In Malta cars over 30 years can qualify as classics with effectively no annual tax (ok, a nominal €8 admin charge). They have to be inspected and judged to be in good original condition, and are subject to a 2500km annual mileage limit. That seems a fair compromise to me. I agree 40 is too old for modern classics, but I think 20 encompasses banger territory.
Use the roads…pay i say, regardless of whether that’s EV, classic, new, small car etc.
Agreed, would also like a pay per mile type scheme in the interests of fairness. I have 4 vehicles,£1300 a year in tax but only get to drive one at once.Originally Posted by Franky Four Fingers
If they were proper roads I'd agree. But the state of them! And we know that ANY tax cannot be tied to a specific use so it's a non starter. I will just mention that they are proper in most of our immediate neighbours so the issue is here.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Bring it on **** it why not. Don't make sense to be endorsing full fat emission producing vehicles but what does make sense these days.
I wouldn't mind a bit of a drop on my just turned 20 years old T4. What happens if the vehicle is 41 years old?
Just put the tax into fuel, you pay move tax the more you use. Then tax EV per mile using the build in back box’s ….
^^^Absolutely this, 100%.
In 2 years my car will be 20 so personally wouldn't complain but seems daft proposal TBH, car is just an old car - hardly a well-loved classic.
Like most of these petitions just a waste of everyone's time and money.
Over 40 years old you don't pay any VED at all.
That's the spirit.
I suppose if we all kept quiet about everything.......nothing would get done.....EVER ??
Yes, you're correct, far more gets done nowadays since these online petitions were introduced.
Why not start a petition then?
I know you've only been here 15 years, but there's an instruction on the George and Dragon page saying no politics.
My car is 18 and tax went from £125 a year to £240 a year over that time and keeps going up.
There is no way on earth they will make it free, they are greedy pigs who will keep putting it up. That is how they think.
I would bet my house that when everyone has an EV in the future the price of electricity will be insane, the tax will be huge and they will be chinese pieces of tin crap
The problem with mileage based charges is that they disproportionately affect people who live in the countryside, many of whom don't earn as much as urban dwellers.
Any levy will disproportionately affect some sectors, every tradie with a van is paying full fat for car he drives at weekends.
The road tax is (was) a good way to ensure the car/van/minibus/motorbike is insured and mot'd.
The APR system does most if those checks now anyway.
Initially, I thought a fuel tax would work for me.
At a modest 2,000 miles per year per 4x vehicles in the household = 8,000 total, the £700-£800 road tax could be paid back at 10p per mile.
But at 10 mile per litre (a nominal 45mpg) that would take an equivalent fuel price at the pump up from £1.40p / litre to £2.40p.
Maybe the road tax is the lesser of two evils.
We don’t need both ( and much EV charging wouldn’t be tracked) but black boxes would work.
Last edited by Kingstepper; 10th March 2024 at 08:49.
You’re already paying a mileage based charge, more distance = more fuel = more tax at the pump.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
It's their choice to live there and will have benefits that urban dwellers don't.
I would suggest that a fell shepherd who moved to Manchester may have dented his or her employment prospects.
Their career choice.
In fairness, a fell shepherd won’t be doing mega miles each year, but lots of people make all sorts of ‘career choices’ and thank goodness they do.
How does society function without them, after all?
Lots of people choose what cars they drive too, even 20-40 year old ones, why the focus on them?
I think cyclists should pay an annual fee. Cycle lanes don't magically appear after a highway fairy has waived their magic wand.
But then I think cyclists should be fined for no lights, no high vis, using a phone etc.
Schoolchildren using bikes to get to school? Cyclists who also own cars?
Needs a bit more thought that one.
And pedestrian crossings?
Such things are paid for out of income tax & I'll hazard a guess that I pay way more of that than you do...so maybe you should be paying more for using your car on roads which I ride my bike on & which I fund more than you do?
Last edited by trident-7; 10th March 2024 at 19:07.
A good assumption always beats knowledge of facts (not) 👍
Imagine this age of cars focussed on because that's what the signees drive.
And, yes, of course people make all sorts of career choices and they come with costs.
I 'hazarded a guess' & on the probabilities, even on this privileged forum it's likely to be true. It's difficult for you to argue with this Reggie.
I'm not a fan of the cyclist haters.
Oh dear. Someone's feeling very insecure today.
Typical response from a cyclist hater
Tony-GB, have you ever considered this from the point of view of a cyclist? I don't know whether you ride a bike but I'm not exaggerating when I say that there are quite a lot of drivers who seem to be intent on killing us. I've had several incidents where a car driver has actually tried to knock me off deliberately. I don't think they've thought this through. If they kill me then they're likely to land up in jail or get a £25 fine (it's happened). Either way it's not worth their hassle to shorten their journeys by a few minutes. Put yourself in that position....
It's not a war out there but it feels like it....whoever is in the wrong it's usually the cyclist who ends up dead in a cyclist v car collision....& have you noticed that it's nearly always reported as a "cyclist was in collision with a car" rather than the other way around?
And most cyclists are also car drivers & tax payers so we do pay our dues.....often more than most car drivers. The roads should be shared.
Be nice to each other.
I think your second point is reasonable. Eventually all bikes will be chipped so that a police car can read a registration remotely, a bit like ANPR. It's already illegal for cyclists to fail to use proper lighting after dark anyway.
Only works if there are enough in Blue to go looking.
In that case, those people who made a career choice to care for you and your children (teachers, nurses, carers…) will need a significant rise to be able to live within walkable/cyclable/ drivable distance from the place they work for your benefit. Or you’ll need to invest significantly more in public transport to make sure they are there when your children start school, or you or your parents need their dressing or bedding changed…
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I'm not arguing I'm just saying that you made quite the assumption. In fact, of call it a definite guess.
Yeah, that’s what I said.
I'd hope they do live within a reasonable drivable distance.
Swings and roundabouts - for example living further with increased commuting costs (but maybe more pleasant) or closer with possible increased living costs. Market forces to prevail.
I believe you do not realise how little those people are paid for the hours they do. Add to that a majority is female (so paid less, still too often [or promoted more slowly])and need to take care of their own family (parents, in-laws, children). Them living further away is not a life choice (and they can’t afford fancy neighbourhoods or pleasant countryside within commuting distance) but a constraint set by what is affordable that involves hours wasted in transport every day.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I think the OP has a vested interest.
My opinion - you use the road, pay the tax.
Cheers,
Neil.
I think the OP has a vested interest.
My opinion - you use the road, pay the tax.
Here's a better idea. Charge big heavy cars (electric, S.U.V's) more tax for the damage they cause on the roads.
Here's another idea. Build the roads better. And maintain them.
Roman roads are still around and decent because all they need is resurfacing a couple of times each century. The foundations were proper and hold. A roads see lorries which are heavier than EVs and in greater numbers and deteriorate, motorways are poor, and B roads are not maintained. It is delusional to link EVs or even just heavier vehicles to road degradation: degradation happens because of total lack of maintenance in most parts and botched jobs when by chance there are repairs undertaken.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Bingo. Only took 24 posts before someone hit cyclists.
Drive in any city and you will realise we need more cyclists and less cars so tax should reflect that.
Same if you visit hospitals or doctors surgeries. Full of fatties.
Tony-GB News?
Banning cars from town centres between 6AM and 12AM would remove the need for cycle lanes (and for road maintenance once repaired). Sorted.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
lol. I made that connection also …
Surely that's an argument for a fuel based duty? Current system is a tax on ownership, not use.I think the OP has a vested interest.
My opinion - you use the road, pay the tax.
Last edited by gunner; 12th March 2024 at 12:55.
Personally I think a fuel based tax makes more sense to me as that also squares away the issue of people who don’t pay tax.
Although I’m not sure how you’d tax EVs.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote