A potential pay per mile fee to replace road tax.

[renegademaster]

I think there's a couple of things here. One is just the Mail being the Mail and disingenuously attacking Labour for something which isn't official policy (how dare a political party think about some ideas!) but more to the point the policy itself is obviously going to be required in some form at some point in the near(ish, say next ten years or so) future to make up for the gaping hole in public finances that will begin to be felt as fuel duty collects less and less revenue over time. The choice becomes either budget cuts (apparently we're expecting £24.3bn 23/24 which is quite a large amount to cut) or tax rises somewhere else within the system and it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect motorists to be taxed in a new way to make up that shortfall.

Which then brings on to how you do that. I suppose you could just whack up VED but that seems a particularly blunt and unfair way of doing it. We're expecting £8bn this year so to to raise VED to the same level as fuel duty (which would still be a cut of course, just a smaller one) would be a 200% increase in VED. Not sure I fancy paying an extra 200% per year on VED! Road pricing is therefore surely the most obvious way of solving the issue? It means that those who drive the most (causing the most wear and tear, polution, etc) pay the most, as now, whilst those who drive the least pay the least.

You could even get into situations whereby if you travel at "off-peak" times you pay a slightly lower rate (helping to reduce congestion), or if you live in the countryside you benefit from a reduced rate to account for a lack of alternative travel options. Assuming you're happy with the tracking that would require. I'd suggest that potentially you run two charging schemes. One with tracking in which the carrot is the potential to benefit from reductions on the base rate. One which is purely based on mileage (say checked at MOT time) which means no tracking but you just pay a base rate per mile with no reduction if you're only traveling at 1300 on a Thursday afternoon to do the weekly shop.

*Why* does it have to come from motorists? Fuel duty and road tax are sold as a way reduce driving because of the damage it causes environmentally, Electric cars don't create as much so it wouldn't be fair to electric drivers to be subject to same tax burden as petrol drivers just because the government needs a hole filling. You could get the same revenue kicking up corporation tax a few percent

 

[PGAT]

Electric vehicles are by no means green with all their rare earth metals ruining habitats and polluting a lot. Even if you ignore that, you can’t underestimate how much more damage they do to the roads. Assuming the average EV is 500kg heavier than an ICE that means roughly 10-15x more damage is done and therefore costs are much much higher.

 

[ainsworth74]

*Why* does it have to come from motorists? Fuel duty and road tax are sold as a way reduce driving because of the damage it causes environmentally, Electric cars don't create as much so it wouldn't be fair to electric drivers to be subject to same tax burden as petrol drivers just because the government needs a hole filling. You could get the same revenue kicking up corporation tax a few percent

Well that isn't really true though of course. VED is at least related to CO2 emissions (though in some respects that has been weakened as for new vehicles since April 2017 there is a flat rate of £140pa payable with only the first years fee being variable depending on emissions). But fuel duty is about raising as much money as the Government thinks it can get away with dressed up as being about environmental concerns. If the Government was actually concerned about attempting to reduce driving they wouldn't have frozen fuel duty for the past thirteen years nor cut it by 5p per litre for the 12 months from April 2023. But in any event I'm not sure why everyone, including people who never use a vehicle, should be expected to pay more to fill the hole when it's simply possible to transition from one method of revenue collection to another? Otherwise it would simply seem to be a way to give a massive tax cut to motorists whilst everyone else has to fund it? Politically it might be quite tricky to sell as well. "We're increasing corporation tax on businesses because we'd prefer not to introduce a replacement to fuel duty meaning a tax cut for motorists but increased prices for everyone else." Is that vote winner?

 

[renegademaster]

Well that isn't really true though of course. VED is at least related to CO2 emissions (though in some respects that has been weakened as for new vehicles since April 2017 there is a flat rate of £140pa payable with only the first years fee being variable depending on emissions). But fuel duty is about raising as much money as the Government thinks it can get away with dressed up as being about environmental concerns. If the Government was actually concerned about attempting to reduce driving they wouldn't have frozen fuel duty for the past thirteen years nor cut it by 5p per litre for the 12 months from April 2023. But in any event I'm not sure why everyone, including people who never use a vehicle, should be expected to pay more to fill the hole when it's simply possible to transition from one method of revenue collection to another? Otherwise it would simply seem to be a way to give a massive tax cut to motorists whilst everyone else has to fund it? Politically it might be quite tricky to sell as well. "We're increasing corporation tax on businesses because we'd prefer not to introduce a replacement to fuel duty meaning a tax cut for motorists but increased prices for everyone else." Is that vote winner?

I don't think "I'm going to tax Barclays a bit more so you don't have to pay per mile(Most UK Adults drive)" is going to be a vote looser. People haven't minded the fuel duty being frozen (albeit at a very high level )

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't think "I'm going to tax Barclays a bit more so you don't have to pay per mile(Most UK Adults drive)" is going to be a vote looser.

It's not just banks that pay corporation tax though is it

People haven't minded the fuel duty being frozen

Breaking news! People don't mind when taxes aren't increased more at 1000 on this shocking new development

But fundamentally there's a difference between a tax freeze and tax rise. I can see it being harder to sell increasing a tax on one group so that another have tax cut versus simply transitioning from one method of taxation to another on the same group. But either way, I guess we'll see what happens. Your perfectly valid view is that the tax burden should be shifted from motorists to everyone. My equally valid view is that the burden should remain within the same group of people must collected in a different, potentially fairer if you being playing with differential rates, way.

(albeit at a very high level )

Is it still a very high level after 13 years of no increases and indeed a 5p cut since April this year? Straight line inflation since 2010 suggest that rather than the 57p it was prior to the recent cut to 52p it should have been closer to 84p (not that I'm saying it should have increased by inflation every year, but just by way of comparison).

 

[RT4038]

It would have to be a flat rate or location based. Time based will only encourage reckless driving behaviour such as speeding, tailgating and jumping red lights.

Time as in off peak or peak etc ., rather than length of journey, I suspect is meant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

*Why* does it have to come from motorists? Fuel duty and road tax are sold as a way reduce driving because of the damage it causes environmentally, Electric cars don't create as much so it wouldn't be fair to electric drivers to be subject to same tax burden as petrol drivers just because the government needs a hole filling. You could get the same revenue kicking up corporation tax a few percent

Are you happy to pay more for goods and services, or to pay higher income tax or VAT?

Driving causes other harms in urban areas than pollution - congestion, the need to allocate limited space to cars rather than people and people being killed and injured when hit by cars. Road pricing provides an opportunity to make driving cheaper where it's the only option and causes fewer harms (rural areas) but much, much more expensive where it causes more harms (cities).

 

[renegademaster]

Is it still a very high level after 13 years of no increases and indeed a 5p cut since April this year? Straight line inflation since 2010 suggest that rather than the 57p it was prior to the recent cut to 52p it should have been closer to 84p (not that I'm saying it should have increased by inflation every year, but just by way of comparison).

It's higher than most of Europe, even with real term falls. I think only France and Italy where higher last time I checked

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2023 ==

Are you happy to pay more for goods and services, or to pay higher income tax or VAT?

Driving causes other harms in urban areas than pollution - congestion, the need to allocate limited space to cars rather than people and people being killed and injured when hit by cars. Road pricing provides an opportunity to make driving cheaper where it's the only option and causes fewer harms (rural areas) but much, much more expensive where it causes more harms (cities).

What roads cost to use in cities should be down the to the cities themselves

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect a level of facetiousness there, i.e. the car emits the pollutants, not the occupant.

But only if someone chooses to drive it...

 

[Bletchleyite]

What roads cost to use in cities should be down the to the cities themselves

If you devolve that then expect it to get VERY expensive other than for locals.

But there should be a single system for paying, which would be the road pricing system.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's higher than most of Europe, even with real term falls. I think only France and Italy where higher last time I checked

I think arguably the most appropriate comparison isn't, how we compare with other European countries, but how the level of taxes on motorists compares with the harm that motorists cause by driving. Are those taxes sufficient to cover the cost of that harm? The attempts to evaluate the cost of the harm driving does that I've seen suggest the taxes are not sufficient to pay for the harm that driving causes.

What roads cost to use in cities should be down the to the cities themselves

Why?

 

[renegademaster]

I think arguably the most appropriate comparison isn't, how we compare with other European countries, but how the level of taxes on motorists compares with the harm that motorists cause by driving. Are those taxes sufficient to cover the cost of that harm? The attempts to evaluate the cost of the harm driving does that I've seen suggest the taxes are not sufficient to pay for the harm that driving causes.



Why?

It's the locals that bear the main externalities that driving creates , especially when cars are all electric. It should be up to them to decide if it's worth it for the convenience cars bring

 

[birchesgreen]

But only if someone chooses to drive it...

Yes cars are like dogs, left alone by their owners they are happy to sleep all day

 

[renegademaster]

If you devolve that then expect it to get VERY expensive other than for locals.

But there should be a single system for paying, which would be the road pricing system.

It's already essentially devolved. Why do you expect it to get more expensive for outsiders? None of the current road charging schemes discriminate against non locals, apart from subsidies for those on benefits

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's already essentially devolved. Why do you expect it to get more expensive for outsiders? None of the current road charging schemes discriminate against non locals, apart from subsidies for those on benefits

Not true. The Congestion Charge offers discounts to those living in the zone.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's already essentially devolved. Why do you expect it to get more expensive for outsiders? None of the current road charging schemes discriminate against non locals, apart from subsidies for those on benefits

Because outsiders can't vote for the local authority. So, politically, it will always be extremely tempting for local authorities to charge a lower rate for people who live in the area, so they don't lose the votes of local motorists, and charge a much higher or even punitive rate for people from outside, whose votes they won't care about.

 

[renegademaster]

Not true. The Congestion Charge offers discounts to those living in the zone.

Looked it up and seems you are right, I thought it was only for those on benefits. Even so, if a city wants to turn itself into an island that's their own problem.

 

[SynthD]

It's already essentially devolved. Why do you expect it to get more expensive for outsiders? None of the current road charging schemes discriminate against non locals, apart from subsidies for those on benefits

It’s not devolved at all, even the mayor of London is not permitted to bring in a per mile charge.

 

[renegademaster]

It’s not devolved at all, even the mayor of London is not permitted to bring in a per mile charge.

They can introduce flat road charges and emissions based charges, what prohibits London from doing their own pay per mile?

 

[SynthD]

They can introduce flat road charges and emissions based charges, what prohibits London from doing their own pay per mile?

The lack of devolvement.

 

[Joe Paxton]

They can introduce flat road charges and emissions based charges, what prohibits London from doing their own pay per mile?

The law.

 

[renegademaster]

The lack of devolvement.

local authorities have the power to set tolls without going through Westminster, i don't see what prohibits them from charging per mile rather than charging based on a flat fee/emissions/ class of vehicle

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2023 ==

The law.

What law?

 

[SynthD]

They were given the power to collect flat (an advertised fixed price) tolls, not variable tolls. It should all be public record, though I don’t know where.

 

[jon0844]

I think a higher tax on cars and congestion zones using ANPR, but charging a fixed rate instead of trying to track a vehicle and work out exact mileages, would be far easier and still raise a lot of revenue.

It doesn't make sense to have the technology in the car itself.

 

[PeterC]

The fundamental problen is that all the charging option would be costly to administer compared with fuel duty.

The simplist option would be to bill drivers based on the milage reported at the MOT. New vehicles would have an assumed milage adjusted at the first test. OK this can be fiddled but would this happen to a significant degree? Personally i think that prosecuting the occasional dodgy MOT station or motorist with a decent amount of publicity should keep that within acceptable bounds.

 

[Ediswan]

The simplist option would be to bill drivers based on the milage reported at the MOT.

Digital odometers are not that reliable. I had one reset to zero as a result of a flat battery. I called VOSA (or whatever it was at the time). They said MOT would not be concerned, just to be honest about the true total mileage when selling.

To make up for lost fuel duty + VAT, that would be a very large annual bill, typically hundreds of pounds.

 

[jon0844]

I am sure they'll think of something, and it won't be adapting every road vehicle to be able to safely, securely and accurately send tracking data for per-mile-charging. Of course, it fits in well with the whole new world order conspiracy theories and it's no surprise it's linked to ULEZ, LTNs and the like.

This week there are now people saying the air traffic control problems weren't accidental, but a deliberate ploy to stop people being able to leave the country and it's just the beginning... just like we've all been prevented from leaving our homes since Covid and the lockdowns.

Far simpler to impose something akin to VED on EVs and just not base it on emissions*, and use congestion zones that can be expanded as needed.

* Perhaps based on vehicle value, battery capacity, motor output or whatever.

 

[Trainbike46]

I am sure they'll think of something, and it won't be adapting every road vehicle to be able to safely, securely and accurately send tracking data for per-mile-charging. Of course, it fits in well with the whole new world order conspiracy theories and it's no surprise it's linked to ULEZ, LTNs and the like.

This week there are now people saying the air traffic control problems weren't accidental, but a deliberate ploy to stop people being able to leave the country and it's just the beginning... just like we've all been prevented from leaving our homes since Covid and the lockdowns.

Far simpler to impose something akin to VED on EVs and just not base it on emissions*, and use congestion zones that can be expanded as needed.

* Perhaps based on vehicle value, battery capacity, motor output or whatever.

Basing it on vehicle mass might be good, as that scales (quadratically), with the amount of damage done to the road

 

[Ediswan]

Basing it on vehicle mass might be good, as that scales (quadratically), with the amount of damage done to the road

Here, the term 'quad' is a source of confusion. Quadratic equations are second power. Road wear is usually stated as being fourth power of axle load, which makes the equation quartic.

 

[AM9]

Basing it on vehicle mass might be good, as that scales (quadratically), with the amount of damage done to the road

This idea that EVs are that much heavier that they should bear a greater proportion of tax than lighter vehicles is a complete red herring. Damage to road surfaces is generally due to two mechanisms, friction and deformation.
Friction is a function of driving style, scrub of tyres and tyre compounds. Car tyres are generally softer than the road surfaces and wear only becomes an issue in locations where heavier braking is frequent. Heavy goods vehicles have harder compound tyres designed to (just) meet the minimum braking requirements, as a trade off for longer life and reduced costs. These tyres do however stress the road surface on heavy braking.
HGVs however because of their weight, compress the road surface as they move over it. This ultimately causes breakdown of the top layers and eventually that breaking up cause fissures that become potholes as the structure of the paving becomes more and more compromised. This is a major maintenance issue for roads that carry large numbers of heavy vehicles. Although most sizes of cars have been getting heavier over the last two or three decades to meet ever stringent safety directives, the additional 250-500Kg is irrelevant to overall road maintenance costs.
So, just like the lie that car parks will be collapsing soon under the weight of EVs, it is a myth, (maybe put about by EV detractors) that EVs will be a cause of increased road maintenance costs.