Road Tax rates

[Woody2Shoes]

How do you imagine all the equipment for the "fossil free" generation is made? A turbine takes years to become carbon neutral and that's the best of all of those you quote.

That's a different point. Nothing's for nothing - it costs a certain amount of carbon to build a coal-fired power station or a wind/solar farm. Are you suggesting we should stop using electricity (I'll asssume you don't think we should just carry on burning fossils)? What is happening is, in effect, a "spend to save" measure - not ideal, but better than most of the realistic alternatives.

 

[Doris]

Have a 1999 Toyota Yaris and pay £173 a year. Someone told me that once it reaches 25 years old I won't need to pay tax on it ever again as it consider a classic car. Is this true?

 

[artie]

Have a 1999 Toyota Yaris and pay £173 a year. Someone told me that once it reaches 25 years old I won't need to pay tax on it ever again as it consider a classic car. Is this true?

More like 40 years.

 

[Noel]

It used to be 25 yrs to qualify for classic/historic exemption, unfortunately it's now 40 yrs. So a way to go yet.

 

[lurker]

hard luck Doris.

https://www.gov.uk/historic-vehicles/vehicles-exempt-from-vehicle-tax

 

[Bob Chapman]

As Andy T says it's not a road tax - although many people, myself included, call it that. However words matter. They convey meaning and the wrong words may convey the wrong meaning. No matter how many of us call it a 'road' tax, the fact remains that it isn't.
In order to drive a motor vehicle anywhere except on private land, a driver needs two licenses. One is to prove physical and mental ability to drive the vehicle safely and is, logically, called a driving license. The second license is to to be allowed to actually drive it somewhere and is a vehicle license. It's not for the road, it's for the vehicle.
This second license is a bit like a fishing license which allows the holder to fish in a river, pond, lake etc. It does not convey 'ownership' of the river and nor does it give the fisherman any extra rights over the river. Other river users eg. canoeists, houseboats or small boys throwing stones, can continue to use the river - often to the annoyance of the fishermen - even though they have not paid any license fee.
In a similar way pedestrians and cyclists have an absolute right to use the roads without paying a fee for a license, although as John Brown points out, many cyclists are, in fact, also motorists and so will have paid for a motor vehicle license which remains unused while they are on their bicycles.
Motorways have the distinction of being the only British Roads where pedestrians and cyclists are not allowed, and in this respect I think they are unique.
Bob

 

[Lons]

You are joking, ever seen a pig fly? they will tax you just for owning the vehicle.

They already do if you buy a car with an original list price including accessories that's over £40k you have to pay additional premium of £320- pa for 5 years starting with the second taxable period.
E.g. my car was a 6 week old demonstrator with a list price of £47k, I paid well under £40k, it had to be taxed again from my purchase date which is when the premium rate started so 5 years at £320 is extra tax of £1600 which has absolutely nothing to do with emissions, If I sell it on before then the new owner pays the balance of that tax.

 

[Doris]

It used to be 25 yrs to qualify for classic/historic exemption, unfortunately it's now 40 yrs. So a way to go yet.

Oh well.

 

[artie]

The second license is to to be allowed to actually drive it somewhere and is a vehicle license. It's not for the road, it's for the vehicle.

You don't have to pay it, if you don't take it on the road.

 

[sploo]

You don't have to pay it, if you don't take it on the road.

True, but that's statistically an unlikely scenario. I.e. if you tax vehicles based on their emission output then they're unlikely to be doing too many miles (and emitting pollutants) if they're not on the road.

 

[SamTheJarvis]

The future is wooden my friends, whether you like it or not.

 

[sploo]

The future is wooden my friends, whether you like it or not.

We're all going to be driving Morgans?

 

[guineafowl21]

The second license is to to be allowed to actually drive it somewhere and is a vehicle license. It's not for the road, it's for the vehicle.

The tax is linked to a vehicle, but is only levied if it’s used or kept on public roads. You can keep a vehicle on private land and not pay road tax, because you’re not using the road.

 

[marcros]

What is the argument against adding the "road tax" to the cost of fuel, so that those doing more miles or with less efficient cars pay more, those doing few miles pay less.

There must be a downside to that approach or it would have been done but I don't know what the counter argument is.

 

[numpty1]

They already do if you buy a car with an original list price including accessories that's over £40k you have to pay additional premium of £320- pa for 5 years starting with the second taxable period.
E.g. my car was a 6 week old demonstrator with a list price of £47k, I paid well under £40k, it had to be taxed again from my purchase date which is when the premium rate started so 5 years at £320 is extra tax of £1600 which has absolutely nothing to do with emissions, If I sell it on before then the new owner pays the balance of that tax.

Doesn't this show the BBC 1 program RIP OFF BRITAIN is right. The governmrnt encourages yiu to buy a new car,then charge you for doing just that. My Peugeot combi 52 yr 2lt "eco engine" made me purchase, in 2004 Road tax £130 now 200 next likely a lot higher which will make my vehicle worthless and to add turning 80 Nov my insurance due Dec1 will sky rocket like Sheila Hancocks ( Tony's daughter).to £600+ They think you turn into a stock car racer reaching having multiple crashes charging down road at enormous speed of 30 in 30mph zone. Another lot of racketeers. The other is young drivers should have guvenors fitted so their speed is max 50 and when on motorways keeps them in nearside lane.



80.

 

[sploo]

What is the argument against adding the "road tax" to the cost of fuel, so that those doing more miles or with less efficient cars pay more, those doing few miles pay less.

There must be a downside to that approach or it would have been done but I don't know what the counter argument is.

I always accepted that would probably be the most fair solution (even when I previously used to do a large number of miles per year). That said, it would tax fuel use, but not how the fuel is used. I.e. Someone using 10 litres in an old car may be outputting significantly more pollution than 10 litres being put through a newer design.

Depends what you're trying to tax too; if the argument is that part of the tax is for maintaining roads then a motorbike probably does much less damage than a large car or HGV; even if it then burns the same amount of fuel. However, you don't have a full CAT and filters on a bike, so I suppose it probably outputs more harmful gasses than a car.

 

[thepeg]

Seems like some subjects (the truth) are verboten here

 

[sploo]

Seems like some subjects (the truth) are verboten here

Such as.... ?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Sophistry, Andy, on their part. It doesn't mean in any way that income fron Road tax/Vehicle Exicise Duty is ring fenced for road expenditure/maintenance, and it doesn't mean it'll happen. It's a sound bite - what is the connection between V.E.D and the "National Road Fund"? I think we should be told.

Most "road" related "tax" revenue comes from fuel duty £28bn pa - car tax is about £7bn pa.

£28.8 bn for the National Roads Fund seems to be the total for 5 years - ~£6bn pa. Somewhat less than the spend on HS2.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

What we have here is is a very interesting, polite discussion amongst sheep as to what the wolves will be eating for dinner. Tax is theft. It is the removal of your wealth, with the threat of violence if you don't pay. Vinnie the Knife and his maffia friends are complete amateurs compared to government and their ability to steal from the entire population, and get the population to agree to it, too.

The immediate rebuttal to this is the we need government, because who would look after all the poor, sick, hungry, homeless etc, so on and so forth. If you agree to that concept, then we can say that government is enforced charity, with the threat of violence if you don't comply.

Government's only moral role is to enforce property rights, and possibly also collective defence if you like that sort of thing. To my mind, defence doesn't include going to foreign countries and killing people just in case they were thinking of coming over "here" here and killing some of "us".