mj.scuba Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Sadly, people like wex drive on our roads: It's wrong though. At 0:52 it says it's a tax on cars, which it isn't. It's a tax on most road going vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 It's wrong though. At 0:52 it says it's a tax on cars, which it isn't. It's a tax on most road going vehicles. Someone else with a successful humour bypass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamf Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 Is there any other service where where many pay to use it but others get free access? NHS libraries etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamf Posted April 25, 2012 Author Share Posted April 25, 2012 Secondly I see drivers flouting the law daily on my commute without prosecution. Where's your rant about these? That's OK, because they pay "road tax". Just like cigarette tax pays for the right to litter. Thirdly, registering individual cycles would be un-enforcable and so costly to administer it would never become law. Some countries and regional governments tried that for short periods in the twentieth century. Every one of them abandoned it as a waste of money and effort for no practical benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 To be as accurate as I can, it's a tax (or duty) payable by the registered keeper of a motorized vehicle when it is used or kept on the public highway. The keeper, of course, does not need to have a driving licence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 To be as accurate as I can, it's a tax (or duty) payable by the registered keeper of a motorized vehicle when it is used or kept on the public highway. The keeper, of course, does not need to have a driving licence. But will struggle to tax the vehicle without a licence, without which he will have difficulty gaining insurance, in turn needed to gain the tax disk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 But will struggle to tax the vehicle without a licence, without which he will have difficulty gaining insurance, in turn needed to gain the tax disk. Insurance companies will take your premium whether the car is taxed car's excise duty has been paid or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 But will struggle to tax the vehicle without a licence, without which he will have difficulty gaining insurance, in turn needed to gain the tax disk. There's no reason someone else couldn't have insured the vehicle. The owner and payer of the VED doesn't require to be able to drive it as my grandad could have attested to (he can't now) since he owned a car for 30 years but never learned to drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Whilst the comments linked to in the opening post made me smile, it has also left me wondering about the validity of 0% tax on cars below 100 g/km CO2 emissions. I recognise the benefit of encouraging people who are going to buy a new car to buy one that pollutes as little as possible, and encourage manufacturers to make more efficient cars available. However, from a whole-life-cycle environmental perpective, encouraging people to ditch older cars to replace them with newer tax-free ones is probably detrimental rather than beneficial to the environment. It wouldn't surprise me if the move to introduce the zero-tax, or low-tax, thresholds for cars is more to do with political lobbying from car manufacturers than genuine concern for environmental matters. Having said that, I am interested in one of those zero-tax A3 cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 There's no reason someone else couldn't have insured the vehicle. The owner and payer of the VED doesn't require to be able to drive it as my grandad could have attested to (he can't now) since he owned a car for 30 years but never learned to drive. As you probably know, the registered keeper does not have to be the legal owner. "You can own a vehicle and have it insured without having a drivers license. But you cannot drive the vehicle without a drivers license. The insurance company will issue a policy because you have insurable interest in the vehicle, you will be listed as the owner of the policy but also as an excluded driver. You will need a person with a valid license to be listed as the principal operator of the vehicle. There would be no coverage on the vehicle if the unlicensed owner of the vehicle had an accident while operating the vehicle." Source(s): Insurance agent It might be that you don't need a principal operator (to get the insurance) if the vehicle is driven on private property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.