Road Tax Robbery

forgotmyname

The whole emission thing does not make sense.

Supposedly lower emissions = better MPG. Yet this does not apply in many cases. Previous car £220 a year 58mpg on a run, newer car £30 a year but only 46mpg on the same run...

Im happy to pay £30 a year, 2 free tanks of fuel to help compensate the poor fuel economy, curious how thats better for the enviroment though?

gzoom

The current taxation system is pretty swayed to EVs. £0 VED, no congestion charge, and electricity is substantially cheaper than petrol.

Its been exactly 12 months since we got a new electric meter fitted. Our EV has done 14,500 miles since last April. Its charged 99% of the time at home overnight, the night meter current reads 6680. All our domestic appliances are on overnight, so take 10% that for EV car charging. Over the last 12 months our average night rate is 8p per kWh, so that works out as 3.3p per mile for fuel.

Insurance was more at 4.7p per mile, and I've just replaced x2 rear tyres at 21k with cheapo Nankang ones so 1.1p per mile.

No other running costs for the car, so far from been 'Robbery' VED is nothing (literally for EVs), the insurance companies are the ones doing the robbing!!

buglawton

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Its still an emission tax, not a payment to use the roads.

I'm also not convinced that a vehicle is capable of zero CO2. The CO2 is merely displaced to a power station most of the time or a renewable energy source some of the time.

AdrianC

unholyangel wrote: »

Rover_Driver wrote: »

A registered vehicle, unless exempt, is required to be licensed wherever it is - on or off a public road.

If that were true, SORNs wouldn't exist

SORN is one of those exemptions

forgotmyname wrote: »

The whole emission thing does not make sense.

Supposedly lower emissions = better MPG. Yet this does not apply in many cases. Previous car £220 a year 58mpg on a run, newer car £30 a year but only 46mpg on the same run...

Assuming the "£220/year" car was CO2 taxed, rather than being pre-CO2 taxed (now £265 for 1550cc+), then the answer is simple. The newer car emits much less CO2 on the official test cycle.

Band H, £235/year, is 166-175g/km.
Band C, £30/year, is 111-120g/km.

foxy-stoat

Dont worry friends....when enough people move over to electric the government will have to fill the void that would be the VED revenue - see IPT go up, electric tax increases or some other clever name to get the revenue.

AdrianC

foxy-stoat wrote: »

Dont worry friends....when enough people move over to electric the government will have to fill the void that would be the VED revenue

Or just apply VED to EVs, too.

Remember, the average new car had come down to £30 in 2017, so the CO2-based scheme was replaced by the flat-rate £140 + £310 for £40k+, with CO2-based only applying to the first payment for new cars.

almillar

Supposedly lower emissions = better MPG. Yet this does not apply in many cases. Previous car £220 a year 58mpg on a run, newer car £30 a year but only 46mpg on the same run...

Im happy to pay £30 a year, 2 free tanks of fuel to help compensate the poor fuel economy, curious how thats better for the enviroment though?

And what was coming out of the tailpipe of the older car? Have no doubt, as engines get cleaner, there are often restrictions and comprimises. A catalytic converter, for example, makes the emmissions cleaner, but does restrict the exhaust gases, reducing power.

I'm also not convinced that a vehicle is capable of zero CO2. The CO2 is merely displaced to a power station most of the time or a renewable energy source some of the time.

You've answered your own question, at the same time as doubting it. If someone has a zero emission car, and is with an electricity provider that is zero emission (Ecotricity for example), they can call it that. It's zero emission, gross, of course - they use, say 1MW of electric, and have to source 1MW from renewable. Some power will come from fossil fuel, but is paid back in renewables.

andrewf75

While I agree the tax should be on fuel rather than on vehicle ownership, I can't see any reason not to tax the motorist more to be fair. This country is far too car dependent and the government should be investing huge amounts in public transport and cycling infrastructure. Seems fair to raise that money from taxes on motoring.

AdrianC

almillar wrote: »

...an electricity provider that is zero emission (Ecotricity for example)...

Ah, that ol' greenwash rubbish.

The electricity provided by ALL suppliers is exactly the same. Only the company that bills you changes.
This is where it ALL comes from, currently a bit over 70% fossil and nuclear...
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/


Balancing their customers demand from the grid with a roughly-equal amount of supply of renewably-generated electricity into the grid is not the same as giving all their customers 100% renewably-generated electricity. At the end of 2017, they had 87.2MW of wind and 0.89MW of solar generation. That's going into the grid if the sun's shining and the wind's blowing, no matter what their customers are doing. Their maximum generation capacity can provide about 0.2% of the total current grid demand... about 0.4% of the current maximum wind generation capacity... about 3.8% of the current actual wind-generated electricity...

There's no shortage of wind capacity in this country - right now, UK wind generation is providing about 12% of its total rated capacity. If it was working flat-out, it'd be providing half of all electricity supply, not a bit over 5.5%.

AdrianC

andrewf75 wrote: »

While I agree the tax should be on fuel rather than on vehicle ownership

It already is.

Going on the VED = 12p/litre calculation, duty on fuel is around 5x as much (6.5x as much if you include VAT).