maddog1982 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48869 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The last line in that is the key bit, simply that governments will milk us that's what they do. Even if you reduce tax on bikes, they still need the money, so will raise tax on petrol or other ways to cover it. You could also argue emissions based tax is unfair, that a car that drives 200 miles a year cause less damage, pollution etc than a car driving 10000 miles a year with half the CO2 output. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hensh65 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The last line in that is the key bit, simply that governments will milk us that's what they do. Even if you reduce tax on bikes, they still need the money, so will raise tax on petrol or other ways to cover it. You could also argue emissions based tax is unfair, that a car that drives 200 miles a year cause less damage, pollution etc than a car driving 10000 miles a year with half the CO2 output. That will no doubt be the next thing, taxing for usage!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I'd be keeping my mouth shut if I were a motorbikelist. All they'll do is re-do the bike taxes in the same vein as the car tax, but they'll reset them like this: 0-5gm = £0 5-10 = £50 10-20= £100 etc So actually, that Honda VFR is now paying MORE in tax than before. Just like how top limit for cars used to be £200 on the old system, now it's touching £500. Keep your gob shut and be thankful 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 DE tax vs HR tax as a point in case...same car, different tax bands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think tax & insurance should all be linked. In my case, for example, i have 2 cars and 2 motorcycles which im currently using. So all 4 of my vehicles are taxed, mot`d and insured. I can only use one at once, so why do I have to pay tax on my other vehicles when im not causing any more wear & tear on the roads? Likewise with insurance, I can only drive one car at once, so really the insurance should be calculated on the highest risk vehicle (performance/risk/value) and anything lower risk should be free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KyleR Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Bullshit, there is no way an 800cc high revving motorcycle engine only produces 16.5 g/km, multiply that by 10 and you're close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Lols, just checked and found this from a biking site: VFR actually emits 158.8 g/km, so if they did that in line with cars that bike would actually be paying £175 instead of £78! :lol: Hope no-one signed that petition... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fodder Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think tax & insurance should all be linked. In my case, for example, i have 2 cars and 2 motorcycles which im currently using. So all 4 of my vehicles are taxed, mot`d and insured. I can only use one at once, so why do I have to pay tax on my other vehicles when im not causing any more wear & tear on the roads? Likewise with insurance, I can only drive one car at once, so really the insurance should be calculated on the highest risk vehicle (performance/risk/value) and anything lower risk should be free. I sort of get you but the "tax" doesn't pay for road maintenance. The point about insurance is invalid as your vehicle is insured when you aren't driving it. It could still be hit by someone else who drives off, stolen or burst into flames as a giant walkie talkie shaped building focused the suns rays on your pride and joy. I saw this e petition on Facebook a month or so back and I'd noted on the person who had posted it to their time line that is was full of inaccuracies, spelling mistakes and complete miss use of terminology. It looks like the author has tidied it up but not by much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think tax & insurance should all be linked. In my case, for example, i have 2 cars and 2 motorcycles which im currently using. So all 4 of my vehicles are taxed, mot`d and insured. I can only use one at once, so why do I have to pay tax on my other vehicles when im not causing any more wear & tear on the roads? Likewise with insurance, I can only drive one car at once, so really the insurance should be calculated on the highest risk vehicle (performance/risk/value) and anything lower risk should be free. I sort of get you but the "tax" doesn't pay for road maintenance. The point about insurance is invalid as your vehicle is insured when you aren't driving it. It could still be hit by someone else who drives off, stolen or burst into flames as a giant walkie talkie shaped building focused the suns rays on your pride and joy. I see what you mean "road tax" is these days more of a vehicle tax you pay to entitle you to drive a car/bike on the road. But still seems unfair that if you have more than 1 car you pay more than 1 lot of road tax. As for the insurance side of things, I only insure my bikes third party only. So if it catches fire in my garage, gets rammed by someone else or gets stolen by aliens it makes no difference what-so-ever to the insurance company as they wont pay out. So the only risk they ever have is that I may crash whichever bike im riding at that particular moment in time. So logically thinking the insurance company should workout what risk I am based upon the vehicles and charge accordingly. Unfortunately insurance companies & logic never go hand in hand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It's not about the value of what you're insuring, it's about the value of what you can crash into Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It's not about the value of what you're insuring, it's about the value of what you can crash into Hence 3rd party only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I know, I was agreeing with you. In a backwards kinda way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fodder Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Good point re the insurance rabbit I hadn't thought about the fact some people do insure third party only. I actually think paying "road tax" through fuel is the only fair way to do it but the government won't as they will lose revenue and be seen to hiking up the cost of fuel. These e-petitions always seem to be put together by someone who has thought it a great idea while talking it through with their mates over a few beers and literally submit it there and then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Lets all vote for it then - brilliant that they used an example that would mean costing more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I actually think paying "road tax" through fuel is the only fair way to do it but the government won't as they will lose revenue and be seen to hiking up the cost of fuel. I dont think they would have to put that much on fuel to make it viable, when considering it you have to take into account the savings made from scraping the whole tax disc in the window nonsense and associated sorn paperwork rubbish, think of the savings in getting rid of a whole dvla department, chasing people for not paying tax, paperwork, postage, no anpr camera vans, the list goes on. Unless you have stolen your fuel, anyone on the road will have paid their duty and its completely fair, the ones who do high miles and have high polluting vehicles pay more. The system for collection is already in place with fuel duty! I think the gov are aware the ved or whatever you want to call it these days is completely archaic and unfair, there have been mutterings of trying to eliminate the tax disc recently! Only problem, it cant go out on fuel, because of those whos cars are tax exempt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I actually think paying "road tax" through fuel is the only fair way to do it but the government won't as they will lose revenue and be seen to hiking up the cost of fuel. I dont think they would have to put that much on fuel to make it viable, when considering it you have to take into account the savings made from scraping the whole tax disc in the window nonsense and associated sorn paperwork rubbish, think of the savings in getting rid of a whole dvla department, chasing people for not paying tax, paperwork, postage, no anpr camera vans, the list goes on. Unless you have stolen your fuel, anyone on the road will have paid their duty and its completely fair, the ones who do high miles and have high polluting vehicles pay more. The system for collection is already in place with fuel duty! I think the gov are aware the ved or whatever you want to call it these days is completely archaic and unfair, there have been mutterings of trying to eliminate the tax disc recently! Only problem, it cant go out on fuel, because of those whos cars are tax exempt! At the end of the day its just another motorist tax really along with all the others. If you buy a new car you pay tax on registering it, then you pay road tax (or ved depending on what you want to call it), then when you insure it, you pay insurance tax, then once you have the car on the road you pay fuel tax per litre of fuel you buy. So thats 4 lots of tax just there to get the car on the road! .......Not including the tax you paid on your wages, plus the tax on the money whilst you were saving it in the bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxrob Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 As said above,only fair and proper way is to pay on the fuel you use Problem is governments don't d fair Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Don't blame the governments, blame the people. If they got rid of VED and put it all on fuel, despite it being a much fairer system, there would be riots in the streets. Petrol above £2 per litre? Heaven forbid! Hauliers would have an especially tough time of it, and everything would increase in cost because of the extra transport costs. Truth be told, for most of us the system is weighed in our favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Don't blame the governments, blame the people. If they got rid of VED and put it all on fuel, despite it being a much fairer system, there would be riots in the streets. Petrol above £2 per litre? Heaven forbid! Hauliers would have an especially tough time of it, and everything would increase in cost because of the extra transport costs. Truth be told, for most of us the system is weighed in our favour. How do you get to that figure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Same way every one else in the media does: I made it up I bet it wouldn't be too far off that, though. You'd need to make up revenue from those folks that don't use their cars very much, plus you'd need to pay for the paperwork to switch the system so a good few million quid there, plus might as well chuck a bit more on top to fill the coffers... Yeah, I'd be happy at that figure as a guesstimate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KyleR Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Dans estimate is only £2.70 per gallon, multiplied by 17.5 a month = £47.25 times 12 months = £567 for someone who only does about 350 miles a month Lets hope if it ever does happen (it won't) that it's not an extra 60p per litre! Half that works out almost the same as i'm paying currently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Same way every one else in the media does: I made it up I bet it wouldn't be too far off that, though. You'd need to make up revenue from those folks that don't use their cars very much, plus you'd need to pay for the paperwork to switch the system so a good few million quid there, plus might as well chuck a bit more on top to fill the coffers... Yeah, I'd be happy at that figure as a guesstimate. I reckon it would balance out personally, between the old dear who does a few hundred miles at best each year to the rep who does 20-30+k and would be nowhere near 70p. The system is already in place to collect it, no need for fancy new computer systems/software etc plus the added savings from not having tax disc/sorn, people who dont pay etc If they based it on a fair assumption that 10 or 12k miles is average, just work it from that. The biggest problem i see though is how is it bought in as everyones cars are taxed till different times, they would have to set a date, say January 2015 and you could only buy tax up till then, but then what do you do about the cars that are tax exempt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 You'd need to set it higher to account for uncertainty. Right now, the coffers get a guaranteed income from VED regardless of mileage, and you cannot predict how many miles someone will do in a year. I reckon I alone do 25K miles, 15K for work and 10K for pleasure, but some years I've done much less pleasure miles than others. The system might be in place, but you need to pay for all those clever people to do all those clever sums to work out the exact amount, plus you need to pay for advertising to let people know what's happening, plus you need to adjust legislation to make it legal: Big figures, right there. It wouldn't be any less than an extra 50p a litre. A box of Curly Wurlys to you if I'm ever proved wrong. All they'd do is say that fuel is being taxed extra from Jan 1st, and everyone is entitled to the standard refund on their VED up to that point once they send it back (oh look, more admin costs!). Slice of gateaux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtB Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Compared to many other European countries our road tax is very cheap (and I pay £500!) I'm pretty sure that I saw somewhere our fuel costs are now similar to most European countries now, taking into account £ /€ conversions. Factor in fairly high British wages in comparison I reckon we probably have it pretty good! Although I do miss 16 year old me's £15 a year moped tax and £4.15 tank brim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.