pete75 wrote:I think in the terms of this discussion motorists can be taken to mean people who drive cars.
90% of tax is paid by the top 50% of earners, 60% of tax is paid by the top 10% of earners and over 25% by by the top 20%. It's probably true to say that most in these groups are motorists, car users or whatever term you care to use. The majority of non car users are likely to be found in the bottom 50% of earners who pay but 10% of income tax.
But among the top quintile of earners in the UK, 11% do not have access to a car. How does their income compare to the almost 50% in the bottom quintile who do not have access to a car? I'll bet the 11% of top earners who don't have cars pay more in taxes than the 48% of bottom earners who don't.
A great deal of information about how people travel, including age, gender, and socio-economic status is available from the national travel survey.
pete75 wrote:I think in the terms of this discussion motorists can be taken to mean people who drive cars.
90% of tax is paid by the top 50% of earners, 60% of tax is paid by the top 10% of earners and over 25% by by the top 20%. It's probably true to say that most in these groups are motorists, car users or whatever term you care to use. The majority of non car users are likely to be found in the bottom 50% of earners who pay but 10% of income tax.
But among the top quintile of earners in the UK, 11% do not have access to a car. How does their income compare to the almost 50% in the bottom quintile who do not have access to a car? I'll bet the 11% of top earners who don't have cars pay more in taxes than the 48% of bottom earners who don't.
A great deal of information about how people travel, including age, gender, and socio-economic status is available from the national travel survey.
Simple that's 11% of 25% or 2.75% of tax, less than a third of what the bottom 50% pay. Anyhow looking at the taxation system as a whole it's clear "motorists" are not being subsidised by the taxes of non motorists - quite the reverse.
For those of you who are against "subsidy" by the taxpayer there are far easier targets to attack, though this sort of subsidy is a feature of any progressive taxation system. That bottom 50% of earners for instance are all highly subsidised by others when they use the NHS. It'd be easy to prove this too.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
This old topic? I can't be bothered catching up with the numerous pages that have been typed out while I've been out and away cycling so I'll come out and ask my question. Sorry if it's been asked and answered earlier.
If VED alone was used for the construction and upkeep of our road network, what state would they be in? As an added hypothetical question, if you only took VED money from non-cycling motorists to build and maintain roads, i.e. no cyclist contribution towards the roads, just how bad would they be?
Don't answer that last one because I can imagine it myself. It would be as bad as the cretin motorists spouting anti-cycling rhetoric deserve.
Tangled Metal wrote:This old topic? I can't be bothered catching up with the numerous pages that have been typed out while I've been out and away cycling so I'll come out and ask my question. Sorry if it's been asked and answered earlier.
If VED alone was used for the construction and upkeep of our road network, what state would they be in? As an added hypothetical question, if you only took VED money from non-cycling motorists to build and maintain roads, i.e. no cyclist contribution towards the roads, just how bad would they be?
Don't answer that last one because I can imagine it myself. It would be as bad as the cretin motorists spouting anti-cycling rhetoric deserve.
We here all know that Road Tax / VED has never actually paid for the roads, but that is us. If the occasional idiot in a motor vehicle thinks they are paying for the road and we are not, that causes problems for us. So the Government choosing to portray their new system that way is concerning. It will reinforce the view some people have of motorists paying for roads that cyclists use for free.
pete75 wrote:I think in the terms of this discussion motorists can be taken to mean people who drive cars.
90% of tax is paid by the top 50% of earners, 60% of tax is paid by the top 10% of earners and over 25% by by the top 20%. It's probably true to say that most in these groups are motorists, car users or whatever term you care to use. The majority of non car users are likely to be found in the bottom 50% of earners who pay but 10% of income tax.
But among the top quintile of earners in the UK, 11% do not have access to a car. How does their income compare to the almost 50% in the bottom quintile who do not have access to a car? I'll bet the 11% of top earners who don't have cars pay more in taxes than the 48% of bottom earners who don't.
A great deal of information about how people travel, including age, gender, and socio-economic status is available from the national travel survey.
I think one has to be careful about what one defines as "access". Limited personal experience I used to sail with a banker who was easily in that quintile and didn't have a car. They lived in London where they said owning a car was a real nuisance. But whenever they wanted a car (e.g. to come sailing at a weekend) they just hired one. That person probably did annual milage similar to many others but would they be counted as "having access to a car"? I suspect that for survey purposes they would not (no car in the family). I understood that such arrangements were not uncommon.
mjr wrote:Trouble is that motorists and non motorists are the same people at different times. I'm sure that most people are non motorists most of the time.
Quite.
I reckon I cycle around 365 hours a year (source: garmin connect). So am I a cyclist for an hour a day? I reckon I drive around 390 hours a year (12,000 miles - 31 mph average (source: car)) So am I a motorist for an hour a day?
So what am I for the other 22 hours a day? Am I both or neither? Or both and neither (with apols to Schrödinger's cat)
If you are the registered keeper of a taxed mechanically propelled vehicle, you are a tax payer 24/7, but you only pay fuel tax in proportion to your driving.
pete75 wrote:I think in the terms of this discussion motorists can be taken to mean people who drive cars.
90% of tax is paid by the top 50% of earners, 60% of tax is paid by the top 10% of earners and over 25% by by the top 20%. It's probably true to say that most in these groups are motorists, car users or whatever term you care to use. The majority of non car users are likely to be found in the bottom 50% of earners who pay but 10% of income tax.
But among the top quintile of earners in the UK, 11% do not have access to a car. How does their income compare to the almost 50% in the bottom quintile who do not have access to a car? I'll bet the 11% of top earners who don't have cars pay more in taxes than the 48% of bottom earners who don't.
A great deal of information about how people travel, including age, gender, and socio-economic status is available from the national travel survey.
Simple that's 11% of 25% or 2.75% of tax, less than a third of what the bottom 50% pay. Anyhow looking at the taxation system as a whole it's clear "motorists" are not being subsidised by the taxes of non motorists - quite the reverse.
For those of you who are against "subsidy" by the taxpayer there are far easier targets to attack, though this sort of subsidy is a feature of any progressive taxation system. That bottom 50% of earners for instance are all highly subsidised by others when they use the NHS. It'd be easy to prove this too.
If the bottom 50% are prevented from earning as much as the top 50% that argument can be used. However the top earners can only be top earners because the lower earners are prevented from earning as much. In terms of hours worked, the top earners are subsidised by the poor. It's basically a pyramid. Take away the bottom and the top collapses.
Top earners may own motor cars, but they pay more because they pay more taxes, not because they own cars, ie are "motorists".
However the OP was about road tax being used to fund roads. Chris Grayling is trying to lead motorists into thinking that VED is the funding for roads and disguising the fact that it contributes very little to road funding.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
