What taxes on other people would you support?

cells

mwpt wrote: »

Absolutely. If we can get past the luddite human hurdles, autonomous cars are a game changer.

The reason I pick cycling over scooters / motorbikes is that it is seen as safer, cleaner and healthier. I don't know if it actually is, but I'm pretty sure that is the perception and why I think that people will jump on board if partial pedal / partial electric bikes become viable for long commutes. I would certainly buy one if the battery was better and the bike cheaper.

I am not sure what the real benefit is. Currently people cycle as its cheaper. No insurance or road tax or fuel tax etc. A lot of those are just invisible subsidies to bikers. To think of it another way if everyone switches to pedal bikes how will the government close up the £35 billion or thereabouts in road and indirect road taxes.

With EV self drive cars the cost of cars falls maybe as Mich as two thirds. So the real benefit of cycles their much cheaper price is eroded.

Once you have Mich cheaper car transport is it worth cycling with its additional risk and additional discomfort?

Probably not methinks. People will still do it for enjoyment but when it costs 20p a mile for a share taxi far fewer people are likely to want to cycle.


There is a risk, which I think will happen in much of europe and that is a very heavy tax on self drive cars. So much so that most the coat saving will go onto the additional taxes. So say if there is a £50B annual savings in the UK the.government will slap a £40B annual tax on these cars and use that money to pay for pensions and healthcare of an ever aging population

mwpt

cells wrote: »

With EV self drive cars the cost of cars falls maybe as Mich as two thirds. So the real benefit of cycles their much cheaper price is eroded.

Yes, but I expect longer distance commuter electric bicycles much sooner than I expect our roads to be filled with self drive cars. That was my original point.

Norman_Castle

cells wrote: »

Currently people cycle as its cheaper. No insurance or road tax or fuel tax etc. A lot of those are just invisible subsidies to bikers.

Highways are funded through general taxation which is paid by all. Who contributes more, an unemployed motorist or an employed cyclist? Its impossible to judge someones contribution based on their choice of transport.

Many people cycle commute because its quicker and easier, not because its cheaper.

Mistermeaner

How about taxing wealth instead of income? 5% per annum of ones total nett worth exc. Pension and ISA's. Zero income tax

Kim_13

Mistermeaner wrote: »

How about taxing wealth instead of income? 5% per annum of ones total nett worth exc. Pension and ISA's. Zero income tax

Disasterous surely, doesn't encourage saving so more people will qualify for state support.

ruggedtoast

All people who own their home outright should be taxed on the number of empty bedrooms they have. Unless they take in a lodger or a student. A proper bedroom tax.

I would also be comfortable with this being called The Boomer Tax, and being accredited to me.

Mistermeaner

Kim_13 wrote: »

Disasterous surely, doesn't encourage saving so more people will qualify for state support.

State benefits already discourage saving and also working, being healthy and generally contributing to society

kinger101

ruggedtoast wrote: »

All people who own their home outright should be taxed on the number of empty bedrooms they have. Unless they take in a lodger or a student. A proper bedroom tax.

I think we should have a jealousy tax.

cells

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Highways are funded through general taxation which is paid by all. Who contributes more, an unemployed motorist or an employed cyclist? Its impossible to judge someones contribution based on their choice of transport.

Many people cycle commute because its quicker and easier, not because its cheaper.

Oh its very possible to judge. The car industry and its links pay in the region of £40 billion a year in taxes. Those who cycle avoid that cost but its a cost to society.

The fair thing to donwould be to tax cyclists who use their bike for transport approximately £1,300 per year in a licence tax.

Or to think of of another way. Introduce a terrestrial transport tax of £1,300 per year per vehicle and apply it to cars and bicycles. Get rid of all the car fuel tax car VAT tax car insurance tax etc etc as the £1,300 replaces them.

How many people who cycle would go back to cars of they had to pay their share of £1,300 per year?


You may still think What The Hell?. Of all car users moved to bicycles the government would need to find a way to add and collect an additional ~£1,300 per household so its true

cells

fafafafafafasadsong wrote: »

AIUI in both the UK and Australia cyclists earn more than motorists on average. As a result it is highly likely that cyclists both pay more towards roads than drivers and cause less wear.

On the other side of the ledger cyclists sometimes hold up drivers from joining the traffic jam in front for as much as 20 seconds.

Damn those people. Damn them to heck.

If the nation takes up cycling and gets rid of their cars how would the government fund the lost ?£40B? tax? well it can only do.so by taxing its citizens and since we've all just become.cyclists the cyclists will have to pay.

Same argument applies for EVs. They currently don't pay their share. If we all switch from oil to electric there will need to be a corresponding tax on EV owners equal to that lost tax on the oil car owners.