Bike tax

custardy

On the actual link.
Anyone know the tax set up on cars in Chicago, and what it pays towards the infrastructure?

Avoriaz

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.

The sliding scale of VED based on emissions is supposed to encourage people to buy cars that emit lower levels of pollution. I'm not sure how effective it is but abolishing VED would remove that incentive.

Buzby

All my vehicles are zero VED (electric & diesel). I'll never pay for a tax if I can avoid it responsibly.

Richard53

Avoriaz wrote: »

The sliding scale of VED based on emissions is supposed to encourage people to buy cars that emit lower levels of pollution. I'm not sure how effective it is but abolishing VED would remove that incentive.

Removing VED and putting the tax onto fuel duty would actually be more focused on emissions than the current VED bands, rather than remove the incentive. Fuel duty is raised according to actual usage, not just some theoretical emissions level.

Currently, the owner of a gas guzzler pays a huge amount of VED, whether he/she does 1000 miles a year or 100,000. There in no incentive to use it less, except for the price of fuel. Equally, someone might own a low-VED or VED-free vehicle but do astronomical mileages and make a lot of emissions, and yet pays little or nothing. It's possible to imagine the owner of a high-mileage Prius having more harmful emissions over a year than a Range Rover used on sunny Sundays, because the VED bands encourage low-emissions vehicles, not low-emissions use.

VED bands relate only to what car you have on your driveway; higher fuel duty encourages different vehicle choices, use of cycling and public transport, more fuel-efficient driving, and so on. The VED sliding scale is a very blunt instrument, relating only to initial choice of vehicle.

dacouch

Sorry it's the mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198032/SkyCycle-Artists-impression-gives-stunning-vision-Boris-planned-elevated-London-bike-network.html

Generali

If you read the OP's link, the idea that has been used was a $4 sales tax on bicycles. That doesn't seem unreasonable, especially as the money has then been used to push for more funding for blcycling infrastructure and to open up areas of wilderness previously closed to bicycles. Particularly interesting is the idea that the money raised by the state is then matched from Federal funds.

I'd be strongly in favour of that. I doubt many of the anti-cyclists on here have that idea in mind.

custardy

Generali wrote: »

If you read the OP's link, the idea that has been used was a $4 sales tax on bicycles. That doesn't seem unreasonable, especially as the money has then been used to push for more funding for blcycling infrastructure and to open up areas of wilderness previously closed to bicycles. Particularly interesting is the idea that the money raised by the state is then matched from Federal funds.

I'd be strongly in favour of that. I doubt many of the anti-cyclists on here have that idea in mind.

well heres an issue.
Is there an equivalent tax for cars? Pedestrians?
Funding infrastructure is great,however why would cyclists be singled out?
Also would cyclists have input onto the spend? Here in Edinburgh we have a % of the transportation budget set aside for cycling.Great! Sadly this is adoule edged sword. Anti cyclists are up in arms and the spend is often wasted on poorly thought out ideas/implementations. The Quality Bike coridor being a case in point.

The vision

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/385/cycling_in_edinburgh/1931/cycle_projects/2


The reality

http://mccraw.co.uk/tag/quality-bike-corridor/

Norman_Castle

Based on guestimate averages of 30 mpg, annual mileage of 8000 and car tax of £160, putting car tax onto fuel would add 60p per gallon or 13p per litre*. Good for low mileage drivers and reducing use but this would increase business costs which would be passed on to customers. As fuel is already taxed at 70%?, would any government be willing to make this change.

* If my maths is wrong feel free to correct it.:)

With the increase in vehicle size, VED based on a vehicles footprint could be beneficial. If everyone drove smart cars traffic queues would be shorter and there would be twice as many parking spaces.

mumf

Generali wrote: »

If you read the OP's link, the idea that has been used was a $4 sales tax on bicycles. That doesn't seem unreasonable, especially as the money has then been used to push for more funding for blcycling infrastructure and to open up areas of wilderness previously closed to bicycles. Particularly interesting is the idea that the money raised by the state is then matched from Federal funds.

I'd be strongly in favour of that. I doubt many of the anti-cyclists on here have that idea in mind.

Here in the UK cyclists pay a purchase tax. It is called VAT. All 20% of it. And that tax will pay for all sorts-including so-called 'infrastructure'.

Generali

mumf wrote: »

Here in the UK cyclists pay a purchase tax. It is called VAT. All 20% of it. And that tax will pay for all sorts-including so-called 'infrastructure'.

I don't know if you read the article. As far as I can see the cyclists asked are very much in favour of the tax. It's $4 which isn't exactly onerous.