I think a lot of its about how you drive.
OH and I took car (Ford Focus) bikes and trailer down to the New Forest for a long weekend (happily, we escaped the worst of the weather!)
With the trailer bouncing along behind, we were limited legally to 60mph. The car really doesn't want to do 60 - its breezes along at a much faster speed. But the mpg was fabulous - at least 45mpg.
If everyone slowed down a bit, they'd be surprised at how much fuel they'd save.
Jan
Reducing car use and impact on poor
Isn't the point that VED is a regressive tax? ie, The millionaire pays the same as the tramp for the same car. At least fuel duty is proportional to the amount you drive, the frugality of your car and your style of driving.
I would also like to know the efficiency quotient of VED - how much does it cost to collect vs how much is collected. Some taxes cost more to administer than are raised in revenue, I've heard.
Personally, I think we need legislation to stop people commuting by car into cities. Rural areas, like mine, are another issue, because public transport is is thin on the ground, and in any case, the population of the Highlands of Scotland doesn't even amount to a medium sized town.
I would also like to know the efficiency quotient of VED - how much does it cost to collect vs how much is collected. Some taxes cost more to administer than are raised in revenue, I've heard.
Personally, I think we need legislation to stop people commuting by car into cities. Rural areas, like mine, are another issue, because public transport is is thin on the ground, and in any case, the population of the Highlands of Scotland doesn't even amount to a medium sized town.
Auchmill wrote:I would also like to know the efficiency quotient of VED - how much does it cost to collect vs how much is collected. Some taxes cost more to administer than are raised in revenue, I've heard.
Probably quite right, but the advantage with the current system of having to purchase a tax disc for the car is that you have to present valid insurance and MOT certificates. Without that check, how are we going to know that the older cars have had their annual safety check?
Deckie wrote:Auchmill wrote:I would also like to know the efficiency quotient of VED - how much does it cost to collect vs how much is collected. Some taxes cost more to administer than are raised in revenue, I've heard.
Probably quite right, but the advantage with the current system of having to purchase a tax disc for the car is that you have to present valid insurance and MOT certificates. Without that check, how are we going to know that the older cars have had their annual safety check?
You would still need annual registration with these checks, but the charge would be to cover the cost of administration, rather than as at present, part of general taxation thinly disguised as a tax on motoring with its recent green tinge.
ianr1950 wrote:How can you have legislation stopping commuting into cities when the public transport does not take you to where you want when you want?
Yes, that's a problem, but we need to start spending money on public transport systems and the railways, instead of the roads. (as others have suggested) I just don't think the present carrot and twig approach will work.
Auchmill wrote:Isn't the point that VED is a regressive tax? ie, The millionaire pays the same as the tramp for the same car. At least fuel duty is proportional to the amount you drive, the frugality of your car and your style of driving.
No it's not regressive - it's just a flat tax. If it was lower for new or huge cars that would be regressive.
hamster wrote:Auchmill wrote:Isn't the point that VED is a regressive tax? ie, The millionaire pays the same as the tramp for the same car. At least fuel duty is proportional to the amount you drive, the frugality of your car and your style of driving.
No it's not regressive - it's just a flat tax. If it was lower for new or huge cars that would be regressive.
No, it's regressive:
If someone earning £20k per annum has a VW Golf, and someone earning £40k per annum has a VW Golf (same age), the VED represents a lower percentage of the higher earner's income - (socialist argument against VED)
Also regressive from an environmental point of view:
Someone has a VW Golf and drives 12k miles per annum, and someone has the same car and drives 50k miles per annum - the person driving the most miles will pay a smaller VED, expressed as a percentage of the monetary value of the damage done to the environment - (environmentalist's argument against VED)
Solution - don't tax someone for simply owning a car (however big or small), but slap another duty on fuel (could be called the car useage duty), so we pay more, the more we drive.
JQ666 wrote:hamster wrote:Auchmill wrote:Isn't the point that VED is a regressive tax? ie, The millionaire pays the same as the tramp for the same car. At least fuel duty is proportional to the amount you drive, the frugality of your car and your style of driving.
No it's not regressive - it's just a flat tax. If it was lower for new or huge cars that would be regressive.
No, it's regressive:
If someone earning £20k per annum has a VW Golf, and someone earning £40k per annum has a VW Golf (same age), the VED represents a lower percentage of the higher earner's income - (socialist argument against VED)
Also regressive from an environmental point of view:
Someone has a VW Golf and drives 12k miles per annum, and someone has the same car and drives 50k miles per annum - the person driving the most miles will pay a smaller VED, expressed as a percentage of the monetary value of the damage done to the environment - (environmentalist's argument against VED)
Solution - don't tax someone for simply owning a car (however big or small), but slap another duty on fuel (could be called the car useage duty), so we pay more, the more we drive.
Every tax other than income tax is regressive - vat is the same for all regardless of income as is the tax on beer. People who drive 50k miles a year already pays a hell of a lot more tax than someone who does 12k because of the vat & duty on fuel.
A friend who runs a 4.2 litre 4x4 came up with a good point in the pub the other day when someone had a friendly "go" at him about carbon emissions. He said that as he grows 1200 acres of wheat, barley, beet and rape on his farm , has 70 acres of woodland and a miles of hedgerow he is very carbon negative indeed. His argument was that you should look at a persons whole lifestyle not simply at something like the vehicle they drive before judging the amount of carbon they produce.
He said that as he grows 1200 acres of wheat, barley, beet and rape on his farm , has 70 acres of woodland and a miles of hedgerow he is very carbon negative indeed.
How is that any excuse for driving a 4.2 litre car? All the carbon absorbed by the crops will be back in the atmosphere in less than a year. The carbon absorbed by the woodland has to return to the atmosphere eventually as well. And if he were to buy a "normal" car, would the crops and woodland cease to exist?
An individual's overall carbon footprint is rather like a smokers view of secondary smoke induced lung cancer or a dog owners view on dog mess. Tailored to justify their own view. The simple step is to take the approach California took in the 1970s on car pollution. They enacted a law and let the manufacturers worry about how to meet it. IIRC at one point in downtown Los Angeles to meet the new emmissions law a cars exhaust had to emit cleaner air than it was taking in! Clearly impossible but technically that was what was being asked for!
Strangley enough car emmissions did come down and car induced smog was reduced.
What we need is not a limit on 4.2l engines but a minimum mpg for all private cars. if ALL new cars had to meet a minimum 40mpg standard this year and 42mpg next and so on to say 70mpg in 15 years time the manufacurers would meet it. Then 4.2 litre engines would become a thing of the past!
Strangley enough car emmissions did come down and car induced smog was reduced.
What we need is not a limit on 4.2l engines but a minimum mpg for all private cars. if ALL new cars had to meet a minimum 40mpg standard this year and 42mpg next and so on to say 70mpg in 15 years time the manufacurers would meet it. Then 4.2 litre engines would become a thing of the past!
-
reohn2
byegad wrote:What we need is not a limit on 4.2l engines but a minimum mpg for all private cars. if ALL new cars had to meet a minimum 40mpg standard this year and 42mpg next and so on to say 70mpg in 15 years time the manufacurers would meet it. Then 4.2 litre engines would become a thing of the past!
I agree totally with that statement and whilst we're at it reduce power output of motorcycles therebye increasing their MPG,and make dirty old cars ie 'classic'vehicles pay more VED for being dirty(high polluters) instead of paying no VED at all.
Along with a VED and MOT for trailers above a certain size/weight capacity as they increase petrol consumption.
I've done some sums on our car. It's a Citroen Picasso which is the smallest car that we could get three car seats into that we could afford (actually it was more than we could really afford but that's another point entirely). I've just discovered that the VED will increase from £210 to £260 and then to £270.
Now we've had this car for over two and a half years and done less than 10,000 miles in it. It is not a "gass guzzler" just a family car for a family of five. Also it is hardly ever used so we're being taxed because we have a large family not for how much we use it. Now we could buy a newer car that would be in a lower VED band but we couldn't buy a smaller car so we'll just grumble and pay up. Most people will just do this and it won't make the blindest bit of difference to what people own. Also stuffing high taxes on new cars won't make any difference since people don't buy them with real money.
What is needed is zero VED and higher fuel tax to tax useage of fuel inefficient cars. I would also agree that this increase will just put people off green taxes which will be bad in the long run.
Now we've had this car for over two and a half years and done less than 10,000 miles in it. It is not a "gass guzzler" just a family car for a family of five. Also it is hardly ever used so we're being taxed because we have a large family not for how much we use it. Now we could buy a newer car that would be in a lower VED band but we couldn't buy a smaller car so we'll just grumble and pay up. Most people will just do this and it won't make the blindest bit of difference to what people own. Also stuffing high taxes on new cars won't make any difference since people don't buy them with real money.
What is needed is zero VED and higher fuel tax to tax useage of fuel inefficient cars. I would also agree that this increase will just put people off green taxes which will be bad in the long run.
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
As a 4000 mile/year motorist (I cycle more than that) I know what you mean re VED. However given the present row over fuel prices I can't see a move to increase it being possible. Getting the government to vote for it would be like getting Turkeys to vote for 3 extra Xmases a year!
I feel getting at the mileage of new cars is the way to go as then the rich can't buy the right to pollute. After all when the clean air act came in we didn't let the rich in Chelsea buy the right to use coal fires while forcing the poor in Tower Hamlets to change to smokeless!
I feel getting at the mileage of new cars is the way to go as then the rich can't buy the right to pollute. After all when the clean air act came in we didn't let the rich in Chelsea buy the right to use coal fires while forcing the poor in Tower Hamlets to change to smokeless!