VIP
South East
Posts: 8,293
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 19:17:12 GMT
|
My sister boyfriend, changed cars forgot to worn the car but scrapped it. They sent him a £1000 fine for the week that it was uninsured, I know he was wrong but it's a bit harsh. Maybe there're trying to get some extra money in. If I sell my car on the 10th of the month they won't refund that month, and the new owner will have to tax it half way through the month, the dvla have been paid twice for the same month. Can't believe there short of cash. Free road tax is unfair, all car damage the roads weather electric or petrol/diesel, all cars should pay for the roads, not just polluting ones. It hasn't been road tax for years. Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) so you get taxed for using a vehicle. Its the stealth taxes that they don't seem to put figures out on, insurance tax which goes up again shortly when its only just been increased as an example. Technically speaking it is Road Tax again.
|
|
|
|
|
VIP
South East
Posts: 8,293
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 19:19:03 GMT
|
The only thing i really don't like about VED is double taxing a car! How really hard was it to introduce date to date tax rather than keeping the month to month, if you catch my drift! But then i thought about it a wee bit more and started to consider how VED for newer cars is set, especially when you look at the way manufacturers get to the figures and how the rules can be interpreted! And seen as ive been thinking about this for a hell of a long time, my mind really started to run away with me! I then considered why someone driving a commuter rocket, pays less VED than my wifes Focus, yet probably does 3-5 times more miles than her a year. For me, adding a wee bit more duty to fuel at this time is the only way to find a fair way to cover this. In that way, everyone can pay for the way they use their cars and no real need for the SORN system. Again, it isn't a 'wee bit' that's needed to be added to fuel to make up the same revenue as VED. Its about 30-40p a litre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 20:02:01 GMT
|
But is it as much as you say? Someone else above creates a lower figure and i have created a midway figure in the past.
Think of all the cars that are zero rated that will start paying through the increase in fuel duty. And consider all these cars that have met the rules and reached a band that they really should not be in. All the best, Geoff.
|
|
|
|
Dave_Q
Part of things
Posts: 32
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 20:10:33 GMT
|
I think the month by month DD option is probably costing them a bit, people that have a fleet of old sheds might have kept some or all of them taxed all year under the 6/12 month system, now they can tax whatever they're using for 1 month at a time and keep their bills down.
|
|
|
|
Ryannn
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,421
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 20:29:53 GMT
|
I think the month by month DD option is probably costing them a bit, people that have a fleet of old sheds might have kept some or all of them taxed all year under the 6/12 month system, now they can tax whatever they're using for 1 month at a time and keep their bills down. I've started doing that, it's even more useful when one has a meltdown and needs to be off the road for a few weeks! I don't think the lost revenue is due to people not double taxing. When I used to buy cars, I always bought them with tax on, now I just drive them home and leave them parked up till the start of the next month. DVLA weren't getting anything extra from me on the old system and they aren't now either!
|
|
|
|
VIP
South East
Posts: 8,293
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 20:48:30 GMT
|
But is it as much as you say? Someone else above creates a lower figure and i have created a midway figure in the past. Think of all the cars that are zero rated that will start paying through the increase in fuel duty. And consider all these cars that have met the rules and reached a band that they really should not be in. All the best, Geoff. I've showed the calculations for my numbers, and also discussed above why I don't think that lower figure is a reliable calculation because it takes into account fuel sales which aren't used on vehicle or equipment that VED applies to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 21:35:06 GMT
|
As i don't know where either of you get your figures, i cant say which one of you is correct!
What i can say is, having remembered how i created my figures, i used how many miles i did/year which at the time was 8k miles. At 45mpg i used 809l/year which should see a VED cover of 25p/l. I am now hacked off that its closer to 40p/l on that car and don't fancy working out how much it is over my 4 cars!
And like i said, a big number of zero and cheap to tax VED cars would now be contributing to the pot! All the best, Geoff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 22:11:32 GMT
|
So how does this affect the Scene Tax? Scene tax, like window tax is only applied to the wheels on the car. Phew I don't owe any then!!! Lol
|
|
|
|
VIP
South East
Posts: 8,293
|
|
|
As i don't know where either of you get your figures, i cant say which one of you is correct! What i can say is, having remembered how i created my figures, i used how many miles i did/year which at the time was 8k miles. At 45mpg i used 809l/year which should see a VED cover of 25p/l. I am now hacked off that its closer to 40p/l on that car and don't fancy working out how much it is over my 4 cars! And like i said, a big number of zero and cheap to tax VED cars would now be contributing to the pot! All the best, Geoff. My sources are cited in my posts. You can't just use your personal usage and fuel consumption figures to calculate what the increase in petrol should be, since everyone's figure would be different. You have to use the National average or the National total. In the grand scheme of things, £20/month isn't a great amount of money to be able to drive your car on the road when you want to.
|
|
Last Edit: Jul 22, 2016 6:19:28 GMT by VIP
|
|
|
|
|
those zero rated ved vehicles tend to have pretty high mpg figures, so they won't contribute that much anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,195
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
|
I think they admitted that creating a zero tax band for 'Eco' cars was a pretty spectacular own goal, and they've lost a fortune in revenue as so many people are buying them. So much so they're abolishing it next year I believe. They are indeed as I shall outline below. I think they admitted that creating a zero tax band for 'Eco' cars was a pretty spectacular own goal, and they've lost a fortune in revenue as so many people are buying them. So much so they're abolishing it next year I believe. Yeah, doesn't the replacement scheme consist of a massive initial fee? It's close to that. Basically, for cars sold next year, the taxation scheme will be the same as it is now for the next 3 years. The Eco cars will be penalised more if they are not zero emissions but it will still be more (less than £100 a year). The caveat to this is that if the car costs more than £40k you'll then be hit with an additional bill to the tune of £310 a year on top of your road tax. After 3 years all of the cars will pay the same level of duty at £130/year. The only thing i really don't like about VED is double taxing a car! How really hard was it to introduce date to date tax rather than keeping the month to month, if you catch my drift! But then i thought about it a wee bit more and started to consider how VED for newer cars is set, especially when you look at the way manufacturers get to the figures and how the rules can be interpreted! And seen as ive been thinking about this for a hell of a long time, my mind really started to run away with me! I then considered why someone driving a commuter rocket, pays less VED than my wifes Focus, yet probably does 3-5 times more miles than her a year. For me, adding a wee bit more duty to fuel at this time is the only way to find a fair way to cover this. In that way, everyone can pay for the way they use their cars and no real need for the SORN system. In some ways it's not too bad. Road tax is one less thing to haggle over come sale time. In some ways people do still pay for it. When I had my Clio, going to Huddersfield and back used to cost me around £40-45 worth of V-Power and £260 worth of tax. With the M3 that's now more like £60-70 and the road tax costs £290, or £490 if it's one of the last E46 M3s like the CS. I did sit down to do the costs and the fuel still did add the biggest chunk to the bill and that was assuming I did 9k a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would be more interesting than just reporting a loss is whether the amount received is in line with the forecast of what they expected to receive. If people are swapping to cars with lower rates of tax and the yield is falling as a result then the structure of the tax is having the desired effect. If the reduced yield is as a result of evasion it clearly isn't. British Governments have long favoured controlling people's behaviour through taxation with so-called sin-taxes. The theory is that if your sin-tax stops people doing something, you get less tax but reap other benefits (increased health, reduced NHS costs, reduced traffic, reduced emissions etc). Unless the canny British public come up with a better plan (smuggling fags and booze, driving cars with no tax, laundering marked diesel etc). This is an interesting read: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/479992/ved-2015.pdfAs regards putting VED onto fuel. We are told that the Government got £5.93 billion from VED in 2015/16. The ONS report that in the same year 46.567 billion litres of fuel were released for consumption in the same period. Dividing one by t'other gives a figure of nearly 13p a litre (assuming you apply it to all road fuels rather than tweaking it to increase the duty on diesel or reduce it on biodiesel). You might get some savings through not having to process VED but not as much as you might think as you would still need a system of recording ownership, ensuring poeple are insured and have an MoT etc though. Whilst the arguement for using VED revenue vs litres of fuel sold works in principle, there is one flaw. An awful lot of fuel sold goes nowhere near a road vehicle (both red diesel and regular fuel) and therefore if you include their use in that calculation you're going to have a lot of owners of plant machinery, farm equipment, forklifts, ships, boats, generators, right down to chainsaws, lawnmowers etc paying additional tax that doesn't apply to the machine they are putting fuel in. ONS figures for fuel use in 2013 (latest stats available) show 14.2m tonnes (16b litres) of petrol and 24.3m tonnes (33b litres) of diesel used. I have no idea what proportion of that figure will be used by non-road vehicle or equipment, but it needs to deducted from the total before you can divide the VED revenue figure by it. Therefore it makes more sense to use the calcs based on road vehicles average fuel use only. The 46.567 billion litres is duty paid petrol and DERV only.
|
|
Jaguar S-Type 3.0 SE
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,195
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
|
those zero rated ved vehicles tend to have pretty high mpg figures, so they won't contribute that much anyway! The figures are BS quite a bit of the time. I know of a few people who have the 1.0 EcoBoost engines. None of them seem more than 47MPG tops. Most see around 36-40MPG. My neighbour said the only time he saw 47MPG was doing a very solid 65-70MPH down the motorway. I know the pool car at Warwick (a Focus 1.5 EcoBoost has not seen more than 33MPG on the average trip computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 10:20:58 GMT
|
Personally, and I know this won't put me at the top of the list in the popularity stakes on here but, I would make the VED the same on all cars no matter what it's age, or how good it is on fuel. I'd even put it on the electric cars too. This way we'd all be putting the same amount in the pot, the eco, and high mpg people are still making a saving through paying less at the pumps. It would be far simpler, if you own a car, it's £XXX.XX a year, and that's it. But I would re-introduce transferable VED. I probably wouldn't go back to the TAX disc system though, no point in my opinion. Furthermore I would abolish the forty year rolling exemption, possibly make it fifty years instead. I certainly wouldn't add anymore to the cost of fuel, although the cost of fuel is a bargain compared to some other liquids we consume daily, there would be a public outcry if you turned up to the pumps to find it had gone up by forty pence a litre. And that wouldn't just effect motoring, the price of everything would go up. Suddenly your weekly shopping would cost more due to the supermarkets having to pay at more in fuel to have their stock delivered to them in the first place.
|
|
|
|
VIP
South East
Posts: 8,293
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 10:51:51 GMT
|
Whilst the arguement for using VED revenue vs litres of fuel sold works in principle, there is one flaw. An awful lot of fuel sold goes nowhere near a road vehicle (both red diesel and regular fuel) and therefore if you include their use in that calculation you're going to have a lot of owners of plant machinery, farm equipment, forklifts, ships, boats, generators, right down to chainsaws, lawnmowers etc paying additional tax that doesn't apply to the machine they are putting fuel in. ONS figures for fuel use in 2013 (latest stats available) show 14.2m tonnes (16b litres) of petrol and 24.3m tonnes (33b litres) of diesel used. I have no idea what proportion of that figure will be used by non-road vehicle or equipment, but it needs to deducted from the total before you can divide the VED revenue figure by it. Therefore it makes more sense to use the calcs based on road vehicles average fuel use only. The 46.567 billion litres is duty paid petrol and DERV only. Duty paid still doesn't necessarily mean it'll end up in a road-going vehicle though, so there is still a value that needs to be removed from your total. You're still going to get umbridge from the person having to be taxed extra to fill up his - for example - John Deere ride-on mower. Putting VED on fuel is not a fair or practical replacement system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 10:56:33 GMT
|
those zero rated ved vehicles tend to have pretty high mpg figures, so they won't contribute that much anyway! The figures are BS quite a bit of the time. I know of a few people who have the 1.0 EcoBoost engines. None of them seem more than 47MPG tops. Most see around 36-40MPG. My neighbour said the only time he saw 47MPG was doing a very solid 65-70MPH down the motorway. I know the pool car at Warwick (a Focus 1.5 EcoBoost has not seen more than 33MPG on the average trip computer. driving style and conditions are the main factors, also prople expecting the extra urban when sat in traffic. ive had 66mpg from a 2.2 diesel civic!! and 41 from my 205 gti
|
|
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,195
Club RR Member Number: 170
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 11:16:59 GMT
|
The figures are BS quite a bit of the time. I know of a few people who have the 1.0 EcoBoost engines. None of them seem more than 47MPG tops. Most see around 36-40MPG. My neighbour said the only time he saw 47MPG was doing a very solid 65-70MPH down the motorway. I know the pool car at Warwick (a Focus 1.5 EcoBoost has not seen more than 33MPG on the average trip computer. driving style and conditions are the main factors, also prople expecting the extra urban when sat in traffic. ive had 66mpg from a 2.2 diesel civic!! and 41 from my 205 gti That is surprising Merion! But then I guess you do live out in the sticks . Two of the people with the EcoBoosts are in their 50s though . But 66? Seriously? Was that tank to tank or what the computer said? I say this as both my Clio and M3 give optimistic readings by around 8-10%. Either way, that is very surprising. Did you even venture above 56mph to get that figure? Even the 2.0 HDI 407 at work no one bettered mid 30s from, albeit with mostly town driving. I got between 36-43MPG, the latter when driven very carefully (as you say, expecting the traffic, holding the speed in the corners, keeping the car rolling at junctions etc.). Then again, that car was haunted with DPF issues ; I never once recall the oil level not rising after a service, so probably not the best example. If they weren't so troublesome with other faults I'd have considered one and taken the DPF out TBH. Anyway, derailment over .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 11:50:29 GMT
|
i live in Bridgend! commute to cardiff. my auto 525 tds is a bit curse word at mpging, mid to high 30's, though 50+ if kept in 5th for a long motorway cruise. the honda was a 300 mile trip on a roads and motorways at 65, commuting it managed 58. i really was very impressed with it, a borrowed 2006 5 door se, the mpg reading is good on it i found, only ever filled it once, less weight and all that
|
|
Last Edit: Jul 22, 2016 11:54:08 GMT by welshpug
|
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 11:59:15 GMT
|
The 46.567 billion litres is duty paid petrol and DERV only. Duty paid still doesn't necessarily mean it'll end up in a road-going vehicle though, so there is still a value that needs to be removed from your total. You're still going to get umbridge from the person having to be taxed extra to fill up his - for example - John Deere ride-on mower. Putting VED on fuel is not a fair or practical replacement system. You want it to be fair as well? You're right though. Unless you do it the simple way which penalises the non road vehicle users of road fuel more than they are already penalised, it becomes very complicated. It's probably not worth worrying about anyway. If there was the political will to even think about it, they would have done it instead of doing the 2014 overhaul. Having done that overhaul, there's no way the revised system will get binned after just 2 years. To do something radical would require evasion of a lot more than the level currently being seen. To put VED evasion in context, the overall tax gap (that is tax which is evaded or avoided) is £34 billion.
|
|
Jaguar S-Type 3.0 SE
|
|
VIP
South East
Posts: 8,293
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 12:24:53 GMT
|
The system itself works perfectly well, it's the policing of it that's the weak point.
|
|
|
|
|