Car tax discs scrapped after 93 years.

[Westdene Seagull]

Its the exceptions I'm concerned about

Those exceptions are people who buy through a broker who doesn't use the database. A very small amount apparently. If you can renew you VED online then you use an insurance company / broker who uses the database.

 

[El Presidente]

VED won't be scrapped and added to fuel duty because VED is not included in the inflation statistics, whereas fuel costs are, so a switch would increase inflation, which has a knock on effect on pensions etc, which are index linked.

 

[franks brother]

Road repairs are paid for out of general taxation, part of which is made up of vehicle tax. The excise duty you pay is based on the vehicle emissions of your vehicle, the bigger the vehicle the more you pay usually. The thing now is that there are approximately 2 million cars on the roads that aren't required to pay the tax, hybrids, electrics etc, but still require a disc, thereby taking money out of a system they don't put into. Without wishing to ignite another cyclist debate its the reason they dont pay to use the roads,it's one of the things drivers bang on about all the time, I will say it again, it's a tax based on emissions. If its going to be axed I'm sure some faceless bean counter will be coming up with a more government friendly, and therefore driver unfriendly, system of paying through the nose.

 

[Oscar]

Bad news for tax disc holder manufacturers.

And more lost revenue for Barber to deal with as these are going to be dead stock...

 

[BigGully]

For me personaly that's fine, but the suggestion of scrapping the cost of the VED and instead put the price of fuel up further to penalise the higher millage motorist is simply daft!

I kinda agree that just to hoist increased costs on those doing higher mileage users whilst diminishing the costs for those doing lower mileage isnt something I would necessarily support ( I am not a particularly high mileage user17 000 - 20 000 per annum. )

Its likely that those doing higher mileage may be a greater contributor to the economy, rather than those wives in their sporty convertible going to Tesco's.

But then again I have never fell for the lie that the tax take is somehow a tax to save the environment, its just a tax take nothing more.

 

[Badger]

Its likely that those doing higher mileage may be a greater contributor to the economy, rather than those wives in their sporty convertible going to Tesco's.

Or people that pay £5000 a year to get the train to work and only use their car at weekends, I'm sure none of them are contributing to the economy.

 

[teaboy]

For me personaly that's fine, but the suggestion of scrapping the cost of the VED and instead put the price of fuel up further to penalise the higher millage motorist is simply daft!

Why? VED is based on the CO2 emissions of the vehicle. As others have already stated this doesn't take into account the actual emissions, which only come from the amount the vehicle is driven. There's already government manipulation of fuel price for users they consider to be of national importance - that's why red diesel exists. If VED were abolished and fuel duty increased there's no reason the government could not subsidise users in public transport, and some road haulage if necessary. It would act to encourage less driving, and more economical vehicle use.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

VED won't be scrapped and added to fuel duty because VED is not included in the inflation statistics, whereas fuel costs are, so a switch would increase inflation, which has a knock on effect on pensions etc, which are index linked.

But it would be a one off and aren't pensions linked to the CPI rate in September ? Therefore introduce it earlier in the year and it wouldn't affect pensions ?

 

[teaboy]

Road repairs are paid for out of general taxation, part of which is made up of vehicle tax. The excise duty you pay is based on the vehicle emissions of your vehicle, the bigger the vehicle the more you pay usually. The thing now is that there are approximately 2 million cars on the roads that aren't required to pay the tax, hybrids, electrics etc, but still require a disc, thereby taking money out of a system they don't put into. Without wishing to ignite another cyclist debate its the reason they don't pay to use the roads, it's one of the things drivers bang on about all the time, I will say it again, it's a tax based on emissions. If its going to be axed I'm sure some faceless bean counter will be coming up with a more government friendly, and therefore driver unfriendly, system of paying through the nose.

Nobody "pays to use the roads" - VED is charged to keep a vehicle with specific CO2 emissions on the road.

 

[BigGully]

Or people that pay £5000 a year to get the train to work and only use their car at weekends, I'm sure none of them are contributing to the economy.

Perhaps the overall tax take from say a haulier, in terms of their travel cost to deliver their service is disproportionate compared to your own example already.

The choice to travel to a place of work with an associated cost of £5000 just to get there is something that doesnt immediately prompt my sympathy.

 

[MissGull]

Bad news for tax disc holder manufacturers.

And more lost revenue for Barber to deal with as these are going to be dead stock...

Probably more pertinent for them to create parking permit holders now....

 

[JTR938]

Why? VED is based on the CO2 emissions of the vehicle. As others have already stated this doesn't take into account the actual emissions, which only come from the amount the vehicle is driven. There's already government manipulation of fuel price for users they consider to be of national importance - that's why red diesel exists. If VED were abolished and fuel duty increased there's no reason the government could not subsidise users in public transport, and some road haulage if necessary. It would act to encourage less driving, and more economical vehicle use.

If you actualy beleive what you have just posted im affraid you are deluded!
1- Yes Red diesel exists, for agricultural use. How man petrol stations do you see in the centre of a city selling Red Diesel?
2-Goverment subsiding public transport?? Ha Ha - Good luck with that one
3- Encourage less driving + Better driving. Why? How? I dont know anybody who has changed their driving style over the few price increases we just suffer it and get on with it...

 

[glasfryn]

For nostalgia

View attachment 49307View attachment 49308View attachment 49309View attachment 49310

blimey you have moved about
and older than I thought

 

[Badger]

Perhaps the overall tax take from say a haulier, in terms of their travel cost to deliver their service is disproportionate compared to your own example already.

The choice to travel to a place of work with an associated cost of £5000 just to get there is something that doesnt immediately prompt my sympathy.

Believe it or not I wasn't going for sympathy, I was just making a point that low-mileage drivers are just as likely to contribute to the economy as high-mileage ones. Your example of "wives in their sporty convertible going to Tesco's" does seem rather dated.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

If you actualy beleive what you have just posted im affraid you are deluded!
1- Yes Red diesel exists, for agricultural use. How man petrol stations do you see in the centre of a city selling Red Diesel?
2-Goverment subsiding public transport?? Ha Ha - Good luck with that one
3- Encourage less driving + Better driving. Why? How? I dont know anybody who has changed their driving style over the few price increases we just suffer it and get on with it...

1. In general farmers get red diesel delivered as could haulage companies if they were allowed to use it.
2. Local government already does to the tune of millions.
3. I know plenty of people that have cut back on fuel and drive their cars to the optimum to get the best consumption.

 

[JTR938]

Perhaps the overall tax take from say a haulier, in terms of their travel cost to deliver their service is disproportionate compared to your own example already.

The choice to travel to a place of work with an associated cost of £5000 just to get there is something that doesnt immediately prompt my sympathy.

F*****g nonsense! I too pay £5,000 to travel to work, this is because the job, pay and prospects are far greater than that of say working in Brighton or localy. Therefore allowing me to live the life that I do and live where I live. I could of course work localy doing a job that pays half or even a third less but dont want to.
So the people that pay vast sums to travel to work are not asking for sympathy as it is their choice... but should not be penalised

 

[Albumen]

Not if you include fuel duty you don't.

VED is a good thing, it's only a tiny amount compared to the amount motorists spend on fuel duty - but it discourages many people to buy cars that are bad for the environment, particularly young people.

I agree. No doubt the government will try to remove as they dont give two ****s about future generations (or let's face it, most of this one).

 

[JTR938]

1. In general farmers get red diesel delivered as could haulage companies if they were allowed to use it.
2. Local government already does to the tune of millions.
3. I know plenty of people that have cut back on fuel and drive their cars to the optimum to get the best consumption.

Point 2 - So we should subsidise even further...? I don't think so.
Point 3 - If you say so, But I dont and I doubt the vast majority of people have consciously changed their driving style.

How much do you want the govermant to keep subsidising these various schemes?. The economy is very slowly starting to improve so to ask the goverment to support public transport and whatever else further is just not an option.

 

[BigGully]

Believe it or not I wasn't going for sympathy, I was just making a point that low-mileage drivers are just as likely to contribute to the economy as high-mileage ones. Your example of "wives in their sporty convertible going to Tesco's" does seem rather dated.

It was a wee bit tongue in cheek.

We were discussing particularly those that already contribute significant taxation through fuel/road tax and how any shift on this process might impact on them.

It could follow that those already obliged to travel high mileage to deliver their good and services and in my view already contribute their fair share might be effected if some suggestions on here were considered.

If you choose to go to work with an associated cost of £5000 then thats your choice and no doubt this cost is factored into both your decision to do it and probably your salary negotiation.

However I wouldn't support the government if this £5000 travel cost was in someway predominately a tax, but it isn't.

 

[BigGully]

F*****g nonsense! I too pay £5,000 to travel to work, this is because the job, pay and prospects are far greater than that of say working in Brighton or localy. Therefore allowing me to live the life that I do and live where I live. I could of course work localy doing a job that pays half or even a third less but dont want to.
So the people that pay vast sums to travel to work are not asking for sympathy as it is their choice... but should not be penalised

Which specific tax is penalising you when you choose to go to work out of the area and choose to pay £5000 to get there.

As I see it shouldn't you be moaning at your train company, your employer and your own aspirations, I wish you well and without knowing I do not diminish your worth as a worker, I am guessing you are handsomely rewarded, genuinely good luck to you but ultimately it's your choice mate.