Taxing road users by mile

[Harpers Tate]

It's probably worth remembering that for many people driving is not really a choice.

I agree. Where there is a choice, though, is in the vehicle they choose to buy. I wonder what proportion of people
a) currently
b) would (under such a scheme)
consider what the emissions of the car/s they are choosing to buy are.

 

[35B]

I agree. Where there is a choice, though, is in the vehicle they choose to buy. I wonder what proportion of people
a) currently
b) would (under such a scheme)
consider what the emissions of the car/s they are choosing to buy are.

Which end of the market are you aiming at? The new car market is already leaning into EVs, driven by the deadlines. The buyers who will be really affected are second hand buyers, for whom there will be a number of factors to choose between, based on what is already built.

That’s where politics come in, as the sort of road tax policy you propose will make some categories of car unsaleable, significantly affecting both current owners (devaluation of their asset) and prospective owners (can’t get a suitable car).

 

[PeterC]

That depends on how you sell it to an otherwise mostly dumb electorate motorists will save 32BN a year, transport costs will be lower, etc, but to pay for it income tax will go up by 5p in the pound, how many will see beyond the ammount they will be saving, and 5 p in the pound, I would imagine not many

So a slight increase in disposable income for me at the expense of non drivers.

The opposition would sell it as poor pensioners subsidising rich SUV owners.

 

[35B]

So a slight increase in disposable income for me at the expense of non drivers.

The opposition would sell it as poor pensioners subsidising rich SUV owners.

No, the opposition will say "you can't raise Income Tax" and ignore the whole loss of fuel duty.

The interesting question for such a policy would be the economic impact of a change which would increase tax on everyone (so reducing disposable income), but reduce the cost of living for many. I doubt that it would be anything like as simple as "duty raises £32bn, 1p on income tax is worth £6.4bn, therefore let's replace duty with a 5p rise in Income Tax".

 

[Harpers Tate]

.... will make some categories of car unsaleable .....

Exactly the point. Such vehicles should be either off the road completely, or used less. We are killing the planet and these things are a contributor.

 

[35B]

Exactly the point. Such vehicles should be either off the road completely, or used less. We are killing the planet and these things are a contributor.

Congratulations on making green policies unelectable if taking that approahc

 

[Mawkie]

Congratulations on making green policies unelectable if taking that approahc

Not really, the ULEZ in London caused supposed uproar (mostly from people who lived hundreds of miles away from London and hadn't even visited for 20 years) and the result was.... fabulously clean air, a massive reduction is airborne pollution related deaths, benefits for childhood asthma, and on and on.

Not much else with regards to electoral impacts, in fact the Mayor extended the zone didn't he?

At some point we have to accept that car use is too cheap, and the real costs are not the cost of insurance, fuel, and maintenance, but the cost to society as a whole - which is admittedly a bit harder to define I suppose.

Road charging should, in my opinion, be high enough to discourage casual use and in any case, much more expensive than public transport.

 

[35B]

Not really, the ULEZ in London caused supposed uproar (mostly from people who lived hundreds of miles away from London and hadn't even visited for 20 years) and the result was.... fabulously clean air, a massive reduction is airborne pollution related deaths, benefits for childhood asthma, and on and on.

Not much else with regards to electoral impacts, in fact the Mayor extended the zone didn't he?

At some point we have to accept that car use is too cheap, and the real costs are not the cost of insurance, fuel, and maintenance, but the cost to society as a whole - which is admittedly a bit harder to define I suppose.

Road charging should, in my opinion, be high enough to discourage casual use and in any case, much more expensive than public transport.

ULEZ "caused uproar" because a small number of people made a lot of fuss about it, and were amplified by partisan campaigners who took advantage of any excuse to attack Sadiq Khan. The fuss was always obviously disproportionate, because a) the reason for it was desirable and b) the number adversely affected was very low.

A national scheme that, by design, makes certain categories of car unavailable and unaffordable, will have a very different resonance. If car use is set at that level, it will make it inaccessible to many for whom it is genuinely necessary, and also make the cars required for those groups unavailable. It would be an extremely regressive form of taxation, and public transport would really struggle to cope.

There might or might not be good environmental grounds for doing so - I merely observe that the politics will be savage. But there is a fundamental difference between changing how the tax raised by VED and fuel duty is replaced, and changing tax policy so as to proactively deter car use.

 

[Peter Sarf]

ULEZ "caused uproar" because a small number of people made a lot of fuss about it, and were amplified by partisan campaigners who took advantage of any excuse to attack Sadiq Khan. The fuss was always obviously disproportionate, because a) the reason for it was desirable and b) the number adversely affected was very low.

A national scheme that, by design, makes certain categories of car unavailable and unaffordable, will have a very different resonance. If car use is set at that level, it will make it inaccessible to many for whom it is genuinely necessary, and also make the cars required for those groups unavailable. It would be an extremely regressive form of taxation, and public transport would really struggle to cope.

There might or might not be good environmental grounds for doing so - I merely observe that the politics will be savage. But there is a fundamental difference between changing how the tax raised by VED and fuel duty is replaced, and changing tax policy so as to proactively deter car use.

ULEZ victim here. It meant I got rid of my very reliable and useful car that I seldom used. I possibly should have stuck with it as my ULEZ charges would have been infrequent BUT the road tax was getting bad. The ULEZ compliant replacement I got was a mistake and that has now bee replaced. I saw a lot of people who protested rightly or wrongly.

What I can see happening if VED (Vehicle Excise Duty) rises rather than a tax on actual use is that a number of types of ICE will become worthless secondhand because they are too environmentally unfriendly and so too expensive to keep and hardly use. But the remaining second hand ICEs will be worth more than they would so will shoot up in price. There will be a shortage of secondhand ICEs in say five years time leading to inflated prices. This will happen because the more polluting ICEs were not discouraged early enough in the past. The change to EV is happening but there will be plenty of people looking for older cars - too old to be EV.

I realise that when my ICE Honda CRV comes up for replacement I might have little choice. I paid £1,750 for it last year when it was 13 years old. In 2030 what will my choice of sub £2,000 12-15 year old cars be ?.

So I would wish for a taxing regime that taxed actual use NOT potential use. That is because I do an extremely low mileage. It is not fair if I cannot afford something even though I avoid using as much as possible. So I live in suburbia with plenty of public transport and I can still walk (just). But for someone in areas with poor public transport and not much chance of improvement (countryside) I feel worried for them. If I think about where I lived before I moved to Croydon then a car would be an absolute must and I would not be riding a bike for that commute. In earlier years I did similar by motorbike and it was just too dangerous so I would never contemplate journeys like that without a metal box round me.

 

[Mawkie]

If car use is set at that level, it will make it inaccessible to many for whom it is genuinely necessary, and also make the cars required for those groups unavailable.

One of the many silly excuses made over the ULEZ - until is was pointed out that 20 year old, £500 Fiestas were compliant.

But there is a fundamental difference between changing how the tax raised by VED and fuel duty is replaced, and changing tax policy so as to proactively deter car use.

By freezing the fuel duty escalator the government is effectively changing tax policy to manipulate (in this case, encourage) car use. I don't see the difference. It's just a matter of where the government chooses to apply the tax.

Camden, for example, refuses to issue resident's parking permits for cars over 5m in length. I'm OK with that, there's no need for 3 ton Range Rovers in central London. Central government could do the same nationwide if they chose.

We could go the way of Japan and instigate a Kei-car style of enforcement - that way everyone could have access to transport, maybe not the kind of transport they want, but still mobile. Very cheap tax (of whatever form) for a small cheap car, and very heavily taxed, or not allowed at all for larger, heavy cars.

If I recall, VED was graduated previously on emissions - so the highest poluters paid the most. That was a government tax policy that actively discouraged car use. The same could simply applied to smaller electric cars £50, medium electric cars £150, massive electric cars £300 (or whatever range is chosen) - I don't know why a flat £200 was chosen.

There's so many ways to replace the lost fuel duty, it's just how they choose. Driving, especially EVs, is cheap, but we have to accept it will have to become more expensive.

In 2030 what will my choice of sub £2,000 12-15 year old cars be ?.

There will be hundreds of thousands of EVs available to by then. In fact, there are probably a few available now for not much more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the many silly excuses made over the ULEZ - until is was pointed out that 20 year old, £500 Fiestas were compliant.

Quite. The problem is/was really only old diesels. Any petrol that isn't a proper classic and hasn't rusted away to nothing is compliant. So if you have an old diesel, flog it outside London and buy an old petrol. Sorted.

Give it another 10 years and it can probably be abolished because most of those diesels will be gone too.

 

[35B]

One of the many silly excuses made over the ULEZ - until is was pointed out that 20 year old, £500 Fiestas were compliant.

By freezing the fuel duty escalator the government is effectively changing tax policy to manipulate (in this case, encourage) car use. I don't see the difference. It's just a matter of where the government chooses to apply the tax.

Camden, for example, refuses to issue resident's parking permits for cars over 5m in length. I'm OK with that, there's no need for 3 ton Range Rovers in central London. Central government could do the same nationwide if they chose.

We could go the way of Japan and instigate a Kei-car style of enforcement - that way everyone could have access to transport, maybe not the kind of transport they want, but still mobile. Very cheap tax (of whatever form) for a small cheap car, and very heavily taxed, or not allowed at all for larger, heavy cars.

If I recall, VED was graduated previously on emissions - so the highest poluters paid the most. That was a government tax policy that actively discouraged car use. The same could simply applied to smaller electric cars £50, medium electric cars £150, massive electric cars £300 (or whatever range is chosen) - I don't know why a flat £200 was chosen.

There's so many ways to replace the lost fuel duty, it's just how they choose. Driving, especially EVs, is cheap, but we have to accept it will have to become more expensive.

There are choices. But they are political choices, made against the background of political reactions to policies of the past.

VED is a trivial tax, which is only effective at the margins - the real tax on car use is fuel duty. The “holiday” was introduced because the rises were becoming increasingly unpopular at a time fuel costs were rising anyway; any attempt to reintroduce it will also shift focus to fiscal drag elsewhere.

As for “we will have to accept it will become more expensive”, there is a profound difference between that being a consequence of the costs of motoring rising, and of a policy decision to raise taxes to discourage motoring. My view remains that any attempt to force a wholesale repricing of driving into replacement of fuel duty will ensure that the cost of motoring is permanently reduced, and with it the taxation potential for the country.

 

[martin butler]

What about the classic car owners,? even after 2030, petrol and possibly diesel will still have to be available, as this market still will need to be catered for, there will still be petrol/ battery hybrids, so there will still be a need for petrol,

Of course there will be bound to be some who will want to force all ICE cars off the road, regardless of impact,

my view is that owners of these cars are preserving our motoring heritage, and there would be no point in owning any classic car, if you could not use it,

 

[JamesT]

There are choices. But they are political choices, made against the background of political reactions to policies of the past.

VED is a trivial tax, which is only effective at the margins - the real tax on car use is fuel duty. The “holiday” was introduced because the rises were becoming increasingly unpopular at a time fuel costs were rising anyway; any attempt to reintroduce it will also shift focus to fiscal drag elsewhere.

As for “we will have to accept it will become more expensive”, there is a profound difference between that being a consequence of the costs of motoring rising, and of a policy decision to raise taxes to discourage motoring. My view remains that any attempt to force a wholesale repricing of driving into replacement of fuel duty will ensure that the cost of motoring is permanently reduced, and with it the taxation potential for the country.

There's also the point that although fuel duty may have frozen, this doesn't mean the overall costs of motoring have remained static.
The graph on https://www.racfoundation.org/data/cost-of-motoring-index shows it has pretty much followed along with RPI in the last decade.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about the classic car owners,? even after 2030, petrol and possibly diesel will still have to be available, as this market still will need to be catered for, there will still be petrol/ battery hybrids, so there will still be a need for petrol,

Of course there will be bound to be some who will want to force all ICE cars off the road, regardless of impact,

my view is that owners of these cars are preserving our motoring heritage, and there would be no point in owning any classic car, if you could not use it,

There will come a point that petrol and diesel will be niche sales from specialist retailers at high cost (though probably without tax being charged on it other than VAT as other systems will be in place for that). A bit like leaded petrol now.

 

[AM9]

my view is that owners of these cars are preserving our motoring heritage, and there would be no point in owning any classic car, if you could not use it,

Or to put it another way, "owners of these cars are preserving our polluting heritage", for those that haven't noticed the sudden change in our climate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or to put it another way, "owners of these cars are preserving our polluting heritage", for those that haven't noticed the sudden change in our climate.

A small number of genuine classics not being driven daily will be just as incidental to that as a classic DMU or steam on a preserved railway, unless you plan on banning that too.

 

[Mawkie]

Or to put it another way, "owners of these cars are preserving our polluting heritage", for those that haven't noticed the sudden change in our climate.

I hope you don't mind me saying that you are a little further along the ecological spectrum than a lot of us!

The amount of miles driven by classic cars are so few they surely count as statistically insignificant, no? I don't think there will be a resurgence of people driving 50 year old Cortinas as their daily driver to avoid a few hundred quid.

 

[35B]

What about the classic car owners,? even after 2030, petrol and possibly diesel will still have to be available, as this market still will need to be catered for, there will still be petrol/ battery hybrids, so there will still be a need for petrol,

Of course there will be bound to be some who will want to force all ICE cars off the road, regardless of impact,

my view is that owners of these cars are preserving our motoring heritage, and there would be no point in owning any classic car, if you could not use it,

Others have answered about classic cars. More generally, petrol stations exist because people want to buy petrol and diesel and that justifies the refining and distribution that goes on. If the demand craters, then the availability of those fuels will also crater.

In just the same way, when I was growing up coal was easily available for home use - I even remember the coalman delivering to us (I think probably the early 1980s). Now, it's effectively unavailable because there just isn't the value in providing it - hence questions about the impact on steam railways

 

[AM9]

I hope you don't mind me saying that you are a little further along the ecological spectrum than a lot of us!

The amount of miles driven by classic cars are so few they surely count as statistically insignificant, no? I don't think there will be a resurgence of people driving 50 year old Cortinas as their daily driver to avoid a few hundred quid.

My comment, (maybe a little too subtle) was that our 'motoring heritage' will increasingly become seen as 100 years of burning hydrocarbons with both lasting climatic and health impacts. A similar consequence of 150 years of unmitigated UK coal burning until the mid 20th century and it's baggage that still impacts on the environment and health of some.

 

[Krokodil]

What about the classic car owners,? even after 2030, petrol and possibly diesel will still have to be available, as this market still will need to be catered for, there will still be petrol/ battery hybrids, so there will still be a need for petrol,

Diesel will continue to be available to farmers at least

 

[AM9]

A small number of genuine classics not being driven daily will be just as incidental to that as a classic DMU or steam on a preserved railway, unless you plan on banning that too.

I think the impact of road transport using carbon fuels will far exceed all 'heritage' justified coal burning on rail and static boilers for many decades.

 

[JamesT]

I think the mass closures of petrol stations is somewhat overstated. Currently BEV makes up only 6% of the cars on the road and at current rates is only rising 1% a year. Even if there is the previously stated cut-off of 2030, that's still the vast majority of cars requiring petrol. Average age of a car is around 10 years, maybe by 2040 demand will have dropped such that there's significant downsizing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt they will close, rather they'll progressively have fewer pumps and more charging. The shops will stay, they make much of the money.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Quite. The problem is/was really only old diesels. Any petrol that isn't a proper classic and hasn't rusted away to nothing is compliant. So if you have an old diesel, flog it outside London and buy an old petrol. Sorted.

Give it another 10 years and it can probably be abolished because most of those diesels will be gone too.

My old Vauxhall Carlton was fine and healthy last time I saw it - last year (see it in my area occasionally).

Or to put it another way, "owners of these cars are preserving our polluting heritage", for those that haven't noticed the sudden change in our climate.

Surely you cannot throw away history just like that ?.
How to make friends and influence people.
Or would it be OK to develop a virus and wipe out a large proportion of these pesky humans.

Instead we have exvlved and will keep evolving. We can evolve by discouraging the worst behaviour with a tax on actual use. That would be the best but probably to risky for politicians.

 

[AlterEgo]

My comment, (maybe a little too subtle) was that our 'motoring heritage' will increasingly become seen as 100 years of burning hydrocarbons with both lasting climatic and health impacts. A similar consequence of 150 years of unmitigated UK coal burning until the mid 20th century and it's baggage that still impacts on the environment and health of some.

People will still enjoy the sight and sound of classic vehicles though. There will still be heritage cars being driven to events and the like and people will still appreciate them.

 

[telstarbox]

I doubt they will close, rather they'll progressively have fewer pumps and more charging. The shops will stay, they make much of the money.

Exactly - one near me has equal numbers of pumps and chargers now. It also has a Greggs and a small supermarket so perfect 'while you charge' businesses.

 

[35B]

I doubt they will close, rather they'll progressively have fewer pumps and more charging. The shops will stay, they make much of the money.

The pumps may survive, but it's more of a question whether there will be fuel for them - especially as the shelf life of those with biofuel additives is limited

 

[Bletchleyite]

My old Vauxhall Carlton was fine and healthy last time I saw it - last year (see it in my area occasionally).

It wasn't fine. By definition it was emitting excess particulates and NOx.

But will it still be on the road in 10 years? Doubt it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It wasn't fine. By definition it was emitting excess particulates and NOx.

But will it still be on the road in 10 years? Doubt it.

Already 32 years old. Probably oozing out more pollution now than it did with my frugal use.

It was fine because it was reliable and affordable. There are a lot of people who still need affordable and reliable cars. They cannot afford a jump to something too new. They would then be better off not driving - to work etc.

Don't get me wrong. I really want less pollution. I was worried about the ozone layer back in 1979. When most people thought it was "odd" - I did not possess any aerosols. But switching to EVs for many is no where near as simple as eliminating CFCs was. We don't have alternatives for really cheap old cars yet.

If the government want to charge me a fortune to own a car that I hardly use then I might as well give up and drive it more. That is why I would prefer pay per mile. But I can see that being politically unacceptable even if it is the fairest way to control use rather than possession.