Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

All Car Tax on Petrol ?

fatbeefatbee Posts: 581
edited July 2008 in Campaign
This isn't actually a rant or even an opinion as such. It's more of a genuine question and (I hope) a talking point.

For years I've wondered why in all the Green/Ecologgy/GlobalWarming/Transport/Congestion/Fitness/Obesity/Cyling
and related debates,
I have never, ever, heard anyone suggest the following:

Why not put almost all the tax derived from motor vehicle use, solely onto the cost of fuel?

Alright, it would have to be introduced gradually and phased-in, probably over sevral years, so people and businesses had time to adjust. There would still have to be something like the MOT to check that the vehicle was legal and roadworthy. But even that could be combined with road-tax, and charged at a basic admin fee plus the price charged by the garage. But then all the other revenue expected by HMG would be levied on the pump-price.

That way, the more you drive, the more you pay. The less you drive theless you pay, and the greener your car, the less you pay. Fair and equitable.

Advantages I suggest would include the following:
Less car use
More cycling, walking and other transport "alernatives"
More use of, and investment in, public transport.
More use of non-petrol/diesel vehicles
More freight (and people) on trains
Businesses encouraged to think, and trade, more locally
Less polution and a reduction in greenhouse gas emmission
Fitter, healthier, happier and wealthier population
etc. etc. etc.

Yes the road transport industry would have to adapt. But they're an enterprising lot (they wouldn't still be in business if they weren't,) and they could combine the current big lorries (or trains,) for the long-haul, with networks of smaller, electric or pedal-powered, or similarly green alterntives, for local delivery.

Unfair on petrol-heads? I don't think so. As an enthusiats, you could probably afford two cars where currently you only have one - PROVIDED YOU DON'T DRIVE THEM TOO MUCH. Use some transport-alternatives and you could afford a family car and a sports car. Or your people-carrier and a classic car or custom hot-rod (are they still called that?) Or your congestion-charge-free runabout and a campervan. Own three cars if you want to, or four! Provided you restrict their use.

This also magnifies the advantages of keeping older vehicles on the road (like the fact that half energy consumed in the lifetime of and average car is used-up in its manufacture,) and lessen the disadvantages (inferior mpg and higher emmissions.)

I really can't see what's wrong with the idea! But there must be something, otherwise somebody would be lobbying for it already.

Wouldn't they?

Posts

  • Big Red SBig Red S Posts: 26,890
    fatbee wrote:
    For years I've wondered why in all the Green/Ecologgy/GlobalWarming/Transport/Congestion/Fitness/Obesity/Cyling
    and related debates,
    I have never, ever, heard anyone suggest the following:

    Why not put almost all the tax derived from motor vehicle use, solely onto the cost of fuel?

    I've heard plenty of people propose it.

    But one massive tax is probably less popular than the current situation of half a million smaller ones.
    There's enough stick with the minimal difference in cost of fuel between the UK and France already...
  • pyro_maniacpyro_maniac Posts: 232
    it sounds a good idea on paper, but how would they stop fuel theft? wich would probably grow at an alarming rate
    more drive offs at the pumps and more thefts of fuel from vehicles parked up
    i agree that the more you drive the more you should pay
  • spen666spen666 Posts: 17,709
    one massive tax would be more noticeable than the several different taxes - and make it therefore less popular with the public.

    Re stopping drive offs- do as they do in some US states - you have to pay before you get your fuel
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • nickwillnickwill Posts: 2,735
    It would impact disproportionately on people in rural areas, who have no real choice about how they get from A-B.
  • iainmentiainment Posts: 992
    I'd also add a third party insurance levy to fuel. Then accident victims would have some guaranteed compensation.
    Old hippies don't die, they just lie low until the laughter stops and their time comes round again.
    Joseph Gallivan
  • iainmentiainment Posts: 992
    Nickwill wrote:
    It would impact disproportionately on people in rural areas, who have no real choice about how they get from A-B.

    As Lenin said you can't make an omelette without cracking eggs. Whatever is proposed there are winners and losers, in this case I think the greater good would be served by such a tax system.
    Old hippies don't die, they just lie low until the laughter stops and their time comes round again.
    Joseph Gallivan
  • nickwillnickwill Posts: 2,735
    iainment wrote:
    Nickwill wrote:
    It would impact disproportionately on people in rural areas, who have no real choice about how they get from A-B.

    As Lenin said you can't make an omelette without cracking eggs. Whatever is proposed there are winners and losers, in this case I think the greater good would be served by such a tax system.

    Do you happen to live in a city?
  • iainmentiainment Posts: 992
    Nickwill wrote:
    iainment wrote:
    Nickwill wrote:
    It would impact disproportionately on people in rural areas, who have no real choice about how they get from A-B.

    As Lenin said you can't make an omelette without cracking eggs. Whatever is proposed there are winners and losers, in this case I think the greater good would be served by such a tax system.

    Do you happen to live in a city?

    Yes London, but shortly moving to rural Kerry to live miles from the nearest town.

    How did country people cope before cars?
    Old hippies don't die, they just lie low until the laughter stops and their time comes round again.
    Joseph Gallivan
  • Big Red SBig Red S Posts: 26,890
    Nickwill wrote:
    It would impact disproportionately on people in rural areas, who have no real choice about how they get from A-B.

    Would they not be similarly disproportionately impacted upon by any other measures against car use?
  • nickwillnickwill Posts: 2,735
    People lived in a different way before cars and the industrial revolution. It would be totally impossible to reconstruct that sort of society. The current government seems to have done its best to destroy rural communities already, and the current fixation with pricing motorists off the road, could complete the process. By all means ban cars from city centres, where people have a viable alternative, but make some allowances for people who have no alternative. Maybe, as I think the lib dems suggested at one stage, there could be some form of rebate on motoring taxes, for those people in rural areas, where public transport isn't an option.
  • redddraggonredddraggon Posts: 10,862
    Nickwill wrote:
    It would impact disproportionately on people in rural areas, who have no real choice about how they get from A-B.

    I live in the countryside, and there's always choice in how you can get from A to B.
    I like bikes...

    Twitter
    Flickr
  • pyro_maniacpyro_maniac Posts: 232
    i live just outside london and it would be near impossible for me to get to work on public transport, i have cycled a couple of times but its awkward taking the stuff i need for work on my bike, and its a pain riding at 0130 to get there
  • fatbeefatbee Posts: 581
    I'm no supporter of this government as anyone who knows me would confirm. But . . .

    "The current government seems to have done its best to destroy rural communities"

    has it? Has it really?

    I mean I'm very synpathetic to the plight of rural communities, which I don't underestimate for one minute. And I'm particularly sick of the way U.K.farmers are being treated. But I think you'll find that what New Labour have really done is to bend over backwards to big-business, the free-market, globalization and the Americanization of the whole world. And that unholy quartet don't give a flying friar for British country life. Hell, the US governement don't even care very much their own rural people!

    It's true that the upshots of these policies include the neglect of rural Britain. But it's not a policy to destroy, it's the pursuit of growth and profit, at the expense of all that's small, local and traditional.

    Perhaps rural voters should consider electing rather fewer pro-free-market MPs, whichever party they come from?
  • bagpusscpbagpusscp Posts: 2,907
    I was brought up in rural Derbyshire . There use to be 2 buses a day . about 9 am rt about 1700. All the local shops x2 that doubled as P/O have long closed.Rural petrol station ,gone. Pubs rapidly going . Mobile shops no more . Most people {townies} who now live in rural areas are the only ones who can afford to do so.Shop at a another Supermarket on the way home.Then winge that all the local shops have gone. Both parties have ripped the heart out of the Countryside.The present goverment by far the worst .As for the Supermarkets ....Don't get me started on that one.As for fuel& shipping etc .Why are we shipping in none seasonal fruits from half was round the world .Whats that all about ...Just wait the summer for your Strawberries :evil:
    Off setting your Carbon foot print my Ar$e :shock:
    .
    Support the British farmer or lose them .Just like we have lost ever other major industry !ie , cheap $hi£ bikes from the other side of the Globe. :x


    Rant over :!:
    bagpuss
  • fatbeefatbee Posts: 581
    "The present goverment by far the worst .As for the Supermarkets ....Don't get me started on that one.As for fuel& shipping etc .Why are we shipping in none seasonal fruits from half was round the world

    . . .

    Support the British farmer or lose them .Just like we have lost ever other major industry!"

    Hear hear! And maybe if this change was made people would shop more locally and less at supoermarkets ? I dunno. But I do think farmers should probably be exempt from, or have reduced, fuel tax. Or be able to use agricultural/red diesel on the road.
  • OffTheBackAdamOffTheBackAdam Posts: 1,869
    Scrapping the CAP would be a major step towards supporting our farmers.
    Now, looking at "fatbee" 's propositions.

    Advantages I suggest would include the following:
    Less car use
    Yep, undoubtably, why's that advantageous? And to whom?
    More cycling, walking and other transport "alernatives"
    Yep, agreed here, but what other "alternatives" flying?
    More use of, and investment in, public transport.
    Err, no, why would it lead to more investment in them? And who's investing?
    More use of non-petrol/diesel vehicles
    Yep and your point is?
    More freight (and people) on trains
    Not likely, trains are too slow and inefficient and currently unable to cope with more demand at peak time, hence the price you pay on The Tube prior to 9.30am being twice that after.
    Businesses encouraged to think, and trade, more locally
    Nope, won't work. Want to get local meat? Since the imposition of the EU regulations on abatoirs, the majority of small, local ones, shut.
    Less polution and a reduction in greenhouse gas emmission
    By what margin?
    Fitter, healthier, happier and wealthier population.
    Probably the first two, (But not if they all use public transport) certainly not the other two! Paid for rail tickets lately, have we? Found your train cancelled and no alternatives and I bet the RMT would absolutely love us to be more reliant on the trains, TUbe Train drivers on a mere £32,000, have to strike to get more!
    Also, where will the tax hit fall to cover the loss of revenue from us lot not driving so much?
    As for us all getting "Eco-Friendly" electric cars, where's all the electricity needed to charge their batteries coming from? What are the costs (Both monetary and enviromentally) of producing them.
    Oh, the "Greenest" car available?, a Jeep Wrangler. Goes for ever, simple to fix, cheap to recycle at the end of its (very long) life.
    Why? Because someone took the trouble to look beyond the "how much fuel does it use?" question and look at its entire lifetime, from manufacture to scrapping. They term this the "Dust to Dust" calculation.
    http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • iainmentiainment Posts: 992
    Nickwill wrote:
    People lived in a different way before cars and the industrial revolution. It would be totally impossible to reconstruct that sort of society. The current government seems to have done its best to destroy rural communities already, and the current fixation with pricing motorists off the road, could complete the process. By all means ban cars from city centres, where people have a viable alternative, but make some allowances for people who have no alternative. Maybe, as I think the lib dems suggested at one stage, there could be some form of rebate on motoring taxes, for those people in rural areas, where public transport isn't an option.

    Or money put into public transport so that it does serve the needs of country folk. Including, as in Ireland, buses that actually carry bikes.
    Old hippies don't die, they just lie low until the laughter stops and their time comes round again.
    Joseph Gallivan
  • bagpusscpbagpusscp Posts: 2,907
    A lot of this is caused by the major lifestyle change following the 2nd WW when most women realized there was more to life than just been a mother/ housewife{by far the hardest job of them all;long hours and no pay!}
    Families are now stretched to braking point to fore fill everything they see on TV ...the must have it now culture......and look what a mess that is going to cause over the next 2 years.

    CREDIT HAS TO BE PAID FOR AND PAID BACK :!: :!: and boy it is going to hurt alot of people :x
    bagpuss
  • OffTheBackAdamOffTheBackAdam Posts: 1,869
    bagpusscp wrote:
    CREDIT HAS TO BE PAID FOR AND PAID BACK :!: :!: and boy it is going to hurt alot of people :x
    I wonder if anyone ever explained this simple concept to Gordon Brown? :?
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • boyse7enboyse7en Posts: 59
    Advantages I suggest would include the following:
    Less car use
    Yep, undoubtably, why's that advantageous? And to whom?

    Advantage to road users - cars, bikes, horses and buses - as there will be fewer cars using the road so it should be safer (note: fewer, not none)


    More cycling, walking and other transport "alernatives"
    Yep, agreed here, but what other "alternatives" flying?

    Scooters, motorbikes, buses, trains, taxis


    More use of, and investment in, public transport.
    Err, no, why would it lead to more investment in them? And who's investing?
    Maybe revenue would be a better word than investment - more people using public transport should give more revenue to the companies running them to invest back into their product

    More use of non-petrol/diesel vehicles
    Yep and your point is?
    If you don't reduce usage soon, there won't be any fuel for them anyway. Also, a reduction in emitted pollutants mean cleaner air for bikers and walkers

    More freight (and people) on trains
    Not likely, trains are too slow and inefficient and currently unable to cope with more demand at peak time, hence the price you pay on The Tube prior to 9.30am being twice that after.
    Can't really comment on this as I don't use the rail at all, but if there were more users can't they put on more trains? What is the factor limiting the number of passengers able to be carried at peak times?

    Businesses encouraged to think, and trade, more locally
    Nope, won't work. Want to get local meat? Since the imposition of the EU regulations on abatoirs, the majority of small, local ones, shut.


    Less polution and a reduction in greenhouse gas emmission
    By what margin?
    Doesn't matter by what margin, any amount is an improvement.

    Fitter, healthier, happier and wealthier population.
    Probably the first two, (But not if they all use public transport) certainly not the other two! Paid for rail tickets lately, have we? Found your train cancelled and no alternatives and I bet the RMT would absolutely love us to be more reliant on the trains, TUbe Train drivers on a mere £32,000, have to strike to get more!

    I think the problem is that paying an RFL unlinked to the amount of miles you do encourages people to use their cars, as fell they have already paid for the journey and that having the car and not using it is a waste of money. I've got a car, a motorbike, a scooter and a bicycle and use all of them regularly depending on a journey's requirements to try an minimise costs.
    Putting the tax onto fuel would at least make people think about using something other than the car for some journeys.
  • SteveBSLSteveBSL Posts: 2
    When my wife and I bought our apartment we chose to live in a not especially desirable area where the property is overpriced but its equidistant between our workplaces just so we could both ride our bikes to work every day of the year. If people chose to live in more idylic settings then they will have to pay for it.

    Theres no use complaining about the price of gas when you chose in this modern day to live an hour from your place of work.

    Of course I have sympathy for many people for whom this situation has crept up on them, but I have zero sympathy for the bulk of my colleges who on avarage drive an hour plus a day when there are so many options closer to my firm.
  • BeeblebroxBeeblebrox Posts: 145
    I come from a farming family out in the sticks, the sad truth is that it's very easy to see the infrastructure has for decades been built for cars. Retrofitting to accommodate non-car usage would be enormously expensive. But then, I suppose with ever increasing fuel prices, something will have to change.
  • Jon GJon G Posts: 281
    boyse7en wrote:

    More freight (and people) on trains
    Not likely, trains are too slow and inefficient and currently unable to cope with more demand at peak time, hence the price you pay on The Tube prior to 9.30am being twice that after.
    Can't really comment on this as I don't use the rail at all, but if there were more users can't they put on more trains? What is the factor limiting the number of passengers able to be carried at peak times?

    The limiting factors are the capacity of the track to hold trains and the length of trains.

    Limits to track capacity are usually at first a matter of investment in better track and signalling, but after that the only scope for further expansion is to lay more tracks, which if it means taking up expensive land can be very pricy.

    Train length is limited by platform length and the power of the train engines/motors.
    Some of this is easily avoidable (e.g. removing unecessary H&S requirements that all new platforms be long enough for the longest trains in use, even at quiet stations where selective door opening would allow safe use of short platforms, or removing arcane financial procedures which exagerate costs and disguise benefits) but in other cases really would be very expensive to fix. (E.g. on the Tube, digging to lengthen platforms in tunnels)
    The root of the problem has been lack of investment for decades and failure to reserve land which would be needed for expansion projects.
  • ParkeyParkey Posts: 303
    iainment wrote:
    How did country people cope before cars?

    They were never more than 6 miles from a railway station?
    "A recent study has found that, at the current rate of usage, the word 'sustainable' will be worn out by the year 2015"
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    VED and fuel duty supposedly have different functions. Bullshit aside, VED is a way of regulating car ownership and use; and fuel duty is a way of raising money.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
Sign In or Register to comment.