An item on the news today suggested that VEL is becoming unworkable and 'they' are considering replacing it with a 'per mile' charge.
IF it happens, just don't expect anything sensible, fair, or cheaper.
|
I read that since the London congestion charge was working so well (is it - not congestion, income??) that it would be applied nationally.
|
|
|
Well it didn't take them long to work that out did it!
Now all we have to do is allow for another few years thinking time, plus a lenghty round of all expenses paid tours to foreign parts, then whatever time's left to get you safely past the next election and we may have yet another costly non-solution.
|
Why not have a per mile solution based on the car engine size & efficiency, driving style and traffic driven in.
Oh, we have already. It's called fuel tax on petrol/diesel.
So abolish the flat fee, and increase the tax on fuel. That will discourage use (as the £1 bus ride from Richmansworth to Bromley suddenly sounds pretty cheap), so they'll have to increase the tax still further to make up for lost revenue which will further discourage use...
|
As a 50,000 mile per year driver - my travelling could NOT be done on public transport - I have to obect to a per-mile charge levied through fuel purchase.
Unless bona-fide work-related travel charge was recoverable via the Inland Revenue, over and above the current tax relief, then this idea would be grossly unfair on essential business car users.
Incidentally, I work in th construction industry, hence my work locations vary on a regular basis, hence the impossibility of using public transport and the elegibility for tax relief on travel.
|
LongD - I suppose I do sympathise, just a little bit. I have always been one of the nutters who chose to live near work (I could always walk) so it is only a little bit. When (if) the goalposts move, and the cost of travelling what (30 years ago) used to be silly distances becomes greater instead of less, those that gambled on that scenario will just have to grin. If the business requires it, that's a bit different, but the principle stands. In the really long term, fuel is being consumed which future people might have wished to use.
Yes, I know the economy has to grow incessantly, but I think it is daft for so many people to waste time (=money) commuting from (e.g.) Leeds to London every day.
|
LongDriver - I sympathise BUT.....why is it not fair that those who use the roads more, pay more?
The only danger is, the current government would use any change as a smokescreen to increase the tax on everyone, not just higher mileage users.
|
The only danger is, the current government would use any change as a smokescreen to increase the tax on everyone, not just higher mileage users.
A bit naive, if I may say so, your Majesty. Governments of ALL colours are always looking for easy ways to raise money. After all, wasn't it the other lot who first introduced the fuel tax escalator? Now that this lot are in, the other lot now say it is a terrible tax!
|
Personally, I favour removing the VED and putting 54 pence per gallon (about 10pence per litre) on the price of fuel.
We would need a sticker in the window to prove insurance and MOT etc, rather like VED exempt cars do now.
Using an average mileage of 10k per annum, the figures work out as thus:
£180 (current rate?) divided by 10,000 = 0.018
0.018 * 30 (average MPG) = 0.54 or 54 pence.
Drivers who do a lot of business miles should be able to claim back tax fairly.
Drivers who drive lower miles or choose to use their cars as little as poss then benefit.
Drivers of cars that do 90 to the gallon benefit and save the environment.
And finally my favourite....
There is one less tax that the scum on the roads can dodge!
Hugo
|
|
I agree, Hugo. Difficult to avoid and zero extra collection costs. But try selling it to Joe Public. I can't see it happening.
|
|
|
I am also in favour of the addition on fuel price - I made it 13p per litre when I worked it out, but you can rest assured that HMG would beat both our prices.
Rather worryingly though, there is a further anti-scrote measure being considered whereby third-party only insurance is also included in the petrol price, leaving you to top-up with F&T or comprehensive if you wish.
Not keen on the sound of that.
|
I certainly would not be in favour even though, potentially, I "might" benefit.
HMG would levy the increase on petrol, and then keep upping the cost of registering vehicles, until you will have the worse of both worlds.
|
The 3rd party insurance is an interesting one.
My initial thought is that I do not want the Government providing yet another thing that would be much better provided through the free market.
Taking away no-claims bonuses from 3rd party claims would encourage more claims; removing the ability to choose your own level of excess would have a similar effect. In the long run, insurance companies would end up paying out more, so it would cost more for us.
On the plus side, for a low-mileage bangernomic motorist like me insurance wouldn't cost much! It seems reasonable that the more miles you do, the more you pay for your insurance.
Also on the plus side, uninsured motorists no longer exist.
I do feel that the more miles you do, the more you should pay. Why should an old lady who does 500 miles per annum pay the same level of road tax as the rep doing 50,000 miles? Protests that it is unfair seem a little strange imho!
|
|
|
|
£24,750was £27,150Details
£10,172was £10,304Details
£20,791was £21,147Details
£20,950was £21,495Details
