Hi , from the way Michael's post reads I thought all the cars we're going to shoot up to £14o tax , I thought my little £2o a year c1 was going to rise by £12o ! just looked into it ! Phew ; but it's only the cars that are registered in 2017 . £14o is a lot to pay for small car ! 😱hmy:
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Diesel or Petrol????
Page 3 - Passionate about caravans & motorhome? Join our community to share that passion with a global audience!
Yes sorry should have said new car registered from 2017, but already you have someone whos pays zero road tax now and wont be happy to pay £140 for a small new car from 2017? After 5 years you will be paying the same tax for a small efficient small car as a huge petrol guzzling expensive one?
Hopefully my little C1 will get run into the ground and be used for the next 6 or 7 years and I will have cheap tax for a long time to come ! It runs on fresh air ! on a full tank costing less than £35 from empty which will last 6 weekish for what i use back and 4th to work , tthatll do me ! 😗
Gafferbill said:
Hello Gaffer,
Thats a throw away remark. I can't see what the ownership of the car has to do with it. Its the milage and the efficiency. Can you explain why you think it's a non starter?
Yes we may have the most expensive fuel in europe, but that is not the only running cost of a vehicle. All EU countries have MOT's or their equivalent. Then there's insurance, and in many cases in Europe there are road tolls etc. Where this has been discussed previously, contributors from across the channel have indicated that on balance the running costs of vehicles are closer than just the fuel differentials. B)
It seems to be the Conservatives underlying trend to get us to pay for what we use, so why not load fuel in the same way, then everyone (including hybrids) will pay their fair share. 🤔
And Micheal if the additional tax rate on fuel were set at circa13p you could still by 1000L of fuel and pay less than the 2017 tax change £140, and you would not be subsidising the gas guzzlers who do 10's thousands of mile a year. 😉
road tolls? what has that got to do with this discussion ,as we have road tolls here and most are at a far higher rate than our neighbours across the water ,indeed some of ours one could say are compulsory unless one wants to do a huge de tour, and use more fuel . as for the hypothetical 13p added to a litre of fuel being a good idea! really? firstly wouldn't there be VAT on that so 13p become 15.6p already knocking your sums out by 20% remember when vat was 12%..not 20% so how long would it be before your 13p fuel road tax went up to 15p and then 20p. ect ect....plus VAT... .ProfJohnL said:
The 13p is a figure plucked from the air so an average car doing average mileage will pay the same as they do now
The extra on a litre wouldn't be a fixed price it would be a percentage , the more the fuel price increases the more you will pay.
What about the people who own car pre 2017 who pay zero or £20 tax at the moment i can see them really pleased that that they have to pay extra on a litre, not everyone will have brand new cars?
Who knows what the cost will be , the RAC talked about an extra 30p a litre?
The 1000 lts used by a car doing 50 to the gallon would do 11000 miles which is less than the national average of 12000 which would mean you would exceed the £140 by just doing average mileage? 😉
The extra on a litre wouldn't be a fixed price it would be a percentage , the more the fuel price increases the more you will pay.
What about the people who own car pre 2017 who pay zero or £20 tax at the moment i can see them really pleased that that they have to pay extra on a litre, not everyone will have brand new cars?
Who knows what the cost will be , the RAC talked about an extra 30p a litre?
The 1000 lts used by a car doing 50 to the gallon would do 11000 miles which is less than the national average of 12000 which would mean you would exceed the £140 by just doing average mileage? 😉
hi all.
just read this thread, not really been bothered up to now, but two things instantly strike me, why is it the government seems to put a 2017 date on everything, ok it just may be me that sees something suspicious, the new tax system ear marked for 2017. changes to pensions, votes on europe, and changes to the VED levels on new cars from when yeah 2017, what is it they know we don't. OR is it to do with us baby boomers as most of us will be 70 on or around 2017.
has me thinking,
the other thing is the proff's idea of shifting road tax onto fuel has too many variables to work, as far back as the 60's when oil prices increased this was looked at and several times since and was dropped as unworkable. not all fuel users run cars, so it would mean paying for someone else's VED every time you filled up the boat, grass cutter, concrete mixer,water pump, or power generator. cannot see that going down to well.
on a personal note I don't really care either way, my car usage has dropped to nearly zero, don't use it for work any more, don't tow the van, and the wife's disability takes care of the VED, a tank full of fuel lasts longer than the octane thats in the fuel. one fill up lasts 3 months, or more, so come David bring it on !!!!.
just read this thread, not really been bothered up to now, but two things instantly strike me, why is it the government seems to put a 2017 date on everything, ok it just may be me that sees something suspicious, the new tax system ear marked for 2017. changes to pensions, votes on europe, and changes to the VED levels on new cars from when yeah 2017, what is it they know we don't. OR is it to do with us baby boomers as most of us will be 70 on or around 2017.
has me thinking,
the other thing is the proff's idea of shifting road tax onto fuel has too many variables to work, as far back as the 60's when oil prices increased this was looked at and several times since and was dropped as unworkable. not all fuel users run cars, so it would mean paying for someone else's VED every time you filled up the boat, grass cutter, concrete mixer,water pump, or power generator. cannot see that going down to well.
on a personal note I don't really care either way, my car usage has dropped to nearly zero, don't use it for work any more, don't tow the van, and the wife's disability takes care of the VED, a tank full of fuel lasts longer than the octane thats in the fuel. one fill up lasts 3 months, or more, so come David bring it on !!!!.
colin-yorkshire said:
Hello Colin,
What variables?
As things currently stand, anyone who uses fuel from the garage forecourts pays fuel tax. This is a tax which the government puts onto the cost of fuel specifically for fuel used fore motive power. Farmers and some others do have legitimate access to RED DERV which tax exempt. So the systms are already in place to allow non motive power fuel deliveries and usage.
Fuel used for boat is for motive power so is subject to tax.
So far no one has produced any concrete evidence to show that loading fuel tax would be any less fair or just than the current system which is highly inequitable.
But surely as you already pay tax on fuel that is not used for the road, you wouldn't be very happy paying extra a litre so the Road fund tax can be abolished.
If they did put extra on a price of a litre it would push the cost of transport up as the more miles you do the more you pay?
Food and courier deliveries etc would cost more so this would be passed onto the customer as im sure the companies wouldn't adsorb the cost?
So although you might be saving on your road tax the cost of living would increase?
If they did put extra on a price of a litre it would push the cost of transport up as the more miles you do the more you pay?
Food and courier deliveries etc would cost more so this would be passed onto the customer as im sure the companies wouldn't adsorb the cost?
So although you might be saving on your road tax the cost of living would increase?
MichaelE said:
yes Michael, that is part of the variables everything has a knock on effect, the government knows how much it will received in VED, plus the unknown revenue on the fuel used, this tax is not used for the purpose of our transport infrastucture so losses somewhere have to be gained elsewhere, the loss of VED onto fuel would have the effect of reducing the fuel used and therefore increase taxes somewhere else like PAYE or VAT [very unpopular] governments want to be re-elected so avoid anything unpopular except at the start of a term of office when it doesn't matter and issue laws years ahead so one may have forgotten come the election. [me being a cynic and all that] .
as for a tax on motive power yes it is but boats and grass cutters dont pay VED not seen may forecourts selling cheap fuel for boats or red diesel for that matter, so these userrs would have to subsidise road uses who gain through not paying road tax.
MichaelE said:
You are right as increased costs to businesses would be passed on .........a £0.13/litre fuel tax increase would raise the tax burden on a 100,000 mile/year truck by around £4000.00/year.
(Such a truck currently pays around £27000.00 fuel tax/year)
The winners would be private motorists who do lower mileages.
Like most people, I don't want to pay more tax than I have to, but I recognise that in some ways I am paying more than others because I use my vehicle less than average. But there are also some road users who pay less than average, which simply goes to show how inequitable the current VED system is.
The underlying principle of the scheme I have suggested is that every road user should pay a fair and proportional amount for the privilege of using the roads and in some way contribute to the cost of provision and upkeep. I do recognise that the money collected through VED is not ring-fenced for roads, all tax revenues are added to the central exchequer, but the more fairly gathered funds there are it gives the chancellor more room to fund transport and the roads.
Currently the VED scheme is skewed in some very unfair ways. What I have proposed was not designed to retain the current differentials but to more equitably distribute the tax burden based more closely on usage. It was also a considered approach that would not involve any new tax gathering mechanisms as they already exist.
I could have suggested a mileage only scheme, where the mileage recorded at the annual MOT would be used to produce a tax bill, but that would involve a new tax calculation and collection mechanism , and it would give an added impetus for the illegal clocking of odometers, and of course new cars which do not have annual MOT tests for the first three years would have to have some new data collection process put in place.
After reasonable consideration the fairest method of directly proportioning the tax burden is on fuel. The more you use the more you pay. More efficient low mileage users will use less fuel and thus pay less tax, where as low efficiency or high mileage users will use more fuel and thus pay more tax. No one can easily evade the tax, and any visitors to the country who purchase fuel will also contribute. It is provable that heavier vehicles do more damage to the roads and pollute more so here again fuel duty is a fairer method of reflecting the impact of the vehicle.
The point about foreign HGVs filling up on the continent before entering UK is what happens now so there would be no change there, except where a driver does need to fill up whilst in the UK, we do get the benefit.
The fact the tax is collected 'pay as you go' makes it easier for all to pay as there is no large payments to be made and the tax will always be up to date.
Anyone who wishes to reduce their fuel tax burden will look to either reduce their mileage and/or improve their efficiency.
It scheme also responds to the difference in vehicle loading so for example cars with a caravan in tow will use more fuel and thus pay proportionally more tax than when solo, Fully loaded HGVs will use more fuel than when empty, and so on.
UK business users who are generally high mileage users will have the VAT element handled and thus will end up paying slightly less than non VAT registered users as Vat is charged on the pump price after duties have been added.
You have made a good point about the effect it might have on goods transport. But the figure I calculated was based on Michaels suggestion of lost revenue per vehicle so it may not represent the real baseline figure.
I based this figure on Michaels suggestion of a £200 pa loss. The government will have access to the figures for total VED revenues, total fuel sales, and total vehicle mileage for the country so they could easily work out what the additional tax burden to put on fuel. It could easily be less than the £0.13 I calculated, and of course as I have pointed out above the VAT element would give some room for manoeuvre.
There, I have made my case, It is of course totally hypothetical so its unlikely to happen. Bu at least it has produced some lively comment.
The underlying principle of the scheme I have suggested is that every road user should pay a fair and proportional amount for the privilege of using the roads and in some way contribute to the cost of provision and upkeep. I do recognise that the money collected through VED is not ring-fenced for roads, all tax revenues are added to the central exchequer, but the more fairly gathered funds there are it gives the chancellor more room to fund transport and the roads.
Currently the VED scheme is skewed in some very unfair ways. What I have proposed was not designed to retain the current differentials but to more equitably distribute the tax burden based more closely on usage. It was also a considered approach that would not involve any new tax gathering mechanisms as they already exist.
I could have suggested a mileage only scheme, where the mileage recorded at the annual MOT would be used to produce a tax bill, but that would involve a new tax calculation and collection mechanism , and it would give an added impetus for the illegal clocking of odometers, and of course new cars which do not have annual MOT tests for the first three years would have to have some new data collection process put in place.
After reasonable consideration the fairest method of directly proportioning the tax burden is on fuel. The more you use the more you pay. More efficient low mileage users will use less fuel and thus pay less tax, where as low efficiency or high mileage users will use more fuel and thus pay more tax. No one can easily evade the tax, and any visitors to the country who purchase fuel will also contribute. It is provable that heavier vehicles do more damage to the roads and pollute more so here again fuel duty is a fairer method of reflecting the impact of the vehicle.
The point about foreign HGVs filling up on the continent before entering UK is what happens now so there would be no change there, except where a driver does need to fill up whilst in the UK, we do get the benefit.
The fact the tax is collected 'pay as you go' makes it easier for all to pay as there is no large payments to be made and the tax will always be up to date.
Anyone who wishes to reduce their fuel tax burden will look to either reduce their mileage and/or improve their efficiency.
It scheme also responds to the difference in vehicle loading so for example cars with a caravan in tow will use more fuel and thus pay proportionally more tax than when solo, Fully loaded HGVs will use more fuel than when empty, and so on.
UK business users who are generally high mileage users will have the VAT element handled and thus will end up paying slightly less than non VAT registered users as Vat is charged on the pump price after duties have been added.
You have made a good point about the effect it might have on goods transport. But the figure I calculated was based on Michaels suggestion of lost revenue per vehicle so it may not represent the real baseline figure.
I based this figure on Michaels suggestion of a £200 pa loss. The government will have access to the figures for total VED revenues, total fuel sales, and total vehicle mileage for the country so they could easily work out what the additional tax burden to put on fuel. It could easily be less than the £0.13 I calculated, and of course as I have pointed out above the VAT element would give some room for manoeuvre.
There, I have made my case, It is of course totally hypothetical so its unlikely to happen. Bu at least it has produced some lively comment.
One thing is for sure is the Government treats motorists like a cash cow. The last thing they want is to lose this string of revenue. The reason behind the £140 across the board road tax in 2017 is because they are losing revenue from zero rated cars?
Around 30 % of new cars are zero rated.
The last thing they would want is everyone to buy super economical cars so use less fuel so less tax coming into the coffers?
Its much easier to guarantee revenue by taxing everyone the same regardless of how much you use your car?
Just a thought? Tax on fuel , its becomes too expensive to use the tow car you have , look to change but then cant tow the caravan, sell the caravan and car and use the money to holiday abroad?
Around 30 % of new cars are zero rated.
The last thing they would want is everyone to buy super economical cars so use less fuel so less tax coming into the coffers?
Its much easier to guarantee revenue by taxing everyone the same regardless of how much you use your car?
Just a thought? Tax on fuel , its becomes too expensive to use the tow car you have , look to change but then cant tow the caravan, sell the caravan and car and use the money to holiday abroad?
As usual you have thought this through very well. under the guise of a fare and equal system prof...except it isn't .. because we are talking about road tax not fuel use age we already pay taxes for the privilege of putting fuel into our cars,.secondly it is the poorest in society that ,as usually would suffer firstly because the proportional extra expense is going to hit them harder.they are less likely to be able to afford the latest 100 mpg car to use to drive to work. lastly given the revenue raised by road tax especially on a new car driven out of the showroom ,i found it highly unlikely any new tax on fuel would amount to a mere 13p a litre more like double that in the beginning because the government knows roughly what it want monies wise and car are getting better on mpg more older gas guzzlers are heading for the scrapheap being replaced by cars 10 or 20% better on fuel so fuel tax revenue over the next decade is likely to be less than the previous decade all things being equal . so a 13p hike instead of road tax would be an highly unlikely scenario.it properly wouldn't cover the revenue loss of the new car first year road tax premium..ProfJohnL said:
JonnyG said:
Hello Jonny
Your argument about low income families not being able to purchase more efficient cars applies even now so many such families have to pay the current VED which is a major hit on incomes, and often such families are forced to borrow funds to cover it. Much fairer to drop VED and collect it incrementally with the fuel.
If the new car VED levy is lost in this process, there could be a showroom exit tax charged to collect the lost new car VED revenue This could be based on CO2 emissions which again would encourage manufacturers to produce more efficient cars.
hi prof "efficient"?or lower emissions? car companies are producing ever lower emission cars already, as you know but how much lower than they car given the testing is flawed and no doubt about to be overhauled...as for more efficient ? thats not the same as lowering emissions ,efficiency has been suffering over the last decade plus egr valve and the dpf systems sap power and therefore engine efficiency ,frankly anything that lowers emissions will have an adverse effect on efficiencyProfJohnL said:
. my concern of the lower paid, being worse off if road tax was to be placed on fuel ,is based on how governments have applied across the board taxes in the past... and how they have escalated much higher than was thought would happen..
.those of lower income being worse off means me using one of many permutations that could be used .so assuming they buy 7 plus year old cars now have ample supply of vehicles that have roadtax of sup £140 . .. lets assume if the government did replace roadtax with say 25p on a litre of fuel ... its as likely as say 13p.... somebody doing 10k a year in a normal car used mainly urban and getting 35mpg , which given cold starts and short 10 ish mile journeys each way pretty typical stuff would be nearly £200 worse off than paying £125/£140 a year road tax and fuel price staying put.. of course its merely a permutation it could be better or worse but as is ,very likely near the mark.
Hello Jonny,
Logically if a vehicle is more efficient i.e. does more miles per gallon, then there is less fuel going through the engine which will result in smaller volumes of exhaust gasses per mile. I agree by changing the combustion characteristics to improve efficiency it might change proportions of the constituent gasses, but looking at the specifications of most cars, vehicles with low emmisions also tend have better efficiencies. So it might not be a universal correlation, but it is a reasonable generalisation,
Logically if a vehicle is more efficient i.e. does more miles per gallon, then there is less fuel going through the engine which will result in smaller volumes of exhaust gasses per mile. I agree by changing the combustion characteristics to improve efficiency it might change proportions of the constituent gasses, but looking at the specifications of most cars, vehicles with low emmisions also tend have better efficiencies. So it might not be a universal correlation, but it is a reasonable generalisation,
hi prof .i do see where you are coming from as you state cars have gotten better all round [emissions and mpg] but many of the devices that help lower emissions actually effect the efficiency of the engine.. hence the VW scandel and said device that lowered emissions when tests were involved. and the problem VW is now encountering to fix said product.. err easy right leave the defeat device on so emmisions are low..err except they cannot as it effects engine real road engine performance and therefore efficiency, worsening mgp and of course on road power...this of course comes on top of what i stated earlier a car with EGR valve unpluged deactivated and no dpf fitted performs superior to standard car both in terms of power and mpg of course emissions are worse in so far as NOX is higher and particulars too but yes if CO readings were taken for said cars there CO reading would be lower than those of a fully compliant vehicle. all easily explained an egr valve helps to lower combustion temp which in tern lower NOX..but lowering the combustion chamber termp actually lowers the diesel engines efficiency... the DPF of course traps and then burns off particles in the main but restrict free flow of the engine gasses which intern effects engine efficiency ... now i know i have gone off topic sorry , but this adding roadtax to the fuel price thing,well apparently we have another problems by 2020 petrol will need to have more bio added to it so the uk can hit recycle targets for energy ...so petrol no doubt will rise in price by a penny or 2 a litre because of this .add to that bio mix is less efficient than good old fossil petrol and the punters will be buying more fuel than they previously did.although the fuel will be cleaner..! so roadtax added to fuel duty? ummm if they did would we all be looking back in a decades time and saying ,we got shafted yet againProfJohnL said:
Hello Jonny,
Why look back in a couple of decades time? I think we have already been 'shafted' as you put it. The fuel duty elevator was stated to have been driven by needing to find funds to assist the development of more efficient and lower emission energy sources, yet how much of the tax revenue actually went to help such developments?
Answers on a post card please 🙁
Why look back in a couple of decades time? I think we have already been 'shafted' as you put it. The fuel duty elevator was stated to have been driven by needing to find funds to assist the development of more efficient and lower emission energy sources, yet how much of the tax revenue actually went to help such developments?
Answers on a post card please 🙁
Vehicles excise duty !! The amount made through it should be put to repairs to the roads fixing the more appearing pot holes !! The roads are a disgrace
Please remember the vast majority of government people have never even ran a business.The money this country wastes is disgraceful.40 million a day to EEC,Public aid to countrys like China.Next to no manufacturing,factorys getting pulled down to be replaced with houses,imposible to start decent new business due to EU legislation.Of course there will always be the people who claim to be thriving in these times,some are no doubt,then of course you have all the scroungers with ten kids,never done a days graft in their lifes,claim 40k a year of the "soch" not worth them going to work.Then there is us who get abused on income tax,road tax and just about anything else, o yeah nearly forgot VOSA and because the roads are that bad its constant up hill battle keeping the damn wagons in one piece.More money for the pot.And how about all the VAT thats not claimed of the average person.This country stinks from the top to the bottom.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
When does a repeated failure over say ten years become a Product Recall , if at all?- Started by Dustydog
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
Mandatory eye tests for drivers over 70 being proposed by HMG. Good or bad?
- Started by Dustydog
- Replies: 227
-
-
Caravan Battery we think is dead even though we have solar- Started by Saxo Appeal
- Replies: 172
