EV pay per mile - disabled drivers

facade

matt_drummer said:

facade said:

matt_drummer said:

facade said:

If you are using a cheap night rate to charge a powerbank, then you can pay the same tax as if it were charging an EV, "they" just need to get a bit more creative over the name of the tax! (battery charging tax?) you'd still be winning on the cost over paying domestic rate.

Probably not?

To charge batteries and win as you call it, you have to buy the batteries. That may make the installation uneconomic. Always a risk of course, but making something non viable by adding taxes to only some people's domestic energy costs is probably not workable.

Also, how much are you going to add per kWh?

12p assuming 4 miles per kWh .

Adding in charging and discharging losses, that would make home battery storage more expensive than standard electricity, and you had to buy batteries to do it!

And the problem for HMRC or HMG is?????

Again, a you problem, not theirs.

So our single remaining power station cannot supply the daytime load on a dull calm day if everyone currently loadshifting with a powerbank doesn't bother- again not an HMRC problem, it is entirely the fault of the (privatised) electricity generation & supply network. (Who spent their colossal profits on shareholder dividends and executive's salaries rather than investment in plant)

(As long as there is someone to blame that isn't HMG, and preferably is already etched in the public consciousness as a profiteering fat-cat, then There Is No Problem)

The problem is that you said battery owners would still be winning, they wouldn't be so your claim was incorrect.

I never mentioned HMRC or HMG or that it wouldn't happen.

I just wanted to point out that your claim of still winning was rubbish!

It isn't rubbish, if you already have a battery bank you could still charge it below standard domestic tariff and save money over those of us who pay full domestic tariff in the day, even if you paid an EV tax on top of the ultra cheap rate. (What else is that, other than a win?)

If you haven't got one yet, then you'd take a much longer time to recover the investment and running costs out of the saving and end up winning overall.

AIUI battery banks go hand in hand with solar, the original idea being to charge them off the panels, but the reality is that the export tariff exceeds the cheap night rate, so it is more profitable to export every joule of solar electricity and just run the house off the night rate shifted with the battery.  This might change with the tax.

TooManyPoints

I think he means that the cost to the UK road network of those miles is zero, so why should there be any tax associated with that oversees mileage. 

Neither VED nor fuel duty are "ring fenced" to pay for the road network. Both are simply an aspect of general taxation. Drivers already pay fuel duty on mileage driven abroad. Whatever fuel they have on board when they arrive overseas has had UK fuel duty levied on it.

The duties are simply taxes levied on people who run vehicles. If one of them is calculated from the number of miles driven, it is neither here nor there where those miles are covered.

Grey_Critic

MouldyOldDough said:

In all fairness - if PPM is implemented by the government - they need to give a 100% discount  for disabled drivers - in the same way that disabled drivers, on high rate mobility PIP are given free road tax - this additional charge is just an addition to Road Tax ........

Why? They pay for Petrol/Diesel and the PPM will replace the taxes/duties that currently apply. 

born_again

MouldyOldDough said:

born_again said:

While I have a disabled wife, I do not agree that there should be a 100% discount.

TBH, the whole PBM has been rumbling on for decades & is no nearer to being a workable solution.

Can't do it via MOT, as no mot for 3 years, could you trust people to report correct mileage each year on payment of VED??
I know when CAZ was being introduced in our area it cost £20 Million. Covid happened & it was scrapped.
So to introduce a countrywide PBM system would cost far more than it would take for years, never mind the timeframe for getting a IT payment system running.

Far more sense to stick to VED, which has worked, as well as it can since it came out.

I very much doubt whether they would rely on self reporting mileage - more likely feedback direct from the EV itself ..... the technology already exists (simple tracking)

TBH, that tech is in pretty much all new cars.
Again this tracking relies on a IT system to be designed & built for all manufactures to forward data to whoever gets the contract to bill people. As well as keeping up with who the owner of the car is at anyone given point, so would need to tie into DVLA systems.

I can block the tracking via not having a sim in the car. Yes I would lose some features.. 👍

matt_drummer

facade said:

It isn't rubbish, if you already have a battery bank you could still charge it below standard domestic tariff and save money over those of us who pay full domestic tariff in the day, even if you paid an EV tax on top of the ultra cheap rate. (What else is that, other than a win?)

If you haven't got one yet, then you'd take a much longer time to recover the investment and running costs out of the saving and end up winning overall.

AIUI battery banks go hand in hand with solar, the original idea being to charge them off the panels, but the reality is that the export tariff exceeds the cheap night rate, so it is more profitable to export every joule of solar electricity and just run the house off the night rate shifted with the battery.  This might change with the tax.

Not if you add 12p per kWh to the rate.

My Octopus IOG is 7p per kWh and if you add 12p to it that becomes 19p per kWh 

Take account of battery losses of at least 20% that becomes 24p per kWh 

The same as a standard domestic tariff

You will never recover the cost of the batteries, a complete waste of time.

I don't export from my batteries as I feel it is unethical even though I have solar too and would make a profit.

I installed batteries in order to run a heat pump in an affordable way.

In your scenario I should have saved my money and just gone on a standard electricity tariff.

You'll never be able to charge a motoring related tax on domestic energy used for heating.

MattMattMattUK

It seems that every time there is a long term strategic shift in consumption or usage the government seeks to complicate the tax system rather than simplify it. 

It would make sense as we want people to transition away from ICE vehicles to stick 10p a litre on petrol and diesel this year and then raise it with inflation plus or 5p a year until it is phased out, that should solve the revenue until at least 2040. It probably also makes sense to increase VED ahead of inflation for the next decade or two, maybe 10% a year on all levels. Long term a 3-4 times increase of VED should cover the revenue needed, moving to a model based on vehicle weight, with any difference made up via general taxation. 

paul_c123

MattMattMattUK said:

It seems that every time there is a long term strategic shift in consumption or usage the government seeks to complicate the tax system rather than simplify it. 

It would make sense as we want people to transition away from ICE vehicles to stick 10p a litre on petrol and diesel this year and then raise it with inflation plus or 5p a year until it is phased out, that should solve the revenue until at least 2040. It probably also makes sense to increase VED ahead of inflation for the next decade or two, maybe 10% a year on all levels. Long term a 3-4 times increase of VED should cover the revenue needed, moving to a model based on vehicle weight, with any difference made up via general taxation. 

You can't just tax diesel because the UK Transport sector will be severely affected - and try to pass its costs onto its customers (which is everybody).

MattMattMattUK

paul_c123 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

It seems that every time there is a long term strategic shift in consumption or usage the government seeks to complicate the tax system rather than simplify it. 

It would make sense as we want people to transition away from ICE vehicles to stick 10p a litre on petrol and diesel this year and then raise it with inflation plus or 5p a year until it is phased out, that should solve the revenue until at least 2040. It probably also makes sense to increase VED ahead of inflation for the next decade or two, maybe 10% a year on all levels. Long term a 3-4 times increase of VED should cover the revenue needed, moving to a model based on vehicle weight, with any difference made up via general taxation. 

You can't just tax diesel because the UK Transport sector will be severely affected - and try to pass its costs onto its customers (which is everybody).

Yes "we" can. The costs have to be carried somewhere, ultimately that is the consumer in the form of consumption taxes, income taxes, or increased product and service costs. Everybody pays in some way already, or at least those of us who are net taxpayers do.

It would also accelerate the transition away from ICE to EV, which would be a positive and beneficial to the government targets.

Herzlos

paul_c123 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

It seems that every time there is a long term strategic shift in consumption or usage the government seeks to complicate the tax system rather than simplify it. 

It would make sense as we want people to transition away from ICE vehicles to stick 10p a litre on petrol and diesel this year and then raise it with inflation plus or 5p a year until it is phased out, that should solve the revenue until at least 2040. It probably also makes sense to increase VED ahead of inflation for the next decade or two, maybe 10% a year on all levels. Long term a 3-4 times increase of VED should cover the revenue needed, moving to a model based on vehicle weight, with any difference made up via general taxation. 

You can't just tax diesel because the UK Transport sector will be severely affected - and try to pass its costs onto its customers (which is everybody).

It depends on what the goal is. If there's still an incentive to reduce emissions then attaching it to fuel and fuel economy is the logical approach. Commercial vehicles must be burning far more fuel than most domestic users, so it'd encourage them to use more efficient vehicles (even EV's or trains for long distance stuff).  It'd likely put prices up a bit but it's not as if it's going to go down anyway. 

Plus it eliminates a lot of existing problems around tax:

It's cheaper to administer, it's impossible to avoid it. 

And with it being tied to fuel, it means that vehicles which have a higher fuel consumption pay more so emission regulation fudging doesn't matter, people who drive faster pay more, people who don't look after cars pay more. The tax payment is more directly compared to the emissions than any banding system. 

Mildly_Miffed

And with it being tied to fuel, it means that vehicles which have a higher fuel consumption pay more so emission regulation fudging doesn't matter, people who drive faster pay more, people who don't look after cars pay more. The tax payment is more directly compared to the emissions than any banding system.

Especially given emissions VED is only applied to some vehicles new between 2001 and 2017.

And, as I pointed out earlier, VED only raises about 1/3 the money of fuel duty for the government.

Tax is the price we pay for living in a civilised society.

Road pricing is inevitable, but it's going to take a LOT of infrastructure expenditure to get near it being viable.