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

[WeX]

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.

 

not really as the extra tax can be a flate rate, not a %.

[Longcol]

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.

 

Paper disks are very useful. If I see a car parked on the public highway without one I'll report it.

 

Not having a disk is bound to ensure more uninsured cars (and potentially unroadworthy ones) on the road.

[SevenRivers]

I would possibly save because I only do 7000 miles per year but I'd still rather pay VED.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Most people in Alderney and Guernsey do rather less than 7000 miles a year.

 

They don't save. - The additional tax rate per litre means that if you do 3000 miles a year you pay more than you did when there was (the equivalent of) VED.

[dvp82]

But would it put an end to the you don't pay road tax rants whenever a anti cycling thread pops up on SF.

[Eater Sundae]

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

 

No more so than now. If you want the equivalent of a tax disc to provide visible poof of the car being legal, then this could be achieved by a small insurance certificate to be fixed to the windscreen. Insurance is more important than VED, anyway.

 

---------- Post added 10-08-2013 at 23:49 ----------

 

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?

 

Insurance companies already provide certificates. Do you really think that the cost of making a small circular bit of paper with a summary of the policy on it would have any significant efect on the cost of insurance?

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2013 at 00:01 ----------

 

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.

 

In the currnt system a car could have a valid VED for a year, but for 10 months of that year it might not be insured. However, if the insurance certificate is on show, then it would need to be valid.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2013 at 00:05 ----------

 

Paper disks are very useful. If I see a car parked on the public highway without one I'll report it.

 

Not having a disk is bound to ensure more uninsured cars (and potentially unroadworthy ones) on the road.

 

But having a visible insurance disk and mot disk would be an improvement on the current system which only required them to be in place at the time of rnwin the VED, and not for the whole year.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2013 at 00:22 ----------

 

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?

 

I think scrpping VED and puting the cost on fuel tax/duty is a great idea as it would remove an unproductive bit of government burocracy. Why spend two lots of money collecting two lots of taxes (VED & fuel duty), when we could reduce costs by collecting the same income through just one tax. Also, it is inherently fair in that the more you pollue, the more you pay, whether that is due to having a gas guzzler or due to high mileage.

 

IMO, the only CON is that it would not allow the government to tilt the balance heavily in favour of low emission charges as they do now. I think that extra duty instead of VED would see small efficient cars paying more than they do now, and big cars paying less. Low annual mileage cars, which therefore pollute less, would pay less annually, which is fair IMO.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2013 at 00:55 ----------

 

Plus ca change...

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=812614&highlight=insurance

 

Many of the same posters.

[altus]

But would it put an end to the you don't pay road tax rants whenever a anti cycling thread pops up on SF.

 

Given that we have in the past had someone moan that cyclists don't pay fuel duty, I suspect not.

[Cyclone]

Paper disks are very useful. If I see a car parked on the public highway without one I'll report it.

 

Not having a disk is bound to ensure more uninsured cars (and potentially unroadworthy ones) on the road.

 

Have fun reporting mine regularly. It's taxed, it's in the car, but it's not in the windscreen as it could be easily stolen if left with the roof down.

 

I see no reason that abolishing VED would affect the rate of uninsured vehicles at all.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2013 at 16:34 ----------

 

Most people in Alderney and Guernsey do rather less than 7000 miles a year.

 

They don't save. - The additional tax rate per litre means that if you do 3000 miles a year you pay more than you did when there was (the equivalent of) VED.

 

That's not an argument against the concept though is it.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2013 at 16:36 ----------

 

Eater - cars are required to have valid insurance to simply be stood on the road these days, and the system is computerised. There's no need for any paper disks to be involved.

[Eater Sundae]

Have fun reporting mine regularly. It's taxed, it's in the car, but it's not in the windscreen as it could be easily stolen if left with the roof down.

 

I see no reason that abolishing VED would affect the rate of uninsured vehicles at all.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2013 at 16:34 ----------

 

 

That's not an argument against the concept though is it.

 

---------- Post added 11-08-2013 at 16:36 ----------

 

Eater - cars are required to have valid insurance to simply be stood on the road these days, and the system is computerised. There's no need for any paper disks to be involved.

 

Yes I realise that the paper tax disc is not really necessary, I was just responding to posts about the lack of a paper tax disc meaning that there would be more people not insuring.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Back to the original question:

 

There's no reason why VED could not be abolished and replaced with additional fuel duty.

 

Large lorries might well fill up in Europe, where diesel would be much cheaper - but I'm sure the government would manage to add a bit more to the cost of fuel for cars to make up for the loss of VED from the lorries.

 

The country would also make a few bob from those tourists who elected to bring their cars to the UK.

 

The only drawback (says he from personal experience) is that the government just might decide to 'add a bit more' and motorists doing average mileage might find out that the additional amount they were paying in fuel tax was rather more than the VED they had been paying.