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

[anywebsite]

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.

 

If people drive less, that saves fuel & cuts pollution, but it may also limit economic output. People willing to travel less distance for appointments & meetings, maybe some people start walking to the shops & buy less because they have to carry it home. Cheap & fast transport & communications are quite strongly linked to economic growth.

 

So the government doesn't really want people to drive less mileage, just use a car that gets more miles per gallon. They want you to you drive as many miles, but do it in a more efficient car & pollute less.

 

Free or very cheap VED for efficient cars provides a clear incentive to buy a more efficient car, rather than to just drive less. VED is there to penalise drivers that drive unnecessarily big thirsty cars, rather than those who drive a lot of miles. You need to strike a balance between pollution & people's ability to travel.

 

If it was cost neutral to the average driver, then those that have to do more miles (for work, etc) are being penalised for driving further & those who drove less would get it cheaper. It'd be an incentive for everyone to drive less, more than an incentive to buy a more efficient car.

 

With fuel duties as high as they already are it'd be impossible to raise them without reducing the number of economically desirable journeys.

[Cyclone]

The government can't have it both ways, it's signed up to cut CO2 and it's used VED as a lever to help do this. All I'm suggesting is a fairer way of administering the VED.

 

If economic output was more important than CO2 reduction, then we should scrap the CO2 target we've set and remove the incentives towards it. The goal of reducing CO2 emissions is contrary to the goal of growing the economy.

[Kidorry]

Going off on a different tangent but can you pay your VED online?

[truman]

Going off on a different tangent but can you pay your VED online?

 

Yes,it's been online for a few years now...

[anywebsite]

The government can't have it both ways, it's signed up to cut CO2 and it's used VED as a lever to help do this. All I'm suggesting is a fairer way of administering the VED.

 

If economic output was more important than CO2 reduction, then we should scrap the CO2 target we've set and remove the incentives towards it. The goal of reducing CO2 emissions is contrary to the goal of growing the economy.

 

It's about getting a balance. Reduce CO2 emissions not by doing less, but by doing things more efficiently instead.

 

We already have very high fuel duty, more than enough to stop most people making totally unnecessary journeys. People who drive above the average number of miles are usually doing it because they need to for work.

 

If somebody who just uses their car to drive to the local shop twice a week decides to get a more efficient car because the VED is cheaper or free & their current car costs a lot in VED, it's done it's job. A small increase in fuel duty isn't going to cause somebody who doesn't drive very far to get a more efficient car, they might only fill up once a month anyway. Multiply that by 100,000's of people who do the same across the whole country & it makes a difference.

 

Also, if it costs the same for the 'average motorist', it's going to cost a hell of a lot more for those that need to do many times that mileage for their job. It's going to have an impact on prices for a lot of goods & services that rely on transport.

[Cyclone]

Speaking of efficiency, it would save billions to throw away the current VED system and all the administrative costs involved. In theory that saving could be passed on by actually lowering the cost to the average motorist under the new scheme.

 

People who drive a lot for work are probably reimbursed by work, so the additional cost would be born by the companies, and maybe they'd consider using teleconferencing or some more economical means.

 

Someone who drives very little isn't contributing very much to pollution anyway, you pretty much make my point for me, whether they drive a V8 or a 1.2l bluemotion it makes little difference. So it is unfair under the current system.

 

And for those who drive little it will reduce the cost. Re: transport, HGV's pay different rates anyway, no reason that couldn't be maintained, and ideally we need to shift freight on the railways anyway, so a double benefit.

[Kidorry]

Yes,it's been online for a few years now...

 

Thank you.

[anywebsite]

Speaking of efficiency, it would save billions to throw away the current VED system and all the administrative costs involved. In theory that saving could be passed on by actually lowering the cost to the average motorist under the new scheme.

 

People who drive a lot for work are probably reimbursed by work, so the additional cost would be born by the companies, and maybe they'd consider using teleconferencing or some more economical means.

 

Someone who drives very little isn't contributing very much to pollution anyway, you pretty much make my point for me, whether they drive a V8 or a 1.2l bluemotion it makes little difference. So it is unfair under the current system.

 

And for those who drive little it will reduce the cost. Re: transport, HGV's pay different rates anyway, no reason that couldn't be maintained, and ideally we need to shift freight on the railways anyway, so a double benefit.

 

It's not about raising money for the government, repairing potholes, or any of that nonsense. It's not going to be a very efficient tax to collect & enforce, but that isn't the point of it. I've already explained, the point is to encourage people to drive more efficient & less polluting cars. It probably collects more tax than it costs to collect it.

 

Who always have unlimited money, never get rid of people because of high costs & never increase prices to consumers? What about the self employed? Those that need to travel quite far for their commute to & from work, that their employer doesn't pay for?

 

Let me know when you want me to teleconference you a sack of potatoes. HGV's use the same diesel as cars & pay the same fuel duty rates. Main difference is they have quite a big tank so they can fill up abroad where it's cheaper & avoid paying the UK fuel duty.

 

100,000s of people who individually drive very little, collectively pollute quite a lot. People who drive more than average already have an incentive to use a more efficient vehicle, because they'll be paying a lot of fuel duty. So it's where the government wanted to make the easy CO2 efficiency savings.

[Cyclone]

That's just a recent addition to the point of VED. You're overstating it's importance, and I don't even know why, as actually charging tax for the amount of fuel used makes far more sense from an environmental encouragement point of view than charging tax based on an efficiency and ignoring the level of use.

 

The people you refer to will be encouraged to use a more efficient car, alternate form of transport or otherwise make their journeys more efficient (by living close to work for example). It's the same idea as charging them if they want an inefficient engine, but now it actually penalises burning a lot of fuel, instead of ignoring the actual usage.

 

HGV's pay a lot more in VED though. Can they, let me know the next time an HGV from Sheffield drives to the continent to fill up, before then driving to my house to deliver a (large) sack of potatoes from Derbyshire.

 

100,000 people who drive efficient cars, a lot, pollute an awful lot. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. Charge for actually creating the pollution, don't charge for a very poor corollary of how much pollution is created.

[Guest]

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.1

 

"Failure to display tax disc" is now a £100 on the spot fine, up from £60.