I would sooner see other services cut drastically and have cheaper motoring. Other developed countries manage!

Which ones have cut services to enable cheaper motoring?

According to the OECD latest figures (2020) U.K. tax rate versus GDP overall was 23rd out of 38. Number one being the highest taxed.

It doesn’t always feel like it and maybe we spend some of it on the wrong things. If everything is a priority then nothing is.

<< Whilst I agree that ongoing maintenance is obviously needed and has to be paid for, the amount actually brought in far outweighs what is paid out for such repairs, safety enhancements, etc >>

As has been said above, this money is not ring-fenced, which usually seems to be an assumption by those who complain about how 'Road Tax' is used. What about tax on beer and fags - I'm not sure where that should be spent, so it must be intended to dissuade those who enjoy it from over-indulging. Maybe the same could be said for Road Tax ?

That's true, but your argument was that there wasn't enough money raised via motoring taxes to cover the amount spent on the roads.

Perhaps taxes should be simpler and more open, so we can more directly see how (well or otherwise) they are spent? It's a shame that politicians aren't more honest about why they use each tax / levy / duty and the extent to why each are raised.

I suspect they don't because if most people looked into it, they'd find they aren't there to change behaviour for the better but essentially to just be cash cows rather like income tax, but by stealth. I suspect many get lots of encouragement from their Mandarins who want to empire build.

I agree that long term EV will not be a cheap option.

But generally legislation is not made retrospective - certainly changes to car tax rates typically affected only new registrations.

So would it be a good idea to buy an EV now in the hope that the government will not require retrospective fitting of tracking kit, and is it likely that the current car tax would continue to apply to already registered vehicles.

Some 'taxes' (well, charges) are retrospective, e.g. the London congestion charge, where only full EVs are exempt - it used to be that hybrids were, now they (all of them, not just new ones from the date of change) aren't.

If tracking is to be the preferred method of charging for road usage, then I'd wager that it would have to be retrospectively added to all vehicles.

Note that if not, the vast majority of those then avoiding said charges would be from more well-off groups and thus deemed not fair to those on lower incomes who couldn't afford to buy earlier and had to wait until second hand prices were low enough.

<< ... the vast majority of those then avoiding said charges would be from more well-off groups and thus deemed not fair to those on lower incomes who couldn't afford to buy earlier and had to wait until second hand prices were low enough. >>

Whatever change happens, there will be at least one subset explaining how unfair it is (to them, usually, not from a disinterested body). It's part of the now ubiquitous blame culture I suppose.

True, but as with many things these days, those often most adversely affected (especially financially) are the least able to change behaviour. It's not as though rural areas have great bus services, which themselves aren't conducive to travelling for work.

Similarly in the bigger cities, shift workers have to drive because public transport is often non-existent and/or dangerous (crime) when they need it.

Plus using public transport is not good for lugging heavy/large amounts of stuff around, including grocery shopping.

Many people don't have a choice, and an EV (too expensive, nowhere to charge [flats, terraced house, crime-ridden area], etc, etc) and/or with swinging per mile rates for people not near their workplace (but who cannot afford to live closer) will mean many have no viable alternative.

The well off don't care becaue they can easily afford it, and yet they always benefit from government subsidies on green tech and can get around ULEZ and congestion charges because they can afford EVs anyway.

The problem is that governments / politicians have (of all hues) for way too long milked taxpyers via stealthy taxes, levies and duties to pay for (increasing) amounts of spending which are in no way related to the products / services taxed.

They are just revenue raisers, thus why EVs will likely be milked just as much as ICE vehicles, which means the 'green incientives' were always bunk. All they care about is raising £X tax to cover their spending and keeping/gaining more power, and the more stealthy/complicated, the better (they think).

the cost of labour has been forced up to silly levels (no comment, but it's the main reason why we depend so much on imports from the Far East).

The cost of labour paid by you and me at the main dealer is much, much higher than the wages paid to the mechanics. The imports from the Far East are cheaper than they used to be because container transport costs make shipping much cheaper than it used to be and also because governments have signed free trade agreements which allow goods in without the high tarifs they used to have.

I suspect many new cars sold already have some form of GPS tacking installed, probably often associated with built in sat-nav or other systems.

It is entirely plausible this will be used to generate charging data. It may even give a real time read-out of costs accumulated and allow selection of a route based on lowest charge for the time of travel - just as one can currently set fastest, shortest, most economical routing.

Those mainly older vehicles not fitted with such devices - a "black box" may become mandatory and/or the existing road tax regime may continue possibly with punitive rates.

You may not like it, but it is entirely feasible. Govt may also see it as a tool to reduce congestion by flexing charges based on time and location. Rural workers commuting 20 miles to work may pay little, SUV on school run in built up area may be hammered.