Car tax disc to be axed after 93 years

Iceweasel

Oh dear - who said things had to be fair.

If the VED was to be abolished and the money raised through extra fuel duty I'd be happy with that.

As long as I didn't have to pay for schools (no kids)

Street lighting (ain't none where I live)

Gritting the roads (I have winter tyres and chains)

Sweeping the pavement. (None where I live out in the countryside)

Libraries (don't use them)

Art galleries. (as above)

I live in a remote area and don't use many facilities that are available to those in towns and cities, but I pay the same taxes.

If you think that is a foolish point of view and that all these facilities are there if I want them - but I choose to not use them - the same can be said for the roads.

It's not my fault that some folks only want to drive for 1000 miles a year.

Seriously - I do use most of those facilities and services, but I hope that you see the crazyness/unfairness of just abolishing a charge for something that you don't use as much as others might do.

Yes our present system is unfair - but so are most of our taxes.

Can I get a cheaper TV licence because I only choose to watch TV at the weekend.

My TV licence (TV Tax) costs pretty much the same as the VED (Car Tax) on my car.

Make those who watch more pay more - only fair.

No? I thought not.

colino

Let's see:
Showroom tax on new cars;
VAT included on the new car screen price;
Insurance Premium Tax;
Fuel Duty on every litre;
VAT on every litre;
MOT;
Tax disc.
We have successive governments that use motorists as cash cows and it wont stop until we actually use them less. Then we can all complain about the increase in personal taxation to make up the shortfall.

arcon5

colino wrote: »

Let's see:
Showroom tax on new cars;
VAT included on the new car screen price;
Insurance Premium Tax;
Fuel Duty on every litre;
VAT on every litre;
MOT;
Tax disc.
We have successive governments that use motorists as cash cows and it wont stop until we actually use them less. Then we can all complain about the increase in personal taxation to make up the shortfall.

You forgot the rest

Speeding fines, seminars
Parking fines
Toll roads and conjestion charges
And the many more ways of extracting money from us mere motorists

Does really annoy me though that I pay well over £100 for tax on my £300 fiesta whilst the rich get it for free on certain cars I'm priced out off

custardy

colino wrote: »

Let's see:
Showroom tax on new cars;
VAT included on the new car screen price;
Insurance Premium Tax;
Fuel Duty on every litre;
VAT on every litre;
MOT;
Tax disc.
We have successive governments that use motorists as cash cows and it wont stop until we actually use them less. Then we can all complain about the increase in personal taxation to make up the shortfall.

Showroom tax? You mean like VAT?
So same as bikes then
MOT,well mine cost £28 and £3 for a bulb
Fuel? Well if you dont want to pay it,dont use it
Road tax,well buy a car that doesnt pay any
buy new and no MOT either. Win win!

A little clue there

Joe_Horner

Iceweasel wrote: »

Oh dear - who said things had to be fair.
[...]

No? I thought not.

I totally agree with all of that, Ice. But it's still misleading to say that "we all pay for the roads" when the motorist actually pays between 2 and 3 times what they cost.

The fact of (and intention behind) VED going into general taxation isn't so that "we all pay for the roads", rather that "the motorist pays for the roads AND other stuff"

I have nothing against that because I'm happy to accept that cars aren't eenvironmentally very nice*, that they have indirect costs (no hospital admissions for car crashes without them for a start) and, moreover, that driving is a privilege not a right and that we generally have to pay fo privileges.

But to say that the cyclist is paying for the roads just because all the motorists' money is put into a pot with theirs before some of it's pulled out for roads (still leaving more than the cyclists' money in the pot) is at very best a cheap accounting trick!






* I don't swallow the AGW bit but the fact is that air without exhaust fumes is nicer to breathe than air with, it's nicer to sleep at night in a place without constant traffic past your window, and green fields are usually nicer to look at than motorways!

Roland_Sausage

At least we can bid farewell the (semi) annual palaver of having to stay up until midnight on the last day of the month to change the discs over at the precise moment in order to comply with the law.

custardy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I totally agree with all of that, Ice. But it's still misleading to say that "we all pay for the roads" when the motorist actually pays between 2 and 3 times what they cost.

The fact of (and intention behind) VED going into general taxation isn't so that "we all pay for the roads", rather that "the motorist pays for the roads AND other stuff"

I have nothing against that because I'm happy to accept that cars aren't eenvironmentally very nice*, that they have indirect costs (no hospital admissions for car crashes without them for a start) and, moreover, that driving is a privilege not a right and that we generally have to pay fo privileges.

But to say that the cyclist is paying for the roads just because all the motorists' money is put into a pot with theirs before some of it's pulled out for roads (still leaving more than the cyclists' money in the pot) is at very best a cheap accounting trick!








* I don't swallow the AGW bit but the fact is that air without exhaust fumes is nicer to breathe than air with, it's nicer to sleep at night in a place without constant traffic past your window, and green fields are usually nicer to look at than motorways!

How do you know?
I pay insurance on both
I paid more for winter tyres for the bike than the car cost me all year in repairs/maintenance
Fuel,well use it and pay for it
Your analogy means HGVs are surely higher on the pecking order,or the guy in the large car doing single figure Mpg?
When you are out,do you push past other pedestrians at the crossings because you paid more?
It is interesting that yet again a thread on a car tax is car vs bike

Joe_Horner

custardy wrote: »

Showroom tax? You mean like VAT?
So same as bikes then
MOT,well mine cost £28 and £3 for a bulb
Fuel? Well if you dont want to pay it,dont use it
Road tax,well buy a car that doesnt pay any
buy new and no MOT either. Win win!

A little clue there

Nice to know you're well off enough to buy a brand new car with zero rated road tax then not use it so you don't have to pay fuel duty.

Then again, those of us here in the real world might just see those completely specious points you've made for what they are.

custardy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Nice to know you're well off enough to buy a brand new car with zero rated road tax then not use it so you don't have to pay fuel duty.

Then again, those of us here in the real world might just see those completely specious points you've made for what they are.

Its not me whining about paying
You seem to have missed my car has just had its MOT,so hardly new
I did buy 2 bikes this year though

Joe_Horner

custardy wrote: »

How do you know?
I pay insurance on both
I paid more for winter tyres for the bike than the car cost me all year in repairs/maintenance
Fuel,well use it and pay for it
Your analogy means HGVs are surely higher on the pecking order,or the guy in the large car doing single figure Mpg?
When you are out,do you push past other pedestrians at the crossings because you paid more?
It is interesting that yet again a thread on a car tax is car vs bike

Errr, for the hard of comprehension around here, below is an easy to follow guide to common useage. Perhaps you could study it before going off on an irrelevant rant?


A "cyclist":





A "motorcyclist" / "biker":