Glad you admit that it is only ONE of the reasons we take issue with your view point. Whilst it is not one that I feel is important - comments that we drive a 4x4 to feel "superior" indicate that the seed of this viewpoint lays with you guys.
You're right about the purpose of the crumple zone. What i tried to put across was that the 4x4 cars don't have them. This means that the other cars crumple zone is used for both sets of passengers. The 4x4 being the heaver takes longer to change its speed reulting in the 4x4 having a much slower change whilst eating into the other cars crumple zone and passenger cage.
All very nice if you're in a 4x4 but not so pleasent if you're in the other car.
All very nice if you're in a 4x4 but not so pleasent if you're in the other car.
Returning to the headline topic "Say Yes to 4x4 Tax" I definitely say NO.
The government puts an enormous amount of effort into running the DVLC, chasing Road Fund Tax dodgers. This is primarily to collect tax revenue, and it serves no other purpose.
I propose moving the burden of Road Fund Tax onto Fuel Duty. I also propose that instead of having a Road Fund tax Disc, that cars should display an MOT disk, and some evidence of insurance cover.
The mandarins at the DVLC can be used to better social effect managing the MOT and Insurance Disk systems. This would improve the road worthiness of the vehicle stock, and clamp down on insurance dodgers.
The Tax, well there is already a mechanism for collecting Fuel Duty. The tax element of fuel price could be increased to offset the loss of the Road Fund Tax. This would have some other benefits, in that tax dodgers couldn't avoid paying the tax. The tax revenue generated from each motorist would be proportional to the amount of fuel they use, thus heavy users would pay more than light users.
This system would also encourage the development of more fuel efficient vehicles.
The system would also effectively collect tax for trailers as towing vehicles use more fuel when towing.
Can anyone genuinely argue against a system like this?
The government puts an enormous amount of effort into running the DVLC, chasing Road Fund Tax dodgers. This is primarily to collect tax revenue, and it serves no other purpose.
I propose moving the burden of Road Fund Tax onto Fuel Duty. I also propose that instead of having a Road Fund tax Disc, that cars should display an MOT disk, and some evidence of insurance cover.
The mandarins at the DVLC can be used to better social effect managing the MOT and Insurance Disk systems. This would improve the road worthiness of the vehicle stock, and clamp down on insurance dodgers.
The Tax, well there is already a mechanism for collecting Fuel Duty. The tax element of fuel price could be increased to offset the loss of the Road Fund Tax. This would have some other benefits, in that tax dodgers couldn't avoid paying the tax. The tax revenue generated from each motorist would be proportional to the amount of fuel they use, thus heavy users would pay more than light users.
This system would also encourage the development of more fuel efficient vehicles.
The system would also effectively collect tax for trailers as towing vehicles use more fuel when towing.
Can anyone genuinely argue against a system like this?
In case you were wondering what happened to all the messages that are missing, we decided to clear this thread from this point onwards as there were so many abusive, personal and irrelevant postings. Apologies to anyone whose genuine contribution was lost among the rest.
It has always been a good idea John. I can see no downsides, problem is the Government do! I suspect that they know that they have been getting away with murder where we are heavily taxed that they do not wish to rock the boat in that direction. Seems Blair might be getting rid of the Tax disk anyway and charging us all for the amount of miles we do.
Thanks Mr Mod. It was getting a bit out of hand & I am glad to see that you are taking action on some of the stupid, irrelevant rantings that have been entered lately.
Keep up the good work & ignore those that label you with unfair & biased comments.
Keep up the good work & ignore those that label you with unfair & biased comments.
What you propose is very similar to the way they do things in Australia. You pay a one off yearly registration fee, this is to cover their equivalent of road tax and third party insurance. (If you want extra cover you get that separately) this ensures that any vehicle registered for the road is also insured to the minimum standard required by law. Hey presto no uninsured drivers.
Hi John L
Though your suggestion is probably an idea solution, the government seem determined to go down a bureaucratic route of forcing everyone to pay for a tracking device in their car and charging them a variable amount depending on the road their on and what time their on it. They will then do the opposite of what you have suggested and reduce the tax duty on fuel. Therefore, whether you drive a 1 litre car or a 3 litre car the amount of tax you pay will be no different and as they've reduced the tax duty on fuel, the only difference will be the extra cost of the now cheaper fuel that the bigger engine car use.
There's also the issue of managing this new system, currently the several oil companies pay the money direct to the treasury very simple and efficient, the proposed tracking system would need a massive computer system to manage it (We know how well the government have been doing in this area don't we) and will cost a great deal more to run.
So why would the government do this?
Money
The majority of taxes collected from motorist are used for other thing the roads and transport, as they say it goes in a pot to be spent on everything. The government is committed to reducing traffic on the roads, but with the current system, this would reduce the amount of revenue they receive. The proposed system is design the reduce traffic on the road while still collecting the same amount (or more) of money.
Information
This is one of the most valuable modern day commodities, they will instantly know were every car is and were they are going and been to, this information is worth billions and you can't tell me they won't want to waste such a valuable resource.
Fines
If they know were you are, they also know how fast your going, no more of those silly speed cameras, The system will be able to generate a ticket automatically, there has been a recent study that questioned whether the focus required to ensure you were not speeding affects your concentration on what is happening on the road.
The real issue isn't what we drive, but the amount of time we drive it and the fact that millions of people are force to do it at the same time.
The real answer is to improve public transport to make it more convenient and appealing, and to force employers to allow employees to work more flexible hours.
Though your suggestion is probably an idea solution, the government seem determined to go down a bureaucratic route of forcing everyone to pay for a tracking device in their car and charging them a variable amount depending on the road their on and what time their on it. They will then do the opposite of what you have suggested and reduce the tax duty on fuel. Therefore, whether you drive a 1 litre car or a 3 litre car the amount of tax you pay will be no different and as they've reduced the tax duty on fuel, the only difference will be the extra cost of the now cheaper fuel that the bigger engine car use.
There's also the issue of managing this new system, currently the several oil companies pay the money direct to the treasury very simple and efficient, the proposed tracking system would need a massive computer system to manage it (We know how well the government have been doing in this area don't we) and will cost a great deal more to run.
So why would the government do this?
Money
The majority of taxes collected from motorist are used for other thing the roads and transport, as they say it goes in a pot to be spent on everything. The government is committed to reducing traffic on the roads, but with the current system, this would reduce the amount of revenue they receive. The proposed system is design the reduce traffic on the road while still collecting the same amount (or more) of money.
Information
This is one of the most valuable modern day commodities, they will instantly know were every car is and were they are going and been to, this information is worth billions and you can't tell me they won't want to waste such a valuable resource.
Fines
If they know were you are, they also know how fast your going, no more of those silly speed cameras, The system will be able to generate a ticket automatically, there has been a recent study that questioned whether the focus required to ensure you were not speeding affects your concentration on what is happening on the road.
The real issue isn't what we drive, but the amount of time we drive it and the fact that millions of people are force to do it at the same time.
The real answer is to improve public transport to make it more convenient and appealing, and to force employers to allow employees to work more flexible hours.
It is a shame that the moderator has acted as he/she has on the latest +/- 4x4 debate. Whilst the debate was certainly getting a little "hot" this was in the main due to the anti's not being able to sustain their unreasonable belief that there is no good reason whatsoever for owning a 4x4. The thread prior to erasure had forced these individuals to admit that we all have a choice. In other words we were getting somewhere - even though hard facts were returned with personal abuse.
From a personal viewpoint I did not appreciate being called stupid, accused of sucking up, being a bully of a driver, drunk, and my spelling criticised. On top of that, there was an absurdly derogatory attack on certain educational qualifications that I found truly bizarre considering the Forum and Topic.
But having "been around the block a few times" - knew that if someone resorts to personal abuse then they are on the back foot.
My spelling was criticised by a "marsupial" who had previously hounded a contributor who is clearly dyslexic in an appalling display of vindictiveness.
At the time I was saddened and dismayed that the moderator allowed this to happen. I was even more surprised when a thread which was actually achieving a consensus was yesterday partially removed.
I also visit other Forums including a Land Rover based one. Interestingly there is an anti-caravan movement on this that crops up from time to time but it has NEVER been as puerile and vicious as seen here with the anti 4x4 brigade. Surely it would be more mature to accept that as caravaners we have more in common than our differing choice of tow vehicle?
I would like to suggest that rather than erase threads the moderator should flag up unreasonable or abusive postings with a warning of some kind.
From a personal viewpoint I did not appreciate being called stupid, accused of sucking up, being a bully of a driver, drunk, and my spelling criticised. On top of that, there was an absurdly derogatory attack on certain educational qualifications that I found truly bizarre considering the Forum and Topic.
But having "been around the block a few times" - knew that if someone resorts to personal abuse then they are on the back foot.
My spelling was criticised by a "marsupial" who had previously hounded a contributor who is clearly dyslexic in an appalling display of vindictiveness.
At the time I was saddened and dismayed that the moderator allowed this to happen. I was even more surprised when a thread which was actually achieving a consensus was yesterday partially removed.
I also visit other Forums including a Land Rover based one. Interestingly there is an anti-caravan movement on this that crops up from time to time but it has NEVER been as puerile and vicious as seen here with the anti 4x4 brigade. Surely it would be more mature to accept that as caravaners we have more in common than our differing choice of tow vehicle?
I would like to suggest that rather than erase threads the moderator should flag up unreasonable or abusive postings with a warning of some kind.
Thank you Graham,
It is interesting that everyone who I have engaged in conversation about this topic, has so far not offered a negative view. The only point that was raised is the redundancy of the civil servants, whom as you will see I suggest could be better used in monitoring and managing the MOT and Insurance issue.
Incidentally a similar scheme does operate in Canada, where the individual states seem to have an vehicle insurance scheme. Why cant we Brits some times swallow our pride an adopt best practice from around the world?
Matthew,
Thank you for your comments, I agree that the government has failed to be fair to motorists, and proportionately motorists pay for far more that the expenditure on roads, it is really a cash cow for the exchequer.
I do wish there was way to force the govenment of the day to put major issues to the electorate, and to be bound by the outcome.
We have clearly moved away from "Governmant by the people for the people" to "governmentby the government for the government and the views of the people cant be trusted to make a choice".
But just a minute, din't the people vote the government in?
Perhaps we cant trust the people, look at the government we've got!
There are 2 points to consider though
1. Only 30% of the voting population voted
2. Alistair Darlings proposal came straight after the election, so we were unable to consider it. It obvious that the government was aware of this plan before the election, be knew it would have a serious impact on staying in power if it had been included in their election manifesto.
Facebook
Twitter