Is it time to raise motor fuel duty?

[AM9]

I want them to be unhindered by poor public transport provision in their area, while still firmly discouraging others (which should lead to the others demanding better public transport). There's more than just the pandemic's definition of key workers so I said to be determined.

So, how do you define a key worker?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No government is going to massively raise fuel duty. It would be electoral suicide. To suggest they should or would is naïve in the extreme.

Agreed, a massive increase in one go would be electoral suicide. And arguably, deservedly, because you'd suddenly be dramatically hitting the finances of a lot of people who currently have no choice but to drive, without allowing time for a gradual modal shift and accompanying public transport improvements that would provide many of those people with an alternative.

IMO the way to go is to rebrand fuel duties as being not so much a tax but a charge to recoup the external costs of motoring: The costs that are currently borne by the rest of society, rather than by the driver. Accompany this by a big publicity drive about how damaging cars are, and then put in place a small increase in fuel duties that is matched by a small reduction in some other tax (NI, perhaps) so as to make it revenue-neutral. Obviously, work on improving public transport at the same time. Once you've done all that, you've set the stage for further annual modest increases in fuel duties.

 

[WestRiding]

So, how do you define a key worker?

For starters anyone who works for Public Transport (with unsocial hours) and where it is physically impossible to get to work on none existent public transport, to make the public transports wheels even start turning that morning. Using myself as an example, if I use Public Transport to get to work, I would arrive an hour late for my shift. Then to get home, would add another 1 and half hours to my journey, which currently takes 45 mins by car. This would not be accepted by the Railway Fatigue Index for railway rosters. I don't have a car because I necessarily WANT one, but I NEED one.

That's my specific example, and I'm sure there are many thousand similar.

Can't help thinking threads like this, are basically envy threads, aimed at winding car drivers up.

I would however, love to see every single car driver abandon their car for the week, and descend on the railway and the buses. Almost like that silly train announcement, "please familiarise yourselves with the safety notices at the end of the coach", one day my silly sense of humour would love to see the entire coach scramble to the vestibule ends to read the notices in a monty python ish way. The country would seize. Stop alienating car drivers.

 

[johncrossley]

Suppose fuel becomes so expensive that it becomes too expensive for ordinary people. Should fuel duty go negative in that case?

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Yes, I should gladly pay more.

It is obviously too low now, just look at how many drivers go too fast, follow too close so they have to brake a lot, or leave their engines running while waiting at level crossings.

Some of the latter seem to have HALF-understood: they switch their engines off. But start them again before the barriers go up and the vehicles ahead have moved off!

 

[jon0844]

IMO the way to go is to rebrand fuel duties as being not so much a tax but a charge to recoup the external costs of motoring: The costs that are currently borne by the rest of society, rather than by the driver. Accompany this by a big publicity drive about how damaging cars are, and then put in place a small increase in fuel duties that is matched by a small reduction in some other tax (NI, perhaps) so as to make it revenue-neutral. Obviously, work on improving public transport at the same time. Once you've done all that, you've set the stage for further annual modest increases in fuel duties.

The changes to VED (What many people think of as 'road tax') were supposed to penalise people who bought big expensive gas guzzlers, but if we're seeing car makers move away from making small cars (ideal for low paid workers to get to/from work at 4am etc) then that's clearly a problem.

Plus, buying a small car with a very fuel efficient engine was a way to save money but as fuel prices rise, it is now going to prohibitively expensive for some who were trying to do the right thing.

Funnily enough, the well off aren't as badly affected - although I did watch something from Robert Llewellyn not so long ago about the huge number of EVs on the streets of west London. Gone are a lot of the SUVs that it seems everyone now wants to own, replaced by (premium) EVs.

This suggests that even the well off have realised how expensive an ICE car has become and are voting with their wallets. Well, good for them, but how does this all help someone who needs to drive 5-10 miles to work at some ungodly hour, in all weathers, to get to their low-paid job?

 

[GB]

IMO the way to go is to rebrand fuel duties as being not so much a tax but a charge to recoup the external costs of motoring: The costs that are currently borne by the rest of society, rather than by the driver.

"Rest of society"??

Fuel duty and VED bring in nearly £38bn per year (not including VAT on top), which is more than the budget for the national highways agency. Then there is VAT on the ancillary parts of driving such as insurance, servicing, vehicle purchasing etc, so lets not pretend drivers don't pay their way towards the cost of motoring. You talk as if having a good road network only benefits the private car driver when that is not the case at all.

 

[edwin_m]

"Rest of society"??

Fuel duty and VED bring in nearly £38bn per year (not including VAT on top), which is more than the budget for the national highways agency. Then there is VAT on the ancillary parts of driving such as insurance, servicing, vehicle purchasing etc, so lets not pretend drivers don't pay their way towards the cost of motoring. You talk as if having a good road network only benefits the private car driver when that is not the case at all.

There are a lot more roads out there than are funded by the national highways agency. And you also have to consider costs such as policing, treatment of accidents and all the environmental damage we should be paying to address (but probably aren't).

 

[johncrossley]

but how does this all help someone who needs to drive 5-10 miles to work at some ungodly hour, in all weathers, to get to their low-paid job?

Similarly, how does the person who needs to get to work 5-10 miles away at an unsociable hour if they can't even drive?

 

[RT4038]

Similarly, how does the person who needs to get to work 5-10 miles away at an unsociable hour if they can't even drive?

Hire a car, with driver (taxi) ?

 

[johncrossley]

Hire a car, with driver (taxi) ?

That option is equally available to the person who can drive but who can no longer afford it i.e. for these people:

Plus, buying a small car with a very fuel efficient engine was a way to save money but as fuel prices rise, it is now going to prohibitively expensive for some who were trying to do the right thing.

 

[jon0844]

Similarly, how does the person who needs to get to work 5-10 miles away at an unsociable hour if they can't even drive?

Valid point. A lot of people today aren't even learning to drive. Even if they do, they may not be able to afford to buy a car and insure it, let alone run it.

 

[johncrossley]

Valid point. A lot of people today aren't even learning to drive. Even if they do, they may not be able to afford to buy a car and insure it, let alone run it.

And there are some who can't pass the test or have a disability. And others who have passed the test but feel they can no longer drive for whatever reason, for example a phobia or bad experience.

 

[AM9]

For starters anyone who works for Public Transport (with unsocial hours) and where it is physically impossible to get to work on none existent public transport, to make the public transports wheels even start turning that morning. Using myself as an example, if I use Public Transport to get to work, I would arrive an hour late for my shift. Then to get home, would add another 1 and half hours to my journey, which currently takes 45 mins by car. This would not be accepted by the Railway Fatigue Index for railway rosters. I don't have a car because I necessarily WANT one, but I NEED one.

That's my specific example, and I'm sure there are many thousand similar.

OK, a bit of self-interest isn't a problem. So if this was implemented, you would be happy for any VAT rebate to only cover the (presumably estimated) fuel used in those journeys to work. All leisure/other domestic mileage would be tax paid as would the cost of owning, taxing, running whatever vehicle you chose?

Can't help thinking threads like this, are basically envy threads, aimed at winding car drivers up.

Other drivers don't seem to be having problems with discusing the subject.

I would however, love to see every single car driver abandon their car for the week, and descend on the railway and the buses. Almost like that silly train announcement, "please familiarise yourselves with the safety notices at the end of the coach", one day my silly sense of humour would love to see the entire coach scramble to the vestibule ends to read the notices in a monty python ish way. The country would seize. Stop alienating car drivers.

So would I, - the buses would be full and run on time (not cars cluttering up the streets along their routes), The trains would run with a decent loads, effectively reducing the per capita CO2 output drastically. Good suggestion there.

 

[WestRiding]

OK, a bit of self-interest isn't a problem. So if this was implemented, you would be happy for any VAT rebate to only cover the (presumably estimated) fuel used in those journeys to work. All leisure/other domestic mileage would be tax paid as would the cost of owning, taxing, running whatever vehicle you chose?


Other drivers don't seem to be having problems with discusing the subject.


So would I, - the buses would be full and run on time (not cars cluttering up the streets along their routes), The trains would run with a decent loads, effectively reducing the per capita CO2 output drastically. Good suggestion there.

If everyone abandoned their car tomorrow, to use the train or bus, the country would grind to a halt. I live in a little place called Ackworth, the bus is once an hour and can hold approximately 70(?) people. Go figure. It could not cope.

I don't have a problem discussing it, but this is a forum populated by enthusiasts who seem to believe that public transport can replace the car. It simply cannot. And never will. However much car drivers are penalised, they will continue to own cars. Because, for example, the public transportation cannot get you to Boot in the Lake District, or to the supermarket 2 miles away.

To answer your question, I would be happy for the rebate for work travel. But it still does not mend the problem of no public transport in leisure situations. Give us a transport network 24/7 and regular, then yes, I would be happy-ish. Ackworth is in Wakefield, the last bus in the Metro Area to our principle city of Wakefield is 1730. Disgraceful for an urban Metro area. And 3.40 for the privilege, now given that I will always have to pay for a car PCP etc, then why would I use the inflexible bus, when the equivalent petrol will cost 50p.

 

[py_megapixel]

I live in a little place called Ackworth, the bus is once an hour and can hold approximately 70(?) people. Go figure. It could not cope.

But if everyone wanted to switch to the bus, I'm sure the bus company would increase the frequency and use larger vehicles.

 

[dakta]

No because cars are better than trains etc, even though I like trains more than cars.

Pricing people into public transport wholesale isn't a starter - it only takes an evening shift, or a not very populated or direct route to make that idea completely unworkable or even affordable. That said I do think it's best to have a family car than cars for each family.

 

[WestRiding]

But if everyone wanted to switch to the bus, I'm sure the bus company would increase the frequency and use larger vehicles.

Thats half the problem, why would people leave their car, that they would have anyway, for the stuff the bus cannot fulfil, to use a bus. How many buses per hour would have to run, hypotheticaly to replace all the traffic between Pontefract and Wakefield?

 

[johncrossley]

It was impossible to run trains or buses before mass car ownership, because the bus and train drivers couldn't get to work. That's why passenger railways started to be constructed in the 1960s

 

[WestRiding]

No because I like having a car more than using the train, even though I like trains more than cars.

This.

 

[Shrop]

How about another suggestion, raise fuel duty for cars, and ring fence the revenue gained to provide more trains and buses. But ... give the country notice that this is going to happen, so that people can start to make decisions about how close they want to live to to a public transport route ...

 

[Starmill]

In March 2011, the duty was 58.95 pence / litre. If we apply RPI to this, the same level today would be 79.54 pence / litre. Uplifting this for VAT we come to 95.45 pence / litre.

If we remove the amount charged today, which is 69.54 pence, we come to a rise of 25.91 pence / litre.

The latest ultra low sulfur petrol price in the government statics is 147.53 pence / litre. This would become 173.44 pence / litre.

This all seems entirely fair to me. Was the rate charged in March 2011 genuinely unacceptable? Is a rise to £1.74 / litre so outrageous for any reason beyond "but my car!".

 

[341o2]

"Rest of society"??

Fuel duty and VED bring in nearly £38bn per year (not including VAT on top), which is more than the budget for the national highways agency. Then there is VAT on the ancillary parts of driving such as insurance, servicing, vehicle purchasing etc, so lets not pretend drivers don't pay their way towards the cost of motoring. You talk as if having a good road network only benefits the private car driver when that is not the case at all.

Indeed, I am waiting for a reply to the question posted elsewhere "Can you inform me of any road created for and exclusive for the use of cars?"

there is the issue that many are self employed, like myself, where most of our driving is in connection with our businesses

 

[AM9]

Thats half the problem, why would people leave their car, that they would have anyway, for the stuff the bus cannot fulfil, to use a bus. How many buses per hour would have to run, hypotheticaly to replace all the traffic between Pontefract and Wakefield?

It was your proposition that everybody should "abandon their car tomorrow" sounding like some childish threat. Now you are saying "why would people leave their car?"... make your mind up.
So, back on this thread's topic, the car lobby claims that it pays more to public funds than the cost of roads provision. Let's pretend that this statement is true and doesn't conveniently omit all the other support service and environmental costs that road users cause, and say that the country despertely needs that money. Over the last 10 years, the real value of motorists' contribution to the exchequer has declined by virtue of the freezing of fuel duty despite inflation. Then you would expect there to be a correction to restore that contribution to the 2011 level, otherwise every non road user will be penalised just to line the pockets of motorists. Is there no limit to the self-entitlement that motorists claim. Note: I say that as a motorist myself, - I don't begrudge paying my share.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2021 ==

If everyone abandoned their car tomorrow, to use the train or bus, the country would grind to a halt. I live in a little place called Ackworth, the bus is once an hour and can hold approximately 70(?) people. Go figure. It could not cope.

I don't have a problem discussing it, but this is a forum populated by enthusiasts who seem to believe that public transport can replace the car. It simply cannot. And never will. However much car drivers are penalised, they will continue to own cars. Because, for example, the public transportation cannot get you to Boot in the Lake District, or to the supermarket 2 miles away.

To answer your question, I would be happy for the rebate for work travel. But it still does not mend the problem of no public transport in leisure situations. Give us a transport network 24/7 and regular, then yes, I would be happy-ish. Ackworth is in Wakefield, the last bus in the Metro Area to our principle city of Wakefield is 1730. Disgraceful for an urban Metro area. And 3.40 for the privilege, now given that I will always have to pay for a car PCP etc, then why would I use the inflexible bus, when the equivalent petrol will cost 50p.

You have moved the conversation from essential travel (i.e. getting to work outside the particular times that transport is available in your area) to leisure travel. As far as non-essential travel goes, wel,l leisure should be chosen according to availability, - I could dream up all sorts of destinations that I can't easily get to by public transport for a leisure activity but we all have to 'cut our clothes according to our cloth' to use an old expression. And as far as expecting others to subsidise those awkward journeys, - that is just abuse of others who maybe less able to pay than me.

 

[WestRiding]

It was your proposition that everybody should "abandon their car tomorrow" sounding like some childish threat. Now you are saying "why would people leave their car?"... make your mind up.
So, back on this thread's topic, the car lobby claims that it pays more to public funds than the cost of roads provision. Let's pretend that this statement is true and doesn't conveniently omit all the other support service and environmental costs that road users cause, and say that the country despertely needs that money. Over the last 10 years, the real value of motorists' contribution to the exchequer has declined by virtue of the freezing of fuel duty despite inflation. Then you would expect there to be a correction to restore that contribution to the 2011 level, otherwise every non road user will be penalised just to line the pockets of motorists. Is there no limit to the self-entitlement that motorists claim. Note: I say that as a motorist myself, - I don't begrudge paying my share.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2021 ==


You have moved the conversation from essential travel (i.e. getting to work outside the particular times that transport is available in your area) to leisure travel. As far as non-essential travel goes, wel,l leisure should be chosen according to availability, - I could dream up all sorts of destinations that I can't easily get to by public transport for a leisure activity but we all have to 'cut our clothes according to our cloth' to use an old expression. And as far as expecting others to subsidise those awkward journeys, - that is just abuse of others who maybe less able to pay than me.

Where did I PROPOSE that everyone should abandon their car? I actually said IF, to demonstrate that the public transport network could not cope. Please don't tell lies, its defamation of character.

If everyone abandoned their car tomorrow, to use the train or bus, the country would grind to a halt. I live in a little place called Ackworth, the bus is once an hour and can hold approximately 70(?) people. Go figure. It could not cope.

 

[Starmill]

Where did I PROPOSE that everyone should abandon their car? I actually said IF, to demonstrate that the public transport network could not cope.

I read it as you're being criticised for making a meaningless hypothetical. So to be honest I don't think it actually matters whether you propose it or not!

 

[WestRiding]

I read it as you're being criticised for making a meaningless hypothetical. So to be honest I don't think it actually matters whether you propose it or not!

This whole forum is based on hypothetical comments. And of course you read it opposite to what was said.

 

[Starmill]

This whole forum is based on hypothetical comments.

It's not though is it? And regardless even if it were it doesn't follow that extremes and exaggerations are to be treated equally with reasonable models!

And of course you read it opposite to what was said.

Well you can wilfully misunderstand if you want to act put out, of course.

 

[yorkie]

... you read it opposite to what was said.

I'm confused; can you clarify what it is you were saying exactly?

 

[GB]

I'm confused; can you clarify what it is you were saying exactly?

I thought his point was quite obvious. He would like all car drivers to use train and other public transport for a week to see how it is not fit for purpose for a great number of people.