Why can't VED be abolished and replaced with extra fuel duty?

[geared]

A good idea in principal, but in reality the government would completely fudge the figures and everyone would be out of pocket.

 

Some civil servants will lose their jobs as the entire portion of the DVLA that administers tax will no longer be required

 

but at the same time saving the government some cash and cutting the budget?

[Longcol]

The police and traffic wardens check tax discs. Can't they check that each car has 2 discs? - It's not much harder than counting to 'one' is it?

 

So we're looking at "saving" by having two disks (and associated systems for issuing / recording) rather than one now?

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2013 at 15:01 ----------

 

A good idea in principal, but in reality the government would completely fudge the figures and everyone would be out of pocket.

 

For those of us who renew online the VED system is probably the most effective, simple bit of e-government around and can't actually use many civil servants (I'd hope).

[Becky B]

What if you aren't compensated ie the ones who choose to commute an hour or more? That will cost em. Will we see more people trying to live closer to work(call centre villages anyone?) and maybe less traffic on mways?

 

You don't get paid for your commute anyway. That's your choice. I'm talking about the driving that is part of your work duties.

[Kidorry]

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.

Be careful or your halo may strangle you.

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2013 at 15:19 ----------

 

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 ----------

 

 

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 ----------

 

 

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 ----------

 

 

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.

I have an efficient car by choice and I don`t do many miles a year.

[Cyclone]

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?

As much as we trust them not to abuse the current system.

 

I think you might be missing the point. It's not a question about whether the system could be abused by the government, that's as likely or unlikely as the current system being abused. The question is about the concept of the change between the two systems.

 

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?

You'll have to explain who Norbert is.

 

 

 

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?

Because it's part of the hypothetical system I described changing to.

If you want to describe another system where this isn't the case then feel free, but the question I've asked is about changing to a system where this is the case.

[Gleadly]

The Channel Islands got around the 'No insurance' problem by requiring cars to carry an 'insurance disk' (The same size as a tax disc) in place of the tax disc.

 

There is no need to carry an insurance disk as you have to have valid insurance when you renew your tax disk.

 

I successfully renewed mine online recently.

My neighbour was refused as his insurance expires at the end of the month.

[Cyclone]

Con - more cars with no MOT / no valid insurance on the roads.

 

How does that happen?

 

The only link I can see is that currently to tax a vehicle you must have a valid MOT and insurance. Both of which are computerised and enforced now. This was one of the original points of buying the tax I suppose, but it isn't a requirement anymore.

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2013 at 15:38 ----------

 

They're paid to cover the fuel you use as part of your duties. If the cost of fuel goes up but mileage allowance doesn't (and doesn't cover the fuel cost), then the employee is paying for the associated expenses of doing their job.

Your employer doesn't currently tax your car, so you already pay tax in order to do your duties using a private car.

 

I get compensated for using my own car for work. It's changed recently so that it's not a separate payment any more, but it's still there.

 

It would be trivial to change the rates to include the duty though.

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2013 at 15:39 ----------

 

So effectively the cost of administering the "tax disk" is shifted from the government to the insurance companies and insurance policies will go up accordingly.

 

Who would we register vehicle ownership with?

 

Nothing would change re:registering ownership, that would still be required.

Insurance is already required now simply to have a car physically stood on the road, it's enforced via a database, nothing would change regarding that, and no physical disk to indicate insurance would be required.

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2013 at 15:41 ----------

 

Well let's assume that they won't issue you with insurance without a valid MOT certificate - so they would incur the costs of running / maintaining a system to check on that.

 

There is no requirement for an MOT in order to get insurance or vice versa, and there is no need for it. Both systems can be enforced via the existing databases. Issuing a paper tax disk is not required in order to do this enforcement.

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2013 at 15:42 ----------

 

That's not a problem in the Channel Islands, is it? (They don't have an MOT test.)

 

Is there any reason why the MOT certificate couldn't be replaced by another disc-type decal?

 

The police and traffic wardens check tax discs. Can't they check that each car has 2 discs? - It's not much harder than counting to 'one' is it?

 

It seems that Insurance companies already pass details of insurance coverage to police authorities. (If you get stopped by the Police in Germany, the first thing they will ask for is your insurance certificate and they are able to confirm 'out of country' insurance, too, so there would be no additional costs there.)

 

The paper disks are irrelevant, the police (not traffic wardens) check the database.

In the UK the police check your insurance via the database first, they'll only ask you for details if it shows up as uninsured.

[Obelix]

The only issue really could be the price rise in fuel, if Esso want more money we pay more duty .

 

Not really - fuel duty is charged at a fixed rate per litre, not dependant on the price of fuel. We would of course pay more VAT though, which is the case at the moment.

[Cyclone]

No reason that the VED duty couldn't be added after VAT was calculated.

[Rupert_Baehr]

There is no need to carry an insurance disk as you have to have valid insurance when you renew your tax disk.

 

I successfully renewed mine online recently.

My neighbour was refused as his insurance expires at the end of the month.

 

Try reading the posts before you reply to them.

 

If you don't have a tax disc (and that's what this thread is about) why would you need to have valid insurance to renew it?