PDA

View Full Version : Abolish Road Fund Licence



bobgadjet
16th-January-2004, 02:01 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if Road Fund Licence was replaced by a SMALL rise in Petrol/Fuel tax?

For an average motorist, say 12,000 miles a year with an average family car, say 1500-1800 engine size, there would have to be no more than about 10-15 pence PER GALLON price increase, to collect the same revenue per year.

The for's for this.......
Not having to worry about renewing each year.
NOBODY can evade paying the tax.
The bigger the engine size, the more fuel used, the more paid.
The more miles you do, the more you use the roads, the more you pay.
The less economical your car, the more you pay.
ANY visitors to this country ALSO pay towards the tax.
If you tow ANYTHING, it increases your consumption (of fuel) so the more you pay.
No problem with fraudulence on tax discs.
Less for the police/traffic wardens to have to catch you for, or look out for.


The againsts for this.....................can't think of any.

Instead, we could have the need to display an INSURANCE COVER disc I suppose. This would help in the case of an accident, to take the other party's insurance details.

Am I being too nieve:blush:, or is this just too simple an idea to get implemented?

How do you feel about it, and is there anything we can do?

ChrisA
16th-January-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by bobgadjet
How do you feel about it, and is there anything we can do?
I think it's a great idea, and have for a long time. Given that I only drive about 3000 miles a year these days (pretty much only to dance venues!), since I work at home, it would be great.

Problems I can think of, off the top of my head, are that it would encourage switching to diesel, and if they wanted to tax that too, it would clobber the haulage industry.

It would also get the rural lobby moaning about the fact that they have to do all this driving, so it would be unfair on them :rolleyes:

Chris

TheTramp
16th-January-2004, 02:12 PM
Another benefit would be that you would no longer need to employ all the people at the DVLA centre in Swansea. Or all the other admin costs involved in taking the payment.

Of course, it won't happen. But it's a nice idea....

Steve

Dance Demon
16th-January-2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Another benefit would be that you would no longer need to employ all the people at the DVLA centre in Swansea. Or all the other admin costs involved in taking the payment.

Of course, it won't happen. But it's a nice idea....

Steve

Ah but you would steve. You still need them for vehicle registration documents , and driving licences. and (shop steward mode on )...you wouldn't want to cause mass unemployment in Swansea would you...you being a Welsh lad an' all ( shop steward mode off)............

I do think the road fund licence is a bit of a swizz though. In the USA there are no road fund licences, and petrol is less than half the price it is over here....

bobgadjet
16th-January-2004, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by ChrisA

Problems I can think of, off the top of my head, are that it would encourage switching to diesel, and if they wanted to tax that too, it would clobber the haulage industry.

Chris

I did clarify "fuel", which could include ALL fuel, including LPG.
If you think it would REALLY hurt the haulage indistry, try asking them how much it would SAVE them on thier road fund licence?
Diesel users do more miles per gallon (usually) anyway, so, less tax.

I don't know what it costs to licence one of those huge juganaughts, but I bet it's more than I could afford, and if it's off the road....... well, need I say more.

Just like if you took a holiday, you don't use your car, but you cannot claim that 2-3 weeks road fund licence back.

If your car was sick, and had to take maybe a month or two off, then you can't claim that tax back.

Have you tyried to claim back the road fund licence after having your car stolen? Happened to a friend of mine who had renewed the tax on his car a month before he had it stolen. When he went to claim the tax back he was asked to produce the disc he was claiming back from. WHAT ! (goes to show something we all suspected I suppose).

Frankly there is so little "against" it from the "common sense" point of view, I'm surprised that the motoring organisations haven't pushed for it, or have they, but I missed it?

bobgadjet
16th-January-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Dance Demon

In the USA there are no road fund licences, and petrol is less than half the price it is over here....

EXACTLY

But I think the difference in their fuel costs and ours is another thread entirely, so, off you go........

TheTramp
16th-January-2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Dance Demon
Ah but you would steve. You still need them for vehicle registration documents , and driving licences. and (shop steward mode on )...you wouldn't want to cause mass unemployment in Swansea would you...you being a Welsh lad an' all ( shop steward mode off)............ Well. You'd still need the departments that dealt with those things. But you could get rid of a whole group of people that deals with Road Tax.

Mass unemployment in Swansea is fine. They're just a bunch of Jacks down there anyhow.

(Local Cardiff/Swansea rivalry is still there apparently).

Steve

bobgadjet
16th-January-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Another benefit would be that you would no longer need to employ all the people at the DVLA centre in Swansea. Or all the other admin costs involved in taking the payment.

Of course, it won't happen. But it's a nice idea....

Steve

Surely you would need them to run the
"Department of
What A Shrewd Tax Everybody Demands
To Increase Motoring Expense"
(check the initials)

Paul F
16th-January-2004, 02:50 PM
I like the idea of making people who drive poweful engine cars (say >1.8) pay more. This would do that but with the new crop of ECO cars and the fact that diesel cars are generally high powered cars I dont think its fair to charge EVERYBODY the same in one foul swoop - because of emissions.


Emissions are one of the main concerns re. driving costs and the current system that charges you related to how much pollutant your car emits I think is good.
This way, Joe Bloggs who drives a Jag X-Type will have to pay considerably more than me driving a diesel-eco which emits minimal pollutants.

If we abolish this then Mr.Bloggs can pollute all the air he wants while I have to pay the same higher cost of driving even though I have been considerate in choosing a car.
:tears: :tears:

bobgadjet
16th-January-2004, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Paul F

Emissions are one of the main concerns re. driving costs and the current system that charges you related to how much pollutant your car emits I think is good.
This way, Joe Bloggs who drives a Jag X-Type will have to pay considerably more than me driving a diesel-eco which emits minimal pollutants.

If we abolish this then Mr.Bloggs can pollute all the air he wants while I have to pay the same higher cost of driving even though I have been considerate in choosing a car.
:tears: :tears:

Well, just think again......... The less pollutant fuels are already carrying a lower tax, and dielsel cars "usually" do more miles per gallon.
In each case you mentioned above YOU WOULD eventually pay less tax than your friend Mr Bloggs in his fuel guzzling Jax X-type.
How many gallons to the mile does HE do compared to YOU.

BTW have you seen the pollution a badly maintained diesel vehicle pumps out? Try following one in the many traffic jams around our overcrowded road country.

What diesel car have you got then?

bobgadjet
16th-January-2004, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Paul F
I dont think its fair to charge EVERYBODY the same in one foul swoop - because of emissions.


Just read your quote again........

how are you charging EVERYBODY the same?

The more you use, the more you pay.

If you do, say, 30,000 miles a year in your 1200 diesel fiesta, how would you be paying the same tax, per year, as your neigbour doing, say, 30,000 miles in his/hers Navy Blue, White wall tyred, Leather upholstered 7.5 litre Twin Turbo Bentley (lovely motor), no matter how ECO the engine was made to be?

Paul F
16th-January-2004, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by bobgadjet
Well, just think again......... The less pollutant fuels are already carrying a lower tax, and dielsel cars "usually" do more miles per gallon.
In each case you mentioned above YOU WOULD eventually pay less tax than your friend Mr Bloggs in his fuel guzzling Jax X-type.
How many gallons to the mile does HE do compared to YOU.

BTW have you seen the pollution a badly maintained diesel vehicle pumps out? Try following one in the many traffic jams around our overcrowded road country.

What diesel car have you got then?

Yeah, i see what you mean but im not really thinking of old cars as hopefully they will die out.
The new common-rail injected diesel engines are some of the cleanest you can buy.

Essentially the World Health Organisation are concerned with CO2, Carbon Monoxide and HydroCarbons primarily in the emissions studies.

Hypothetical situation (as i dont have a new car yet) -

I filled up my car(diesel/low power car) and Mr Bloggs filled his Jag.

We both drove until our tanks were empty.

Irrespective of how far we have gone (thats of personal benefit not environmental) I will have produced less CO2 (although only slightly), considerably less Carbon Monoxide and less Hydrocarbons (proven link to cancer).

To go the same distance Mr Bloggs would have hade to refill and burn considerably more fuel producing much higher levels of CO2.

Scheme in place - I get my fuel for a not-too-bad price. He pays quite a lot for fuel. I get less tax per year - he gets lots.

Replacement - We both pay the same tax (0) yet my fuel bill escalates (so does his but why should i suffer)

Dance Demon
16th-January-2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by bobgadjet
EXACTLY

But I think the difference in their fuel costs and ours is another thread entirely, so, off you go........

Hah!!! you don't get rid of me that easily:wink: ......you did mention in your original posting that RFL wshould be replaced by an increase in fuel prices. My point was that in the USA they have no RFL, but they don,t have higher fuel charges to compensate either.

bobgadjet
16th-January-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Paul F
To go the same distance Mr Bloggs would have had to refill and burn considerably more fuel producing much higher levels of CO2.

Scheme in place - I get my fuel for a not-too-bad price. He pays quite a lot for fuel. I get less tax per year - he gets lots.



My argument exactly, you say "I get less tax per year - he gets lots" and "To go the same distance Mr Bloggs would have had to refill"

But you seem to argue against yourself ! I respect that he would cause more pollution, but he would pay more for the priviledge anyway, so would provide (if it were used more wisely) more revenue to be spent towards replenishing requirements to replenish the atmospheric losses.

bobgadjet
16th-January-2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Dance Demon
Hah!!! you don't get rid of me that easily:wink: ......you did mention in your original posting that RFL should be replaced by an increase in fuel prices. My point was that in the USA they have no RFL, but they don,t have higher fuel charges to compensate either.

Granted, but they have the ability to raise huge funds in other directions.

How much do they pay for their plate tax ?

Paul F
16th-January-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by bobgadjet
My argument exactly, you say "I get less tax per year - he gets lots" and "To go the same distance Mr Bloggs would have had to refill"

But you seem to argue against yourself ! I respect that he would cause more pollution, but he would pay more for the priviledge anyway, so would provide (if it were used more wisely) more revenue to be spent towards replenishing requirements to replenish the atmospheric losses.

I dont understand your argument.

In the proposition of abolishing tax he doesnt get punished for driving a huge engine car

Yes, he has to fill up more but he does that now anyway.

bobgadjet
16th-January-2004, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Paul F
I dont understand your argument.

In the proposition of abolishing tax he doesnt get punished for driving a huge engine car

Yes, he has to fill up more but he does that now anyway.

Of course he does, he has to spend more on fuel, therefore more tax.
I accept the high pollution would remaing the same, but that's not the thread matter, so if you want a thread on the pollution aspect, then............ off you go..............

Martin
16th-January-2004, 07:24 PM
Road Tax is also a good way of checking people have insurance for thier car (if my memory of the system serves me well) as you have to show proof of up to date insurance to get your disc.

As a Govermnment why distroy a profitable income, if they thought they could increase fuel tax they would (and often do make increases in most budgets).This way they can tax you twice:D - well three times actually as there is also VAT - well maybe 4 times as you have paid tax on PAYE already:sick:

bobgadjet
17th-January-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Martin
Road Tax is also a good way of checking people have insurance for thier car (if my memory of the system serves me well) as you have to show proof of up to date insurance to get your disc.

As a Govermnment why distroy a profitable income, if they thought they could increase fuel tax they would (and often do make increases in most budgets).This way they can tax you twice:D - well three times actually as there is also VAT - well maybe 4 times as you have paid tax on PAYE already:sick:

HHmmmm. Get your point there.....
Oh yes, 5 times.......... but at least you have a choice... M6 Toll ?

DangerousCurves
17th-January-2004, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by bobgadjet


Instead, we could have the need to display an INSURANCE COVER disc I suppose. This would help in the case of an accident, to take the other party's insurance details.



This is a nice thought - and reminded me of one of my pet ideas...

This may not be universally popular, but I think that cyclists using the road should have to be insured too.

I live in a bohemian sort of town, and frequently see cyclists without lights, or cycling across junctions when lights are against them, or mounting pavements, or going the wrong way up one-way streets. I used to tolerate this with just a shake of the head (and an avoiding swerve of the motor), but a short while ago a friend of mine was seriously injured in an accident caused by a cyclist who probably doesn't have the means to compensate him for the absolute devastation he has brought into his life.

Anyone can get an old bike, in any condition and hit the roads without any tests as to its roadworthiness, their ability to cycle or their knowledge of the road traffic code. Cyclists also make no direct financial contribution to the upkeep of the roads which they use.

I do appreciate that many who cycle don't have a lot of cash to spare - but after my friend's experience I would support compulsary insurance.

What do others think?

bobgadjet
17th-January-2004, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by DangerousCurves
This is a nice thought - and reminded me of one of my pet ideas...

I do appreciate that many who cycle don't have a lot of cash to spare - but after my friend's experience I would support compulsary insurance.

What do others think?


And yet another thread ! ! ! !

But I must agree. There should be some form of compulsory insurance for cyclists, and have seen just what DC is on about, mainly by youngsters, mainly at night, and often in town centres.

Another thought is that there is little or no noise from a bike, and unwary pedestrians can and often do, get run into.

Mind you, insured or not, the cyclist, if found the cause of an accident, could be seriously out of pocket.

Does anybody know, is the cyclist still allowed the obligatory 6 foot of "wobble" space? Apparently it "used" to be law.

Dance Demon
17th-January-2004, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Martin
Road Tax is also a good way of checking people have insurance for thier car (if my memory of the system serves me well) as you have to show proof of up to date insurance to get your disc.


Yeah, but your insurance could run out the next month, but as long as it's valid when you tax the car, you can tax it for a year.Same applies to the MOT certificate.

bobgadjet
17th-January-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Dance Demon
Yeah, but your insurance could run out the next month, but as long as it's valid when you tax the car, you can tax it for a year.Same applies to the MOT certificate.

I suppose we could abolish the road fund licence, put that on petrol, but have a disc showing when our MOT or Insurance runs out.

Or, why not link the insurance to the MOT, so that you cannot get an insurance without a valid MOT cert, then you get an insurance disc for your window.

Just more thoughts, what are yours?

Martin
17th-January-2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by bobgadjet

Or, why not link the insurance to the MOT, so that you cannot get an insurance without a valid MOT cert, then you get an insurance disc for your window.



You then get very close to the Aussie system, you need a test certificate (if the car is 4 years old or over [ a pink slip], and insurance (third party for one year the insures "the car" for any driver) [a green slip]. Then you can register the car for the year, a tax to the govenment, which is displayed on the windscreen ($196).

If you sell the car, this all gets transfered to the new owner.

From your registration plate, all is linked on computer so police can check that all is in order.

On top of that I pay for fully comp insurance, which is again for the car - any driver, this is optional, but good for newer cars.


It is simple, the test certificate is logged on the internet by the garage, the rest can then all be done over the internet.

bobgadjet
17th-January-2004, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Martin

It is simple, the test certificate is logged on the internet by the garage, the rest can then all be done over the internet.


NAH !
That wouldn't do for England mate.

Too easy and not enough jobs involved, not enough departments and probably too little paperwork.