Cyclone Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 It's a simple idea. Abolish VED completely, raise fuel duty by a sufficient amount to mean that the average driver of the average car, driving 12k miles a year pays the same. Pros Impossible to avoid/forget or in any way have an untaxed vehicle Bureaucracy is reduced, saves the government money Foreign vehicles have to pay it as well Cost becomes proportional to the amount of fuel used, not just engine size. Actually encourages people to consider public transport as an option (no upfront cost that needs ameliorating over many journeys). Cons Some effort involved in administering to exempt vehicles Some civil servants will lose their jobs as the entire portion of the DVLA that administers tax will no longer be required Am I missing some cons? Why is this not a good idea and obvious to the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 The only issue really could be the price rise in fuel, if Esso want more money we pay more duty - some people may not like the fluctuating taxation as opposed to an annual fixed cost. Additional tax on fuel and removal of the VED has always been something i'm in favour of. Personally I'd save a fortune on private cars(i have two that rarely do 5k a year) and increase spend on a company car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kidorry Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 I don`t agree with that because I only pay £20-00 a year and it would cost me a lot more if they put the duty on the fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becky B Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 Would mileage allowance be increased to allow for this? Fuel has gone up by about 40% in the four years since I started my current job (where I have to drive for work), but the mileage rates stayed the same, until about 6 weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 Additional con: VED on lawn mower fuel. Another additional con: The government would probably increase the tax on fuel so that the amount charged would exceed the previous VED ... As it does in the Channel Islands, where the local "VED" was replaced by a tax on fuel and people found they were paying 2 or 3 times as much as they had been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carosio Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 I don`t agree with that because I only pay £20-00 a year and it would cost me a lot more if they put the duty on the fuel. I have a pre-2001 car and therefore pay £240/year in tax; I'm proud of my contribution to the exchequer and have no intention of trying to avoid my share of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 10, 2013 Author Share Posted August 10, 2013 The only issue really could be the price rise in fuel, if Esso want more money we pay more duty - some people may not like the fluctuating taxation as opposed to an annual fixed cost. Additional tax on fuel and removal of the VED has always been something i'm in favour of. Personally I'd save a fortune on private cars(i have two that rarely do 5k a year) and increase spend on a company car. There's no reason that it should be done as a % of the fuel price, it can be a fixed duty. ---------- Post added 10-08-2013 at 12:52 ---------- I don`t agree with that because I only pay £20-00 a year and it would cost me a lot more if they put the duty on the fuel. Because you have an efficient car? But also drive a lot of miles? So you don't agree with the idea on purely selfish grounds? ---------- Post added 10-08-2013 at 12:54 ---------- Would mileage allowance be increased to allow for this? Fuel has gone up by about 40% in the four years since I started my current job (where I have to drive for work), but the mileage rates stayed the same, until about 6 weeks ago. Rates for expenses aren't really related... Although I suppose it would be quite easy to add the duty amount onto the rate at which companies are allowed to reimburse you. If it's private car reimbursement though, they don't currently pay for your VED, so I doubt they'd want to pay for your duty. ---------- Post added 10-08-2013 at 12:55 ---------- Additional con: VED on lawn mower fuel. Another additional con: The government would probably increase the tax on fuel so that the amount charged would exceed the previous VED ... As it does in the Channel Islands, where the local "VED" was replaced by a tax on fuel and people found they were paying 2 or 3 times as much as they had been. That's not a con of the idea, that's a con of the government increasing the rate. The idea as presented would mean that the 'average' person pays the same and that the government gets the same income. Lawmowers would be covered under whatever scheme would need to exist for fuel for vehicles exempt from VED at the moment (ie classic cars). Some mechanism to either reclaim it at the end of the year, or not pay it at the pump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 ... That's not a con of the idea, that's a con of the government increasing the rate. The idea as presented would mean that the 'average' person pays the same and that the government gets the same income. That's exactly how the argument was presented when it was mooted in the Channel Islands. Would you trust your government not to abuse the system? The theory is good - Let the polluter pay - but the practice in the two jurisdictions which have adopted a shift from tax on vehicles to tax on road fuel suggests that it is very likely to be abused. Do you think the Norberts and their friends would buy fuel in the UK? Lawmowers would be covered under whatever scheme would need to exist for fuel for vehicles exempt from VED at the moment (ie classic cars). Some mechanism to either reclaim it at the end of the year, or not pay it at the pump. And pigs might fly! There is no (widely available) scheme to allow people to recover the tax on petrol not used on the roads at present. What makes you think it would change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 Con - more cars with no MOT / no valid insurance on the roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted August 10, 2013 Share Posted August 10, 2013 I have a pre-2001 car and therefore pay £240/year in tax; I'm proud of my contribution to the exchequer and have no intention of trying to avoid my share of it. We already have high fuel prices, so more tax on top of that? I have an old car too, £77 every six months isnt too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.