Bike tax

iltisman

I wonder if this will appear over here ,it would pay or bike lanes etc and no doubt be used for twinning and other public sector waste. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BICYCLE_TAX?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-12-26-13-48-49

Strider590

Cyclists already pay for road maintenance and bike lanes, because it's paid for by general taxation. Car tax (VED), is based on emissions and doesn't pay for roads at all....... So why should cyclists pay a special tax?

hugheskevi

It is important to actually identify the groups correctly, as 83% of cyclists own cars. So simply separating cyclists and motorists into different groups is incorrect. The groups should be a large number of non-cycling motorists, a smaller group of motorists who also cycle, and a very small number who only cycle (many of whom will be children).

Looking at Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) in isolation, it may well be the case that cyclists as a group already produce a net benefit per head greater than the group of non-cycling motorists, as the lower average revenue resulting from the 17% with a vehicle is offset by the lower costs associated with congestion and lower road damage which the 83% of cyclists with a car contribute by choosing to use their bike rather than their motor vehicle for some journeys.

Once the average incomes of cyclists is taken into account, the amount of income tax and national insurance (and other taxes) paid per head is much higher.

There are also the higher IT and staff costs associated with collecting such a tax, as well as the additional police costs associated with enforcing it. That is far from trivial, as unlike VED there are not the associated enforcement mechnisms (MoT, insurance, registration and ANPR).

The most easily introduced tax therefore would likely be a purchase tax on cycles, which could be introduced without many of the associated costs of set up and enforcement. However, it could be argued that we already effectively have that, in VAT. Recalling that 83% of cyclists have a motor vehicle, when they spend money on a bike, the Exchequer benefits from that decision not only in lower congestion, lower road maintenance but also takes 20% of the purchase price in tax. That tax isn't being paid by non-cycling motorists, only by those who buy bikes - most of whom have also paid all the costs associated with a motor vehicle.

But...an identifiable sub-group of above average earners who could have a tax imposed on them that can be spun as fair, and which many would support could be a temptation for politicians.

yorkie2

iltisman wrote: »

I wonder if this will appear over here ...

Nope, but if you treated bikes as cars, then given emissions of zero, they'd pay nothing anyway, the same as low-emission cars!

peter_the_piper

yorkie2 wrote: »

Nope, but if you treated bikes as cars, then given emissions of zero, they'd pay nothing anyway, the same as low-emission cars!

Depends on what they have been eating???:rotfl::rotfl:

Strider590

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Depends on what they have been eating???:rotfl::rotfl:

Hmmmm.... Curried spouts, not a cyclists best friend :rotfl:

Marco_Panettone

Strider590 wrote: »

Hmmmm.... Curried spouts, not a cyclists best friend :rotfl:

Free speed, and an anti-drafting device too. What's not to like?!

Marco_Panettone

For a more sensible answer I'd have to ask what the point of the tax would be. What is it for? If it's to pay for infrastructure I ask - what infrastructure? Where is it? As there is very little high-quality cycling infrastructure in the country any tax would be a revenue-raiser with a promise of making something at some point in the future. These promises have been made and broken before.


Who pays it, and what is it based on? Is it all cyclists? Just cyclists who don't own cars? Is it for each bike owned, or a flat rate for using a bike ever?


How is it administered? Is a tax disc needed? Is it an annual charge? How much would administration cost? What penalties for non-payment? How is this detected, and how much would that cost?


A much better scheme would be to completely cancel VED. No more 'road tax' for anyone. Increase fuel duty instead to cover the fall in revenue, so people are actually paying for vehicle use, not road space. More efficient vehicle = pay less, lower usage = pay less, change to different mode for some journeys = pay less.

peter_the_piper

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

A much better scheme would be to completely cancel VED. No more 'road tax' for anyone. Increase fuel duty instead to cover the fall in revenue, so people are actually paying for vehicle use, not road space. More efficient vehicle = pay less, lower usage = pay less, change to different mode for some journeys = pay less.

This would be great for the townies on here but for those who live in the sticks it would be seen as a tax on the countryside. Don't say move then because this would either increase the building of houses on the edge of towns or see the price of houses in towns go up( or both) Anyway, VED and fuel tax are just a tax and are not used for road use, well a small percentage might be.

[Deleted User]

peter_the_piper wrote: »

This would be great for the townies on here but for those who live in the sticks it would be seen as a tax on the countryside.

That problem is easily solved: give people a rebate on their income tax based upon postcodes that are not served by public transport.

peter_the_piper

That would be far too simple for a government to do. However not all of us pay income tax though.