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

[Cyclone]

Large lorries based in the UK? As fuel is cheaper in France I believe that they already fill up before coming back to the UK.

 

On the other hand, there's a large amount of foreign traffic on our roads that currently pays no VED, but which would pay the duty when buying fuel, and that includes any lorries that have driven any distance in the UK and need to refuel before returning.

 

You keep repeating the drawback about tax going up, but the government could decide to increase VED tomorrow. A change in the way the tax is applied does not in itself increase or decrease the ability of the government to change the rate of the tax.

[alchresearch]

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.

 

Bit silly that. Considering how many cabrios there are on the road what makes you so special that you have to remove the disc? I never took mine out of all the cabrios I've owned, and neither does anyone else I know.

 

Just buy one of those tamper proof holders if you're that concerned.

[Cyclone]

It isn't removed, I never put it in the windscreen in the first place. It's not really required these days due to the database that the authorities check against.

[alchresearch]

According to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994:

 

By law, any vehicle that is used or kept on a public road must display a valid tax disc

[Cyclone]

Yes I know. I said "not really" required, I didn't say "not legally" required.

[anywebsite]

The VED bands are supposed to encourage people to drive smaller, more efficient cars. Without it some people who drive a smaller car but don't drive it far may choose to get a bigger car & use a little more fuel. All those little bits extra add up.

 

Increasing fuel duty would mainly make people drive less, rather than buy a more efficient car, which may be bad for the economy as they wouldn't be able to travel as far or as often.

[Phanerothyme]

Is there such a big problem with VED that we need to change it now?

[Cyclone]

Phan - of the top of my head, it's a massive cost bureaucratically, it can be avoided. It doesn't actually do as intended re:pollution (ie charge more for those who pollute more).

 

any - Yes, VED bands are supposed to do that, with the ultimate aim of reducing pollution. Applying the tax directly to fuel used would be a more fair method of doing this, as it actually rewards not polluting, instead of rewarding buying a more efficient engine (which may or may not be used to produce more pollution overall).

I didn't talk about increasing fuel duty, it's a new duty to be added to fuel to replace VED, call it VED duty if you like. If it encourages someone to drive less (and save money) then it has also reduced pollution. Given the aim of being cost neutral to the average motorist it shouldn't cause any harm to the economy by curtailing economically desirable journeys.

[alchresearch]

It all depends on how you define "more efficient" engine. I've owned pre-2001 cars which have lower emissions than a number of modern cars, yet because it was pre-2001 I was punished with a high road tax rate whereas the newer one got away with being half the price. And it was better on fuel than its modern counterpart.

 

Not all old cars are polluters.

[Cyclone]

I don't define it, the government do, and they define it by grams of CO2 produced per mile travelled.

Pre 2001 cars don't fall under this regime, but there are less and less of them around and the decline will only continue.

 

If we ignore old cars (since they are in decline) and look at the future instead, you can buy a zero rated modern car (very efficient engine) and drive 100k miles/year yet pay no VED. Or buy a sports car with a very inefficient engine, pay £960 VED and drive only 1k miles.

The small engined car has, despite it's efficiency, produced masses more CO2, yet the driver is encouraged by the £0 cost of VED. If instead the duty were on the fuel, the cost would actually be in proportion to the real amount of pollution produced. Much more fair.