Taxing road users by mile

[Harpers Tate]

I'm starting a separate thread on the subject of Motoring Taxes so as to split away the continued discussion on this away from the more general EVs thread. That sub-discussion has already drifted away from EVs specifically.

This is prompted by the stated government intention to replace lost fuel duty in Electric Vehicle (EVs) and Plug-In hybrids (PHEVs) by a per-mile fee, alongside existing taxation; VED, fuel duty etc.

This is my opinion on the subject:

I totally understand and accept that as the population of EVs on the road increases, the government will want (or need) to replace the revenue not being paid in fuel duty by users of such vehicles.

The stated intention is to begin to levy a 3p/mile charge on full EVs and a 1.5p/mile charge on PHEVs, whilst retaining the existing fuel duty and no per-mile fee for other types.

I think this is totally the wrong approach because it's tending to persuade those looking for their next vehicle away from (what is generally acknowledged now to be) more environmentally friendly vehicles and towards retaining the inertia of burning liquid fuels at the point of use. It is a single new factor of more expense added solely to those vehicles with zero emissions (and to PHEVs to a lesser extent) and psychology will tend to make people see this additional burden in isolation rather than as part of a bigger picture of their expenses. (Consider: do you know instantly how much per mile you would - or do - pay in fuel duty and/or VED?)

First to consider is the annual VED. There are non-revenue reasons currently to continue an annual VED of some type and those are the same reasons initially EVs were liable to VED at a rate of £0 pa (rather than simply being exempt). Annual VED application cross-checks against insurance and MOT so there may be some value in maintaining it in some form. Whether that is £0 or some nominal administration charge is unimportant, but it should be the same for all vehicles.

It's time to do away with fuel duty completely and replace it, along with VED (on a revenue-neutral basis) with an all-encompassing per-mile levy. The levy should be set at a parabolic curve upwards based on environmental damage at the point of use. That's perhaps best or most easily measured by CO2 emissions. I can't suggest actual incremental amounts since I don't have access to enough data for vehicle populations, emissions and current revenues, but by way of illustration

A zero emission vehicle might be the currently-proposed 3p/mile. I have based (for illustration of the proportions only, not the actual revenue-neutral amounts needed) on the other bands on the current CO2 emission bands (g/km) used for VED calculation on new cars, first year rates.

g/km	p/mile		g/km	p/mile
0	3		111-130	153
1-50	15		131-150	198
51-75	72		151-170	417
76-90	96		171-190	693
91-100	111		191-225	1110
101-110	126		226+	1647

My imagination says that those looking to choose their next car (whether new or used) might find a single taxation scheme such as this far simpler to envisage and thereby more persuasive than the present (and proposed) mix of fuel duty, annual VED and per-mile rate. It intentionally highly penalises those who choose high emission vehicles.

There is a separate discussion to be had about how to measure and collect per-mile fees (to whatever extent they are levied). To my mind, the simplest method would be to collect the fee alongside the annual MOT fee. Vehicles that change hands in between MOT tests (either in the first 3 years from new, or at any other time between tests) could easily have any outstanding per-mile fee accounted for in the settlement. (e.g., Car valued at £10,000, mileage unpaid £1000, net £9000. )

 

[The exile]

The issue with any change to a basic “per mile” basis is that it doesn’t address the fact that 10 miles on a main road in an urban area is considerably more damaging (and possibly more avoidable) than the 10 miles to the nearest post box in the North West Highlands. Current taxation doesn’t either, of course, but any new system should be nuanced enough to reflect the different significance of those mikes travelled based on where and when they actually are.

 

[dcbwhaley]

I'm starting a separate thread on the subject of Motoring Taxes so as to split away the continued discussion on this away from the more general EVs thread. That sub-discussion has already drifted away from EVs specifically.

This is prompted by the stated government intention to replace lost fuel duty in Electric Vehicle (EVs) and Plug-In hybrids (PHEVs) by a per-mile fee, alongside existing taxation; VED, fuel duty etc.

This is my opinion on the subject:

I totally understand and accept that as the population of EVs on the road increases, the government will want (or need) to replace the revenue not being paid in fuel duty by users of such vehicles.

The stated intention is to begin to levy a 3p/mile charge on full EVs and a 1.5p/mile charge on PHEVs, whilst retaining the existing fuel duty and no per-mile fee for other types.

I think this is totally the wrong approach because it's tending to persuade those looking for their next vehicle away from (what is generally acknowledged now to be) more environmentally friendly vehicles and towards retaining the inertia of burning liquid fuels at the point of use. It is a single new factor of more expense added solely to those vehicles with zero emissions (and to PHEVs to a lesser extent) and psychology will tend to make people see this additional burden in isolation rather than as part of a bigger picture of their expenses. (Consider: do you know instantly how much per mile you would - or do - pay in fuel duty and/or VED?)

First to consider is the annual VED. There are non-revenue reasons currently to continue an annual VED of some type and those are the same reasons initially EVs were liable to VED at a rate of £0 pa (rather than simply being exempt). Annual VED application cross-checks against insurance and MOT so there may be some value in maintaining it in some form. Whether that is £0 or some nominal administration charge is unimportant, but it should be the same for all vehicles.

It's time to do away with fuel duty completely and replace it, along with VED (on a revenue-neutral basis) with an all-encompassing per-mile levy. The levy should be set at a parabolic curve upwards based on environmental damage at the point of use. That's perhaps best or most easily measured by CO2 emissions. I can't suggest actual incremental amounts since I don't have access to enough data for vehicle populations, emissions and current revenues, but by way of illustration

A zero emission vehicle might be the currently-proposed 3p/mile. I have based (for illustration of the proportions only, not the actual revenue-neutral amounts needed) on the other bands on the current CO2 emission bands (g/km) used for VED calculation on new cars, first year rates.

g/km	p/mile		g/km	p/mile
0	3		111-130	153
1-50	15		131-150	198
51-75	72		151-170	417
76-90	96		171-190	693
91-100	111		191-225	1110
101-110	126		226+	1647

My imagination says that those looking to choose their next car (whether new or used) might find a single taxation scheme such as this far simpler to envisage and thereby more persuasive than the present (and proposed) mix of fuel duty, annual VED and per-mile rate. It intentionally highly penalises those who choose high emission vehicles.

There is a separate discussion to be had about how to measure and collect per-mile fees (to whatever extent they are levied). To my mind, the simplest method would be to collect the fee alongside the annual MOT fee. Vehicles that change hands in between MOT tests (either in the first 3 years from new, or at any other time between tests) could easily have any outstanding per-mile fee accounted for in the settlement. (e.g., Car valued at £10,000, mileage unpaid £1000, net £9000. )

The 10,000 mile average user in a small car (<50g/k) would be paying £1500 pounds rather than £200.
I presume that you would reduce Fuel duty from 53p per litre to zero.
So car doing 10000 miles at 10 miles per litre would save £530 pounds on fuel costs.
A net increase of £770

The 10,000 mile average user in an SUV (130 g/k) would be paying £15300 pounds rather than £200.
I presume that you would reduce Fuel duty from 53p per litre to zero.
So car doing 10000 miles at 7 miles per litre would save £757 pounds on fuel costs.
A net increase of £14000.

Try selling that on the doorstep at an election

 

[Harpers Tate]

I don't disagree, but it all depends on how "nuanced" you want to go, accepting that nuances typically bring cost and complexity. I could go a step further: if I need (or want) to travel from the East of Sheffield (to use a local example) to anywhere on or via the A57 into Derbyshire, I have little or no reasonable alternative route other than passing very, very close to the city centre, at slow stop/start speeds. Is that more damaging? Certainly. Is it morally taxable? Less certainly I think. I guess the only real solution to this is an additional "clean air zone" as per London.

 

[Tetchytyke]

any new system should be nuanced enough to reflect the different significance of those mikes travelled based on where and when they actually are.

I suppose it depends on what the objective of taxation should be: should it be dissuasive, should it cover the cost of road maintenance, should it be revenue raising, a combination of all of the above?

As you note, the current system is taxation based on consumption. Fuel duty doesn't distinguish between what type of driving you do, it distinguishes based on your consumption of fuel. The more fuel you consume, the more duty you pay.

Perhaps this has to be the way forward with electric vehicles. A form of fuel duty can be easily enough applied to public chargers, a set duty amount for every kW/h you put into your battery just as you pay a set duty amount for every litre of diesel you put in your fuel tank.

For domestic chargers it is possibly more difficult but, in the age of smart meters, it shouldn't be beyond their wit to add a separate meter to your car charger port and add that fuel duty to the electricity consumed through it.

The problem with a fixed fee per mile is that it doesn't distinguish on consumption. It really doesn't seem desirable or fair to charge someone in a Renault Zoe the same amount as someone in some ridiculous BMW iXM70.

 

[The exile]

I suppose it depends on what the objective of taxation should be: should it be dissuasive, should it cover the cost of road maintenance, should it be revenue raising, a combination of all of the above?

As you note, the current system is taxation based on consumption. Fuel duty doesn't distinguish between what type of driving you do, it distinguishes based on your consumption of fuel. The more fuel you consume, the more duty you pay.

Perhaps this has to be the way forward with electric vehicles. A form of fuel duty can be easily enough applied to public chargers, a set duty amount for every kW/h you put into your battery just as you pay a set duty amount for every litre of diesel you put in your fuel tank.

For domestic chargers it is possibly more difficult but, in the age of smart meters, it shouldn't be beyond their wit to add a separate meter to your car charger port and add that fuel duty to the electricity consumed through it.

The problem with a fixed fee per mile is that it doesn't distinguish on consumption. It really doesn't seem desirable or fair to charge someone in a Renault Zoe the same amount as someone in some ridiculous BMW iXM70.

Well, it can be banded by consumption. Ultimately, a gps system (other satellite location systems are probably preferable!) of road pricing is the way to go

 

[AlterEgo]

The issue with any change to a basic “per mile” basis is that it doesn’t address the fact that 10 miles on a main road in an urban area is considerably more damaging (and possibly more avoidable) than the 10 miles to the nearest post box in the North West Highlands. Current taxation doesn’t either, of course, but any new system should be nuanced enough to reflect the different significance of those mikes travelled based on where and when they actually are.

This is why congestion charges make a lot more sense (and are less contentious).

 

[Harpo]

The problem with a fixed fee per mile is that it doesn't distinguish on consumption. It really doesn't seem desirable or fair to charge someone in a Renault Zoe the same amount as someone in some ridiculous BMW iXM70.

Agreed. Weight would be a very fair discriminator.

 

[andrewgs]

One of the good things about fuel duty is it makes driving slower or more efficiently cheaper. Changing to per mile loses that.

 

[edwin_m]

The PHEV rate per mile being half the EV rate raises some anomalies, potentially encouraging people to buy a PHEV in preference to an EV. I believe PHEV range on battery only is pretty low but there is a risk that taxation like this might encourage manufacturers to produce PHEVs with very large batteries, which are essentially EVs with a nominal engine included. The UK domestic market isn't big enough to prompt this, but other countries might adopt something similar. The tax regime should really be discouraging PHEVs, so my vote would be for a rate per mile that doesn't distinguish between PHEVs and EVs but is banded by vehicle weight as a proxy for road damage, pedestrian safety and other downsides of a larger vehicle.

There's definitely a case for introducing more congestion charges, but that entails the complexity and privacy issues around fitting some sort of locator to every vehicle. However I believe any such charge would have to be fairly simple, as something that varies in real time depending on congestion means that people won't know in advance what they are paying and that largely nullifies the incentive to travel at a different time or use a different mode. Having the rate depend only on location and time of day means that satnavs and apps could predict the cost of a particular journey, and optimise for lowest total cost, if given the departure time when working out the route.

 

[Harpo]

One of the good things about fuel duty is it makes driving slower or more efficiently cheaper. Changing to per mile loses that.

Maybe range anxiety is a good thing then?

 

[HSTEd]

Well, it can be banded by consumption. Ultimately, a gps system (other satellite location systems are probably preferable!) of road pricing is the way to go

I think creating an all encompassing vehicle tracking system sufficient for this is going to be expensive, subject to major fraud, and result in a giant new dataset that somehow has to be guarded to prevent abuse or leaks. That's before we get into the state surveillance aspect itself.

I don't see this as preferable to simply having the MOT tester report the mileage of the vehicle to the government so they can raise a bill, which is a field they already collect and record.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I realise I'm probably an outlier here, but I'm hopeful government will implement time-of-use charges in the future - peak time costs more, weekends could be dramatically reduced.

My neighbour drives their child to school every morning and returns within 5 or 6 minutes - in a petrol SUV of course. This needs to be de-normalised actually. In reality, motoring is far too cheap compared to the alternatives. As @jon0844 says, improve the alternatives and the carrot works better than the stick. (But sticks are sometimes needed.)

I agree. It is the school runs and nipping to the local shop that really need to be eliminated for all but those with mobility problems. We have a generation or more of former school children who never went to school on a bus or walked. So they were brought up to expect a car. I see it with my 12 year old granddaughter - fathers car is always on call, I walk with her.

Nipping to the local shop includes a friend of a friend driving to an off licence when sober enough (at a guess) when the car ends up parked almost as far from the shop as the house is !.

I'm starting a separate thread on the subject of Motoring Taxes so as to split away the continued discussion on this away from the more general EVs thread. That sub-discussion has already drifted away from EVs specifically.

Good idea.

This is prompted by the stated government intention to replace lost fuel duty in Electric Vehicle (EVs) and Plug-In hybrids (PHEVs) by a per-mile fee, alongside existing taxation; VED, fuel duty etc.

This is my opinion on the subject:

I totally understand and accept that as the population of EVs on the road increases, the government will want (or need) to replace the revenue not being paid in fuel duty by users of such vehicles.

There are those who will not understand that tax has to be raised somewhere somehow !.

The stated intention is to begin to levy a 3p/mile charge on full EVs and a 1.5p/mile charge on PHEVs, whilst retaining the existing fuel duty and no per-mile fee for other types.

I think this is totally the wrong approach because it's tending to persuade those looking for their next vehicle away from (what is generally acknowledged now to be) more environmentally friendly vehicles and towards retaining the inertia of burning liquid fuels at the point of use. It is a single new factor of more expense added solely to those vehicles with zero emissions (and to PHEVs to a lesser extent) and psychology will tend to make people see this additional burden in isolation rather than as part of a bigger picture of their expenses. (Consider: do you know instantly how much per mile you would - or do - pay in fuel duty and/or VED?)

As a light user of an ICE perhaps having a pay per mile EV is an incentive to switch from the road taxed ICE. In the grand scheme of thing its no big deal as my very light use does not contribute much to pollution. The government would lose out though !.

First to consider is the annual VED. There are non-revenue reasons currently to continue an annual VED of some type and those are the same reasons initially EVs were liable to VED at a rate of £0 pa (rather than simply being exempt). Annual VED application cross-checks against insurance and MOT so there may be some value in maintaining it in some form. Whether that is £0 or some nominal administration charge is unimportant, but it should be the same for all vehicles.

It's time to do away with fuel duty completely and replace it, along with VED (on a revenue-neutral basis) with an all-encompassing per-mile levy. The levy should be set at a parabolic curve upwards based on environmental damage at the point of use. That's perhaps best or most easily measured by CO2 emissions. I can't suggest actual incremental amounts since I don't have access to enough data for vehicle populations, emissions and current revenues, but by way of illustration

A zero emission vehicle might be the currently-proposed 3p/mile. I have based (for illustration of the proportions only, not the actual revenue-neutral amounts needed) on the other bands on the current CO2 emission bands (g/km) used for VED calculation on new cars, first year rates.

g/km	p/mile		g/km	p/mile
0	3		111-130	153
1-50	15		131-150	198
51-75	72		151-170	417
76-90	96		171-190	693
91-100	111		191-225	1110
101-110	126		226+	1647

I think those rates might be too high ?.

My imagination says that those looking to choose their next car (whether new or used) might find a single taxation scheme such as this far simpler to envisage and thereby more persuasive than the present (and proposed) mix of fuel duty, annual VED and per-mile rate. It intentionally highly penalises those who choose high emission vehicles.

There is a separate discussion to be had about how to measure and collect per-mile fees (to whatever extent they are levied). To my mind, the simplest method would be to collect the fee alongside the annual MOT fee. Vehicles that change hands in between MOT tests (either in the first 3 years from new, or at any other time between tests) could easily have any outstanding per-mile fee accounted for in the settlement. (e.g., Car valued at £10,000, mileage unpaid £1000, net £9000. )

Collecting a cut from a car sale could be fraight with all the cash buyers not buying/selling via a dealer.

The issue with any change to a basic “per mile” basis is that it doesn’t address the fact that 10 miles on a main road in an urban area is considerably more damaging (and possibly more avoidable) than the 10 miles to the nearest post box in the North West Highlands. Current taxation doesn’t either, of course, but any new system should be nuanced enough to reflect the different significance of those mikes travelled based on where and when they actually are.

I supposed registered address could be used to distinguish betwen a local rural user and a tourist coming in. Alternative is a congestion charge with exemptions (but see below).

This is why congestion charges make a lot more sense (and are less contentious).

What I dislike about congestion charges is they are going to steadily pop up all over the UK and, as a motorist, I am expected to know where they are and deal with them individually. I think it is fairer if all tolls and charges used one single common account that I keep topped up. The current method of having to set up a new account for each congestion charge and toll is a very primitive way of doing things. I prefer to keep enough money in an account so I do not have to worry about paying quickly.

I think the method of penalising people without first sending them a letter is too authoritarian. It is an easy way to make money out of law abiding citizens by treating them as disobedient. It is fine to charge what is owed and a REASONABLE admin charge but I would like to see the full fine reserved for those who decline to pay after a reminder - say after one month.

Instead it is punishment for oversight.

Perhaps key workers could register their home and/or work and have cheaper charges for that - but not for anything else.

The problem is that you want to encourage people not to use a car, but also not penalise those who have no choice. Oh, and let's be honest, they actually want revenue as much as they want people to not drive!

That is the underlying thing - the government need/want money !.

I think a better system than road tax is long overdue as it provided no incentive to be a light user.

Road pricing has the chance to be better than fuel duty BUT it gets complicated to implement but also complicated to understand for the motorist. I would hope for something that is a UK wide standard on times of day. Not individual areas having different approaches.

Keeping it simple does lead to perhaps to not being able to charge different prices for heavier used roads. But I could argue the heaver used road is because there is more demand there. But we could have a simple pricing regime where motorway standard roads are one UK wide cheaper price per mile and 30mph or lower roads are a higher price per mile. Something easy for people to remeber and deal with. Not sure I would be keen personally as living in London though.

It depends how it's sold. If it's revenue neutral there's a lot of people who don't drive at peak times and would end up much better off.

And you'd have the benefits of reduced congestion during peak hours!

If you could add location too you could really use pricing to reduce congestion. That's a much harder sell as it would be tracking, but we've congestion, ulez and parking cameras everywhere so it's not a massive step up.

For time of use, I wonder if you could have options like we have for electricity. A single all day price of say 7p/mi, or an off peak of 2p/mi and peak of 10p/mi

Any change is always going to raise complaints. All the people who lose out will complain even if overall it is fairer.

Interesting idea about a choice of different tariffs.

The PHEV rate per mile being half the EV rate raises some anomalies, potentially encouraging people to buy a PHEV in preference to an EV. I believe PHEV range on battery only is pretty low but there is a risk that taxation like this might encourage manufacturers to produce PHEVs with very large batteries, which are essentially EVs with a nominal engine included. The UK domestic market isn't big enough to prompt this, but other countries might adopt something similar. The tax regime should really be discouraging PHEVs, so my vote would be for a rate per mile that doesn't distinguish between PHEVs and EVs but is banded by vehicle weight as a proxy for road damage, pedestrian safety and other downsides of a larger vehicle.

There's definitely a case for introducing more congestion charges, but that entails the complexity and privacy issues around fitting some sort of locator to every vehicle. However I believe any such charge would have to be fairly simple, as something that varies in real time depending on congestion means that people won't know in advance what they are paying and that largely nullifies the incentive to travel at a different time or use a different mode. Having the rate depend only on location and time of day means that satnavs and apps could predict the cost of a particular journey, and optimise for lowest total cost, if given the departure time when working out the route.

I remember back in the 70s some odd people saying soon "big brother is watching you". We have crept steadily a long way towards that. It helps reduce crime (or at least catch criminals) if we know what vehicles have been where. All very well if we trust that our government will never get to un democratic and we normals who are law abiding citizens suddenly want to rise up.

But then an authoritarian state cannot put everyone in jail. So its not going to go too far if people start feeling that they are now part of what was originally a minority.

 

[Harpo]

There are those who will not understand that tax has to be raised somewhere somehow !.

Quite - The moral of the penny and the bun has been archived. Any pensioners daring to remember it will forfeit their pension.

 

[Harpers Tate]

(1) As a light user of an ICE perhaps having a pay per mile EV is an incentive to switch from the road taxed ICE.

(2) I think those rates might be too high ?.

(3) Collecting a cut from a car sale could be fraight with all the cash buyers not buying/selling via a dealer.

(1) EVs are subject after year 1 to the same base level of VED as anything else = £200pa. If VED is what you meant.

(2) Rates are high in my illustration. They are just to illustrate the principle. Here is another calculation - for illustration only - based on the same data (first year VED) but different maths:

g/km	p/mile		g/km	p/mile
0	3		111-130	47.5
1-50	13.5		131-150	58
51-75	15.5		151-170	145
76-90	30		171-190	230
91-100	38.5		191-225	345
101-110	42.5		226+	570

and, yes, I do mean the intent to severely penalise those who choose to use environmentally damaging vehicles.

(3) My intention was not (if that's what you read) for the government to collect the revenue at the point of transfer; I meant it would be a matter for the two parties to settle between them such that the new owner is fully liable for the revenue at the next MOT but is compensated for the previous owner's unpaid use as part of the amount paid for the vehicle. Matters not whether it's a private or dealer trade.

 

[martin butler]

I think the fairest way is to keep the VED, and to include electric vehicles in it then as ICE vehicles become less, the rate on EV's could be increased to offset the decrease in fuel duty

older /historic cars, should just have a lower band Ved, reflecting their limited use, and in many cases, they are tax exempt this could be replaced with say a £20 band for all cars over 25 years old, and it should be a rolling cut-off date, so modern classics, as they become 25 years, benefits from a lower tax band.

 

[35B]

The issue with any change to a basic “per mile” basis is that it doesn’t address the fact that 10 miles on a main road in an urban area is considerably more damaging (and possibly more avoidable) than the 10 miles to the nearest post box in the North West Highlands. Current taxation doesn’t either, of course, but any new system should be nuanced enough to reflect the different significance of those mikes travelled based on where and when they actually are.

I disagree. Assessing usage on that basis makes the whole scheme significantly more complex, and raises large scale privacy concerns.

A simple flat rate per mile, calculated as an average, would be far better and more enforceable. I'd also go further, and eliminate fuel duty at the same time, to just have a single flat tax. If incentives are required, then the tax rate could be set variably depending on the car efficiency.

 

[Harpo]

and, yes, I do mean the intent to severely penalise those who choose to use environmentally damaging vehicles.

Hence my view that taxation by weight is fairest as it addresses both environmental damage and physical damage to the infrastructure.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Hence my view that taxation by weight is fairest as it addresses both environmental damage and physical damage to the infrastructure.

It addresses infrastructure, yes. However as far as the air/climate/etc., at the point of use is concerned it's going to be very inaccurate. My EV weighs not far from 2 tonnes, but produces no gas pollution at all at the point of use and fewer brake dust particles through regenerative retarding. Equating that to a ~2-ton oil burner with its attendant local emissions is probably missing at least one (possibly the more important) point.

 

[Sonic1234]

Nipping to the local shop includes a friend of a friend driving to an off licence when sober enough (at a guess) when the car ends up parked almost as far from the shop as the house is !.

They're lucky to find parking that close.

Walking several hundred metres from a parking space to a shop is expected in a lot of cases in busy areas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2026 ==

That is the underlying thing - the government need/want money !.

And the way that fuel duty and VAT (on fuel, repairs, insurance, new cars etc.) works is genius at this. It's paid at a different time to the time of travel, so it makes the act of travel feel like it's free, or an underestimate at best. Ask a lot of people how much it costs to get to the supermarket - most will say zero or not much, or miss the point and say "it's free parking."

This is great for revenue raising and for the economy, not so good if you want to dissuade driving.

 

[The Ham]

They're lucky to find parking that close.

Walking several hundred metres from a parking space to a shop is expected in a lot of cases in busy areas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2026 ==


And the way that fuel duty and VAT (on fuel, repairs, insurance, new cars etc.) works is genius at this. It's paid at a different time to the time of travel, so it makes the act of travel feel like it's free, or an underestimate at best. Ask a lot of people how much it costs to get to the supermarket - most will say zero or not much, or miss the point and say "it's free parking."

This is great for revenue raising and for the economy, not so good if you want to dissuade driving.

Indeed, a lot of people question when I highlight the fact that the average cost of car ownership is over £3,500 a year.

As you highlight, this is because so many costs are paid at different times and so get lost.

Talk to a young person and they can fully believe it though, when they are given quotes of over £1,500 for insurance.

As to per mile charging, I'm more of the view that 3p per mile is reasonable, although there is then a charge for passing through a congested area.

That would mean that, say, a local charge of £1 to £8 to drive into an urban areas, in larger urban areas or could be that there's a few zones and maybe even a further charge if you get within (say) 200m of a school.

The charges would vary depending on the time and would see the largest for the most congested areas at the busiest time, and this reducing to the lowest for less busy areas and times, maybe even being free at set times.

However, most rural roads could be free. Likewise, motorways would always be cheaper than any alternatives.

For example, an urban area may charge £1 for any travel for the whole area, other than key roads past a school where it's £2 between 8 and 9 and 3 and 4 (especially secondary schools)

In doing so, it would discourage people from driving, with maybe older children being dropped close to the boundary and walking the rest of the way.

For most people, especially given traffic at peak time, there's very little time saving between what Google shows as a 15 minute walk and an (off peak) 3 minute drive.

Even without traffic, I can be some reasonable distance down the road before someone walking out of their house as I pass them before they've got in the car, manoeuvred and caught me (and whichever of my kids I'm waking with) up again.

Just for the simple reason that a 3 minute drive (even without any traffic) can easily be 6 minutes by the time you've got in the car, started it at the start and parking and getting out again at the other end.

Add in the chaos which can be seen near schools, especially if there's a need to arrive a bit earlier to actually find a space, and that 3 minutes can soon be 15 minutes.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the fairest way is to keep the VED, and to include electric vehicles in it then as ICE vehicles become less, the rate on EV's could be increased to offset the decrease in fuel duty

That is effectively a subsidy to high-mileage drivers. By driving an EV they are avoiding most of the CO2 and other pollutants, but many other downsides (accidents, congestion, noise, road wear and tear especially considering an EV is heavier) remain and depend on how far the car is driven.

 

[martin butler]

That is effectively a subsidy to high-mileage drivers. By driving an EV they are avoiding most of the CO2 and other pollutants, but many other downsides (accidents, congestion, noise, road wear and tear especially considering an EV is heavier) remain and depend on how far the car is driven.

One thing that's clear, is that's any scheme has winners and losers, and the trick is to make it as fair as possible, I drive a modern classic, and only do a fraction of what most people drive per year, so removing the fuel duty, and per mile charging will save me money, but how do you do that?

Will every car have to have a black box to record what miles you travelled? or will it be an annual charge, levied each year when your car goes for MOT, and the milage is recorded? then will that payment be a lump sum, or over 12 months as per the current RFL,and what rates per car type ?

Should larger heavier cars be charged more than say my lightweight MGTF, because heavier cars do more damage to the roads, especially EV's

 

[Harpo]

Will every car have to have a black box to record what miles you travelled?

Works very well with teenaged insurance as a relative’s son who had insurance cancelled for two speed limit exceedances found recently.

or will it be an annual charge, levied each year when your car goes for MOT, and the milage is recorded?

Add it to the income tax bill? Change of ownership will become stickier though.

 

[renegademaster]

If this happens they need to actually get round to removing VAT from public chargers.


Economically I think it would make more sense for the tax to be flat per car(likely banded by weight or sticker price) rather than per mile.

The arguments about the relative damage to road is largely irrelevant to the conversation, the road budget is already comfortably covered by VED alone. We should instead think about what raises the most money with the least secondary impact.

To tax per mile is a tax on economic activity which will likely have more 2nd order impacts.

To tax per vehicle is essentially a wealth tax. It won't hurt retail to tax people who own 2 cars for a car they barely use, but it will hurt retail if travel is made more expensive.

We should encourage people to use their car as efficiently (capital wise) as they can, not to buy (largely imported) multiple cars and barely use them

 

[signed]

The issue with even thinking about taxing EVs is that there is no way for the state to collect nearly as much as they do from fuel duty and other tax

I agree that a flat tax is very much the fairer option

 

[styles]

I am rarely in favour of flat taxes, particularly when it comes to things which are themselves consumption-based.

How a per-mile tax is calculated requires careful thought, but I would think some product of distance driven, weight of vehicle, size of vehicle, emissions of vehicle; would be the way forwards. It can then replace flat taxes like VED, and we can ditch fuel duty as well as it'll be factored in already.

 

[renegademaster]

I am rarely in favour of flat taxes, particularly when it comes to things which are themselves consumption-based.

With an EV weight tax , if you only have one petrol car then you won't be losing out to replace it with an EV.

If you do have a 2nd car you are getting punished a little bit, but those people are likely to have deeper pockets. It's not comparable to poll taxes where everyone pays the same wether it's 10% of your income or 50% of your income.

Pay per mile to work properly (not doing stuff like taxing you for miles done abroad) and not be easily fiddled with, would require a big surveillance infrastructure that would be expensive and politically toxic

 

[35B]

With an EV weight tax , if you only have one petrol car then you won't be losing out to replace it with an EV.

If you do have a 2nd car you are getting punished a little bit, but those people are likely to have deeper pockets. It's not comparable to poll taxes where everyone pays the same wether it's 10% of your income or 50% of your income.

Pay per mile to work properly (not doing stuff like taxing you for miles done abroad) and not be easily fiddled with, would require a big surveillance infrastructure that would be expensive and politically toxic

Quite - and politicians will remember the fuel protests of 25 years ago.

I like most things about the principle of the EV charge. It's simple, it's clear, and the amount due is straightforward. These are undermined by two weaknesses. The first is the lack of a way to avoid paying it for travel abroad. Though it would be more complex for Northern Ireland, the majority of border crossings are at relatively few sites and it should be possible to enable a declaration at the border, deducting the foreign mileage from the total.

The second is the periodic declaration, meaning that people will tend to get an occasional large bill rather than paying simply as they do fuel duty (embedded in the price) or Income Tax (for most of us, taken without us even knowing through PAYE). This will be harder to rationalise, but again a simple route should be possible (perhaps even allowing it it be paid through the tax code?).

 

[renegademaster]

It would probably end up as a debt you have to pay off over the following 12 months like gas bills are