Can you defend VED?

davis

Righto, I've been thinking that the gubbermint should scrap VED.

It apparently doesn't stop people from buying big cars, and the pollution element of it is handled more efficiently by tax on fuel.
If it was scrapped, would it mean people would have a big car which they left at home most of the time, using it only for tip runs etc, whereas most of the time they'll drive a small efficient car? They obviously can't drive two cars at once, so I can't see it'd mean an increase in traffic.

Dunno whether it'd work, just looking at taxing a big (mostly unused) truck, and it just seems unjustifiable.

Plus it'd bin the "you don't pay road tax!" shout. I just can't defend the existence of VED.

rick_chasey

Or the tax on big cars isn't big enough .

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

Or the tax on big cars isn't big enough .

High enough on big trucks for some though

davis wrote:

............Dunno whether it'd work, just looking at taxing a big (mostly unused) truck, and it just seems unjustifiable.
..........

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Or the tax on big cars isn't big enough .

Plus 1.

It's like petrol prices - increasing the price a bit and saying it doesn't make any difference only tells you that you haven't raised it enough. If the VED on a big effoff 4wd was 1k, then that would have a huge impact.

I think it should be a sliding scale though decreasing with age - the circumstance that decent cars would be scrapped because the VED is too high against the resale value of the car is clearly absurd. You need to put people off buying things in the first place but, once made, they need to be given as long a life as possible.

davis

Double post

davis

Rolf F wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Or the tax on big cars isn't big enough .

Plus 1.

It's like petrol prices - increasing the price a bit and saying it doesn't make any difference only tells you that you haven't raised it enough. If the VED on a big effoff 4wd was 1k, then that would have a huge impact.

I think it should be a sliding scale though decreasing with age - the circumstance that decent cars would be scrapped because the VED is too high against the resale value of the car is clearly absurd. You need to put people off buying things in the first place but, once made, they need to be given as long a life as possible.

Well, that's kind of my point. I've bought a big 1995 Hilux Surf, which I don't really use that often. It spends most of its time on the drive, not affecting anyone except me, and it only comes out when my "normal" small car is unavailable (garage, whatever) or unsuitable (carrying big stuff, floods, etc).

Why should that truck, which does about 1000 miles a year, cost twice as much as the normal car doing 20000 miles a year?

[Edit]: I guess my point is that scrapping VED might make having two cars more attractive for lots of people; one big practical car, and one little efficient thing for everyday use.

veronese68

It used to work as a means of ensuring the vehicle was MOT'd and insured, at least it had been within the last 12 months. Now all of that is computerised it's not as important as it used to be.

London_Falcon

IMHO if we believe that the role fo VED is to encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars then it doesn't make sense.

If I have a Bentley that I only drive on Summer weekends should I be paying way more annual VED than a Fiat 500 driven daily?

Surely the key determinant of pollution is total fuel usage? Therefore scrap VED and increase petrol tax. That way the people who actually use more fuel pay more tax.

nation

Couldn't you SORN the Hilux when not using it?

Also, most small efficient cars are in bands A, B or C, which are exempt, £20, and £30, respectively. So if people want to run a small car in addition to a larger vehicle I don't see how VED is stopping them.

estampida

ved needs to stay and for good reason

ved is expensive because some parts of society buy vehicles for status, not for transport, or a fan of a manufacturer

people will copy this high status look (even if they cant really afford the type of car or "live on a farm" type excuses)

people buy agricultural vehicles with kerb weight way beyond most local roads design envelope (they wear out faster) this can be seen as:

at bus stops you see indents in the tarmac, that is torque turndown from the wheels as it pulls away, most school run areas have slight tram lines at junctions (that is not buses, its suv mothers) this needs to be stopped. A 3 ton car to take little timmy to school........

not to mention the fact you are more likely to be a dick if you own a suv

what you should want to ban is petrol v8 suv's, the kind of person that buys a v8 range rover, but not a diesel....

well you know the sorts, greed, arrogance, Schadenfreude

CiB

The Govt needs money; predictable regular income. VED is perfect for providing that with a known number of vehicles on the road all attracting a duty GE £0. Shift VED to fuel and suddenly that massive guaranteed sum isn't there; it'll fluctuate enormously with variable car use instead of predictable car ownership.

Whenever tax changes are announced they tend to be zero-sum functions, so fuel duty would have to rise enormously to bring in roughly the same volume of income to HMRC. I don't the public would swallow it at the moment.

notsoblue

If we scrap VED, how will we pay for the roads?

daviesee

notsoblue wrote:

If we scrap VED, how will we pay for the roads?

Naughty, naughty

woodnut

notsoblue wrote:

If we scrap VED, how will we pay for the roads?

bails87

I don't believe that people aren't spending thousands of pounds on smaller, more efficient second cars because of the tiny (or zero) VED that they'd have to pay.

London_Falcon

People who buy big show off cars already pay more in tax on that purchase in terms of VAT.

By moving the tax to fuel you would influence the behaviour that is causing pollution and road damage.

If fuel was more expensive, there would be fewer people driving around with the aircon on all the time, gunning their engines and generally driving like idiots.

rick_chasey

London_Falcon wrote:

People who buy big show off cars already pay more in tax on that purchase in terms of VAT.

By moving the tax to fuel you would influence the behaviour that is causing pollution and road damage.

If fuel was more expensive, there would be fewer people driving around with the aircon on all the time, gunning their engines and generally driving like idiots.

That's just not true is it?

As we've seen with the consistent increase in petrol price, petrol is a very inelastic product.

London_Falcon

It's ineslatic in the short term and because the price is too low. On the margin there must be a significant number of people taking the car when there is a perfectly viable alternative. At current prices most people are not really forced to think about their petrol consumption.

rick_chasey

London_Falcon wrote:

It's ineslatic in the short term and because the price is too low. On the margin there must be a significant number of people taking the car when there is a perfectly viable alternative. At current prices most people are not really forced to think about their petrol consumption.

Really?

All I ever hear is people moaning about petrol prices.

Doesn't stop them driving Porche Cayennes.

London_Falcon

Rick Chasey wrote:

London_Falcon wrote:

It's ineslatic in the short term and because the price is too low. On the margin there must be a significant number of people taking the car when there is a perfectly viable alternative. At current prices most people are not really forced to think about their petrol consumption.

Really?

All I ever hear is people moaning about petrol prices.

Doesn't stop them driving Porche Cayennes.

My point exactly. People moan and whinge but don't actually change their behaviour.

rick_chasey

London_Falcon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

London_Falcon wrote:

It's ineslatic in the short term and because the price is too low. On the margin there must be a significant number of people taking the car when there is a perfectly viable alternative. At current prices most people are not really forced to think about their petrol consumption.

Really?

All I ever hear is people moaning about petrol prices.

Doesn't stop them driving Porche Cayennes.

My point exactly. People moan and whinge but don't actually change their behaviour.

To me that means whatever the price is (within reason) they'll still use it - rather than it isn't high enough.

jds_1981

I'm all for simplifying taxes. Think VED should go & be put into fuel prices.

This http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2012/6/ ... all/43749/ article states

Receipts from motoring taxes total £38.5 billion a year, equivalent to 7% of all Treasury income, with the Office for Budget responsibility putting income from VED at £5.8 billion a year.

Anyone know how much tax on petrol would need to go up to be equivalent?

London_Falcon

Rick Chasey wrote:

London_Falcon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

London_Falcon wrote:

It's ineslatic in the short term and because the price is too low. On the margin there must be a significant number of people taking the car when there is a perfectly viable alternative. At current prices most people are not really forced to think about their petrol consumption.

Really?

All I ever hear is people moaning about petrol prices.

Doesn't stop them driving Porche Cayennes.

My point exactly. People moan and whinge but don't actually change their behaviour.

To me that means whatever the price is (within reason) they'll still use it - rather than it isn't high enough.

Totally agree - for there to be a real change in behaviour the price rise wouldn't be (within reason)

But that doesn't alter the fact that relying on the VED to reduce emissions is simply bad economics - they're taxing the wrong thing

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

To me that means whatever the price is (within reason) they'll still use it - rather than it isn't high enough.

That's the point. It would have to be priced outwith reason for people to change their behavior.
Within reason - No change.

London_Falcon

snap!!

rick_chasey

That's just idiotic.

SteppenHerring

Actually high fuel prices are putting people off driving. At least in the breakdown recovery industry volumes have fallen by over 20% in the last couple of years.

Putting the VED onto fuel (and maybe having an "insurance disc" instead) sounds like a good plan but it would penalise people who live in the countryside where there is no public transport alternative.

That said, more and more new vehicles are low/zero rated for VED and for the government it is bringing in less revenue so something has to give.

rick_chasey

SteppenHerring wrote:

Actually high fuel prices are putting people off driving. At least in the breakdown recovery industry volumes have fallen by over 20% in the last couple of years.
.

That's partly/mainly because cars are becoming a lot more reliable, surely?

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

... You need to put people off buying things in the first place but, once made, they need to be given as long a life as possible.

You've not really understood this capitalism lark have you

davis

nation wrote:

Couldn't you SORN the Hilux when not using it?

Yes, although the delay and the fact this only applies for whole months makes this really rather difficult -- my normal car might break down tonight, for all I know

Also, most small efficient cars are in bands A, B or C, which are exempt, £20, and £30, respectively. So if people want to run a small car in addition to a larger vehicle I don't see how VED is stopping them.

That's a really, really good point. I suppose once my normal car dies on its backside I suppose I could go for a car with a really low VED rate (although I probably won't; I'll probably go for a fairly old cheap car which don't usually qualify for a rate that low).

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's just idiotic.

There is quite a lot of idiotic things on the web. To which are you referring?

If it is the "within reason" part then that is not idiotic.

The prices are either affordable (within reason) or prohibitive (outwith reason).
You can't have both.

Other topics - Breakdown reduction could be due to better made cars, no?
Less VED for the Government and something giving? There have already been reports that taxes will have to increase to cover the shortfall in revenue :evil: