didn't even stop to see if he was ok or not, then had the audacity to tweet :- "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax!" using the hashtag #bloodycyclists ."
And 10 seconds on YouTube is enough to show you just how bad this growing problem is becoming.
So yes, saying to drivers your road tax directly pays for the maintenance of the roads is only going to compound the problem, and it's not taken long for stories along these lines to be popping up in the media. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ars-its-ugly-head-again-for-englands-cyclists the more you witter on about this the more it's becoming obvious it's your own opinion of the situation without any basis, yes the costs maybe more equal between patrols and diesel (although still favours diesels) but all these problems you're trying to deny are already present and very real.

Hear is another story talking about how the cost of road tax will likely impact upon new car sales http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-to-road-tax-could-hit-sales-of-new-cars.html

The RAC is now questioning if this new tax system will have a nock on effect on people buying smaller more efficient cars http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/motoring/motoring-news/tax-rules-could-deter-down-sizers-11363991446391
And finally another story talking about how the worst hit by these reforms will by people driving hybrids and low emission cars http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rne-says-money-raised-used-improve-roads.html
 
Last edited:
Whether or not someone pays into the system is irrelevent when it comes to a face off between a cyclist and a motorist, and you're clearly commenting on your own opinion of the situation rather than look at what's already going on.

In 2013 local to me a 21 year old girl knocked a cyclist off his bike on a country lane, didn't even stop to see if he was ok or not, then had the audacity to tweet :- "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax!" using the hashtag #bloodycyclists ."

And 10 seconds on YouTube is enough to show you just how bad this growing problem is becoming.
So yes, saying to drivers your road tax directly pays for the maintenance of the roads is only going to compound the problem, and it's not taken long for stories along these lines to be popping up in the media. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ars-its-ugly-head-again-for-englands-cyclists the more you witter on about this the more it's becoming obvious it's your own opinion of the situation without any basis, yes the costs maybe more equal between patrols and diesel (although still favours diesels) but all these problems you're trying to deny are already present and very real.

Again your comprehension has failed you my point was this system is not in place and yet these things already happen thank you for finding links to some evidence. What difference does it make when clearly people already believe that's what road tax does and even parties who don't pay it are at loggerheads?

Hear is another story talking about how the cost of road tax will likely impact upon new car sales http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-to-road-tax-could-hit-sales-of-new-cars.html

I can afford a brand new car but not 140 quid a year.. ok, short term effect possibly. The cars getting hit with the big charges year one were already getting battered under the current system. The percentage change in running costs on a panda over 3 years? You can work it out I'm sure.

The RAC is now questioning if this new tax system will have a nock on effect on people buying smaller more efficient cars http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/motoring/motoring-news/tax-rules-could-deter-down-sizers-11363991446391

Road tax is still a tiny percentage of all motoring costs...saying it in links doesn't make it anymore or less true, so you believe a ridiculously inefficient car costs the same to run as an efficient one and the only reason people down size is to save ved?

And finally another story talking about how the worst hit by these reforms will by people driving hybrids and low emission cars http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rne-says-money-raised-used-improve-roads.html

I'd totally missed that everyone pays the same after the 1st year (not including 40k + cars) thank you for bringing that to my attention.


Also evidence is not links to newspaper stories....especially the daily mail as you well know.
 
Last edited:
The belief that many drivers pay "road" tax is so prevalent that it's almost become the truth. The more discussion/debate/argument, rational or not, there is on social media or in the press and on TV the worse it will become.

Although George Osborne has stated that the income from this will be "ring-fenced" I don't know how that will affect the majority of roads we drive on on a daily basis. In other words, where we live.

As far as I'm aware, central government only pays directly for Trunk roads and motorways, the rest of it comes from the local authority; obviously with subsidies from Westminster.

But, although there are costs attached to cycling, I'd hazard a guess that they are, by and large, significantly smaller than those for motor vehicles.

I think we'll have to wait and see. I think I read in some of this that the VED on existing cars won't change, although I don't see the rationale behind charging small cheap cars the same as big expensive ones.
 
But, although there are costs attached to cycling, I'd hazard a guess that they are, by and large, significantly smaller than those for motor vehicles.
I think most folk would agree with this, but most folk are drivers.

I wonder what the cost per mile is of a car?
Let's not count the cost of the vehicle, because that is a lifestyle choice. There are perfectly adequate cars out there costing only a few hundred quid. I know there are servicing costs too.

Say you do 40mpg and one gallon costs (say) £6. This means it costs you 15p per mile. (round numbers)

A cyclist may commute to work. Let's say it's 10miles each way at the same 15p per mile. It could very well cost him £3 a day in extra food(calories) and washing his sweaty kit every evening.

He still needs a reliable bike and it needs servicing too. No doubt the cyclist has 3rd party insurance to pay - I know I do, though it's not expensive.

Therefore, I reckon that the extra costs for the motorist is made up from servicing and insurance.

Regards,
Mick.
 
Back
Top