DVLA is screwing us again

Ultrasonic

Interesting calculation above. As it happens my own VED is about 10% of the cost of my annual fuel bill which would equate to about a 15p per litre rise in diesel price.

If savings could be made from the cost of operating the VED system then it would be possible for the corresponding rise in fuel duty to be smaller.

Yes, some people will be better off and others worse off, but I don't think it can be argued that it is inconsistent with the push to get people to drive more economical cars. Drive more economically, and drive less, and the fuel cost (and corresponding extra fuel duty) will be reduced.

Let's suppose VED had never been invented and we currently merely paid duty on fuel. I struggle to make any sort of case to justify why VED should be introduced, can anyone else?

Johno100

Ultrasonic wrote: »

Yes, some people will be better off and others worse off, but I don't think it can be argued that it is inconsistent with the push to get people to drive more economical cars. Drive more economically, and drive less, and the fuel cost (and corresponding extra fuel duty) will be reduced.

Let's suppose VED had never been invented and we currently merely paid duty on fuel. I struggle to make any sort of case to justify why VED should be introduced, can anyone else?

Agreed, it is also in line with the 'polluter pays principle' which is reflected across the governments other environmental policies.

Trebor16

Johno100 wrote: »

Agreed, it is also in line with the 'polluter pays principle' which is reflected across the governments other environmental policies.

Let's hope they don't scrap the road tax and add extra duty to the cost of fuel otherwise there are going to be a lot of people who have bought more economical cars in bands A to C who will be paying a lot more per year without having to do anything like big mileages. For me to break even I would have cut my annual mileage down from just under 9000 to 2400 per year.

peter_the_piper

Johno100 wrote: »

I think on the contrary it would help our haulage industry, it would put them on more of a level playing field with foreign hauliers (that don't pay any VED) who would contribute more of their fair share of tax.

Other benefits of scrapping VED and adding it to fuel include:-

Bigger engine vehicles would pay more;
Lower mileage vehicles would pay less;
Reduce tax avoidance;
Reduce administrative burdens / costs for the Government & Police; Eliminate VED / VAT duplication - as exempt vehicle classes (i.e. Ambulances / Disabled) could benefit from the provision of VAT exemption on fuel.

Why not include insurance as well, help keep uninsured off road. It would show up on ANPR and easy to catch.

Trebor16

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Why not include insurance as well, help keep uninsured off road. It would show up on ANPR and easy to catch.

.
No need, no insurance already shows up on ANPR.

Ultrasonic

Trebor16 wrote: »

Let's hope they don't scrap the road tax and add extra duty to the cost of fuel otherwise there are going to be a lot of people who have bought more economical cars in bands A to C who will be paying a lot more per year without having to do anything like big mileages. For me to break even I would have cut my annual mileage down from just under 9000 to 2400 per year.

But you would still be better off than if you'd kept your old car, and that would seem to me to be the important comparison. Let's say in your old car you averaged 40 mpg then that would mean you'd be about £40 a year better off under the hypothetical new scheme in your current car. Yes this is a smaller difference than the difference in VED, but you are still better off. The difference would be larger for someone doing more miles and smaller for someone driving less.

Edit: you are of course right that many people with low banded cars may not like the change, but from a purely ideological perspective I still think the change is logical. That doesn't mean I expect it to happen any time soon though, if ever!

Ultrasonic

Thinking about it, what the above example reflects is the fact that the current VED rates drop dramatically for the modest difference in CO2 emissions below band D.

Trebor16

Ultrasonic wrote: »

But you would still be better off than if you'd kept your old car, and that would seem to me to be the important comparison. Let's say in your old car you averaged 40 mpg then that would mean you'd be about £40 a year better off under the hypothetical new scheme in your current car. Yes this is a smaller difference than the difference in VED, but you are still better off. The difference would be larger for someone doing more miles and smaller for someone driving less.

I already drive a band C car with road tax at £30 so at my current mileage level I would be paying an extra £82.50 a year so therefore worse off.

Ultrasonic wrote:

Edit: you are of course right that many people with low banded cars may not like the change, but from a purely ideological perspective I still think the change is logical. That doesn't mean I expect it to happen any time soon though, if ever!

It's not a logical change if it is going to cost many people who have already bought band A to C cars more to run them. As for ideology, many people are thoroughly fed up with the green tax con that has been perpetuated by government which has resulted in higher utility bills and other green taxes which are nothing more than stealth taxes.

Joe_Horner

They were happy enough to upset all the people who bought diesels (at a significant premium) when they were using reduced fuel duty to encourage them, only to put it up again when revenue dropped more than expected.

Road tax on fuel has an additional "green" benefit if you believe in those things. CO2 emissions are nothing more than another name for fuel consumption, so all these "clean" cars that get cheap tax for low emissions, then get ragged to within an inch of their lives, are quite likely to be putting out just as much CO2 as the cars they replaced.

As a specific example, I drive a 1996 Pug 405 diesel estate. I've had a real life average of 50mpg over the past 8k miles, which is 149.7 g/km of CO2 that I've produced.

That would put "me", using that car with my driving style, in tax group F and paying £140 per year road tax. Note that is according to the actual, real life, CO2 my driving has produced. But, because the car is "old and polluting", my annual tax is £225 based purely on engine size.

The point is that a "low emission" car only gives the quoted emissions when driven economically - whenever you're getting less than the maker's fuel consumption your emissions are correspondingly higher. They are also only accessible to the people who can afford (relatively) new cars.

By placing the tax on fuel, everybody can be encouraged to drive to the maximum economy of their particular vehicle, which would produce a much greater overall benefit in terms of emissions than relatively few people buying "clean" cars then driving them hard.

Trebor16

If you think that by abolishing road tax and increasing the fuel duty will encourage all drivers to drive more economically then you really are naïve. It won't happen.

As for your current car and its emissions, do you notice the soot produced from the exhaust compared to a more modern diesel? Your car is far more harmful to the environment than a modern car.

As for your point about cars producing low emissions when driven in an economical manner, that has always been the case with any vehicle, not just the newer ones.

It is now almost 13 years since the road tax was changed for vehicles registered after 1st March 2001 to the current system based on emissions. That means there are a lot more cleaner cars out there than you seem to think.