Budget

[The Natural Philosopher]

Actually the real point was made on the Beeb by IIRC Jeremy Vine.

No one who buys a 50 grand NEW car gives a toss about the VED.

People on tight budgets aren't going to buy new cars: they may want or need to run an older car that is pretty thirsty, on low mileage, simply because they have it already.

Why tax the car and not the fuel? because that way you can gouge a certain class of people. Irrespective of their actual income, or their ability to pay.

If fuel duty is a fundamental part of eco bollox, why is domestic heating oil and red diesel not taxed to the same extent, or gas?

I estimate that by this logic everyones domestic fuel bill should double.

[:Jerry:]

You are still missing the point, that is, for some this is not a choice issue but one of need. Tax is a blunt tool and in this case (pollution) is not doing anything to make the polluter pay for their pollution - as I said way up, someone who does 1k in a Range Rover pa is actually responsible for far less pollution that someone does 60k in a SMART car but the Range Rover owner is subsidising the owner of the SMART car!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I think you should find a country where taxation isn't necessary, then, if you think it is stealing. You might have to search a bit. And of course probably wouldn't be able to scratch a living there.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Same applies to someone living in a larger house than they need - their council tax will be higher than in a smaller one. It's called paying for choice. Of course you can always find an exception to any norm - but the way you put it you want those with small cheap cars to subsidise those with large expensive ones.

[Roger]

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

Council tax works on value, not size, which is why my house is 2 bands higher than the nearest neighbour who had the same number of bedrooms and, if anything, more floor area.

It is difficult to see how you come to that conclusion. Abandon VED entirely and all users pay proportionate to their use with the owners of more economical cars not suffering as much as those with more thirsty vehicles. Having part of the tax burden as VED rewards high mileage drivers and penalises low mileage drivers regardless of how thirsty their cars are.

[:Jerry:]

WWHOOSSHH.....

Some people need large vehicles or 4x4s etc, why is that fact so difficult for you to grasp and that some of those people will be paying well over the odds to park the vehicle on their land whilst some "Green Hippie" drives around polluting the air with their subsidised 'low' pollution car. No one is complaining about paying fair taxes but this 'stepped' VED is nothing of the sort, as anyone who isn't so far up the NuSocalist exhaust pipe knows!

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I doubt anything you're likely to come up with will go over anyone's head.

Some indeed do. Some need Ferraris and Porsches. And are happy to pay for them.

You don't have to pay VED to park a vehicle on your land. You declare SORN.

Care to run that by me again? You want to stop car use entirely?

Try reading some history. The old RFL was based on engine HP long before 'NuSocialist' - whatever that is.

[Andy Hall]

Like the extra income tax slipped into the budget by finagling NI.

[:Jerry:]

The best form of defence is attract, as they say, never mind the fact that you still have not got it, we are not talking about frecking super cars [1] but family 'people movers' and vehicles required for certain types of work or locations.

[1] I think you are mixing up the 'stepped' VED and the (so called) 'show-room' tax.

But people want to use their car for a couple of hour, once a week, are you seriously suggest that they SORN the car every 6 days?!...

No, link the tax they pay to the amount they *use* the vehicle and thus the amount of pollution they cause - that means that the tax should be on the fuel and not the *wish* to use the vehicle.

That way of taxing motor vehicles was scrapped years ago and for the same basic reason that this new 'stepped' VED is flawed and unjust.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

This would effect business users most and put up the cost of virtually everything - including those goods bought by non car owners. Is that what you want?

[Andy Hall]

So discount/rebate for essential business use. This is already done for agricultural diesel.

[Clot]

I agree with what you are saying but are we not having a lot of unnecessary transport anyway which could be reduced. The cost of spuds goes up at Tosca due to being transported to a "central depot" for washing and bagging before being returned to a store near you? Might make farm markets and local shops more competitive. My view is that we should be buying more seasonal goods and not freighting in food from Kenya/ Honduras or wherever.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yes, if reducing carbon is what you are trying to do, rather than impose stealth taxes.

What would be the effect of a 15% hike in supermarket prices?

Farmers markets and local shops. Oh dear. cheaper food than from the supermarket? cant have that..

I've argued this one to death elsewhere..its not the jet setter, its not the 4x4 ownner, its not the few pople with uninsulated houses that are the problem. It's the millions of commuters, and the millions of Teesco miles etc etc.

Up the fuel until people start saying 'commuting is more expensive than a lower paid job I can walk to'

And Tescos start saying 'we can sell local produce at 30% below imported'

And the village shop says 'we can sell it 20% cheaper than that and still make a profit!'

Why should I pay *more* VED for running 5000 miles a year on a 35mpg car, than someone doing 15,000 miles in a 50mpg one?

[The Natural Philosopher]

With wheat the price it is now, that won't last..;-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

I can get good local meat half the supermarket price and theirs is tasteless rubbish.

The real waste is all the packaged stuff..do we really NEED cornflakes, and Muesli? What's wrong with rye bread toast (rye grows well in higher latitudes) porage, and so on?

switch from baked beans to local mushrooms and tomatoes to go with the local bacon and eggs..

You don't have to enforce this: just keep jacking up fuel prices and..

- people will stop commuting, because its expensive.

- they will have more time to cook,

- they will suddenly find local food is much cheaper.

- they won't be obese, because they will be walking to the local shop.

Then the family car becomes what it was in the 50's an expensive luxury that you used once a week to go out in.

And the supermarket reverst to what it once was - a place where you got PACKAGED food and manufactured goods cheap once a month..only.

[Steve Firth]

Ergot.

[Roger]

The message from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I am not sure whether you are arguing that VED is a good deal for low mileage drivers on the basis that they would save because other costs would be so much lower or whether you think that equity has no place in taxation. If the later you are in tune with NuLabour who have gone out of their way to penalise those with taxable incomes below £15000 pa (who don't get tax credits) by abolishing the 10% band.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

But you don't take a tractor to a filling station. Discounting fuel from an ordinary filling station for certain users would be a nightmare to implement and police. I can just imagine all the moans on here if they put up the price of fuel even more to cover the loss of VED income.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Agreed. Now taxing aviation fuel in the same way as the road variety would be a very good move.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Make up your mind. A couple of posts ago you want it to be cheaper.