Rhuben, you're quite possibly right about my misuse of the term Road Tax (mea culpa) but that is actually a quibble.
You say that everyone funds the upkeep of roads out of general taxation. No they bloody well don't! In practical terms the motorist does, to the tune of some 700% more than is actually spent on the roads and those motorists therefore have a valid right to complain about the inadequacy of the roads. And tell me just why the motorist should be singled out for this burden of extra taxation? Because they're all rich? Rubbish, we've already seen on this thread how necessary running a car is to many people's lives and how, particularly, the cost of motoring hits those who live in the country hardest.
For my money (what's left of it after running a car!) I would like to see a study carried out to determine what would be the effect on GDP if the Chancellor were to ratchet down fuel duty gradually over perhaps ten years until UK had the cheapest fuel in Europe. I like to think that it would provide a massive boost for the economy and give us something of a head start on the rest of the EU - but of course I'm not qualified to guarantee that.
However, I do remain in a fully justified huff about the extra tax (or whatever pedants choose to call it) which I have to pay just to run my daily life using four wheels.
Rhuben, you're quite possibly right about my misuse of the term Road Tax (mea culpa) but that is actually a quibble.
You say that everyone funds the upkeep of roads out of general taxation. No they bloody well don't! In practical terms the motorist does, to the tune of some 700% more than is actually spent on the roads and those motorists therefore have a valid right to complain about the inadequacy of the roads. And tell me just why the motorist should be singled out for this burden of extra taxation? Because they're all rich? Rubbish, we've already seen on this thread how necessary running a car is to many people's lives and how, particularly, the cost of motoring hits those who live in the country hardest.
For my money (what's left of it after running a car!) I would like to see a study carried out to determine what would be the effect on GDP if the Chancellor were to ratchet down fuel duty gradually over perhaps ten years until UK had the cheapest fuel in Europe. I like to think that it would provide a massive boost for the economy and give us something of a head start on the rest of the EU - but of course I'm not qualified to guarantee that.
However, I do remain in a fully justified huff about the extra tax (or whatever pedants choose to call it) which I have to pay just to run my daily life using four wheels.
Tony (I much look forward to your reply).
As I've already stated motorists are not directly funding the roads through taxation on petrol, VED, etc. Everyone pays for them because all taxes go into the central government fund. There is no distinction made between that which is collected from tax on petrol and that which is collected from taxing peoples earnings or what they spend on clothes and food.
Tax on things like petrol is also spent on education, social security, healthcare, policing, the military, etc. Therefore reducing the tax on petrol would leave a black hole in the governments budget widening the budget gap and increasing the reliance on dangerous levels of borrowing. Which would ultimately mean having to hike taxes in other areas such as VAT or income tax which people would also be equally liable to moan about. Like or lump it we have debts which have to be repaid, the annual interest repayments on Britain's debt pile is around £43 billion and still increasing. Therefore cutting taxes simply isn't feasible in the current economic climate. Even with efficiency savings and cuts across most government departments Britain's deficit is still expected to remain fairly large for the next several years, therefore taxes are going to have to remain as they are or possibly increase.
I'm a motorist myself so I know how expensive owning a car is. However my opinion is that many motorists simply have a victim complex if they think they're unfairly targeted. Tax is expensive for everyone not just for motorists, there's tax on food, earnings, clothing, buying a house, selling a house, inheritance, insurance, furniture, cosmetics, etc. Everyone is burdened by taxes, the same is true in most countries. However if we want things like policing, the military, and everything else which our taxes fund then it is something we simply have to put up with. Cutting taxes on motoring means having to hike them elsewhere, it's a no win situation.
As the old saying goes "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes".
In any case the option exists for many motorists to reduce the burden of taxation by using alternative means should they so wish. If one drives a dirty inefficient monster of a car which gets less than 25 mpg and belches out pollution like a Chinese coal mine then yes you're going to be using more fuel and paying more VED. If however you use a modern efficient petrol or diesel which achieves a high mpg along with very low emissions you wont pay any VED and furthermore you'll be spending less on fuel on account of the increase in efficiency. That's the choice I made, I recently purchased a new car and made the choice to purchase a modern efficient petrol model with low emissions and a very high mpg I am now exempt from VED and my spending on fuel has also decreased significantly compared to my old car which only got 30 mpg. People can change their habits and find a way to make savings however most simply don't want to.
Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money.
They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.
Some men just want to watch the world burn.
In any case the option exists for many motorists to reduce the burden of taxation by using alternative means should they so wish. If one drives a dirty inefficient monster of a car which gets less than 25 mpg and belches out pollution like a Chinese coal mine then yes you're going to be using more fuel and paying more VED. If however you use a modern efficient petrol or diesel which achieves a high mpg along with very low emissions you wont pay any VED and furthermore you'll be spending less on fuel on account of the increase in efficiency. That's the choice I made, I recently purchased a new car and made the choice to purchase a modern efficient petrol model with low emissions and a very high mpg I am now exempt from VED and my spending on fuel has also decreased significantly compared to my old car which only got 30 mpg. People can change their habits and find a way to make savings however most simply don't want to.
I did that - changed my old pick up truck for a new fuel efficient saloon car that gets twice, some times three times the mileage than the old one. But I do miss the truck. I don't actually know what the vehicle excise licence (to give it it's legal name - road tax disc to most (and me!)) is going to be on the new one, it was paid by the garage. I'm hoping it'll be smaller than the last one!
But I was in the situation where I have a job that pays me enough to do that. I paid for the truck in full when I bought it so the only costs I had monthly were insurance and fuel, now I pay a large amount for the car, then fuel, and insurance. Some people may not be in the position to change an old junker of a Chinese coal mine (made me chuckle that one!) to a more modern vehicle though.
You don't have to be a monkey to recognize a banana!
Thanks, Rhuben for your comprehensive and logical reply, much of which I have to accept. But what is much more difficult to accept is that, if the government has to pay for everything out of its central taxation "pot" - which of course it does - why is the motorist singled out to make an extra contribution to that pot, over and above the contribution made by the non-motoring citizen.
Of course everything has to be paid for and we must as a nation get our financial house in order (a difficult and frightening prospect) but why should one section of the population have to pay more than the rest just because they use the roads. Cyclists use the roads, so do pedestrians, and if the motorist is contributing annually seven times what is actually spent on the roads, then it can fairly be said that those other users are getting a free ride at the motorist's expense. And so are all those other citizens who would otherwise have to contribute more to policing, health, education and so on.
I entirely agree that the books have to be balanced (and the sooner the better) but doing so should involve everybody, which while it would almost certainly involve a small rise in income tax, would actually be very much fairer.
As to your personal solution to reducing motoring costs, this is not available to every motorist, primarily because of the cost of making the change you suggest. In many people's cases such a change would involve laying out a sum of money which, even if they could afford it in the first place, would pay for their fuel for several years to come. I run a medium/large 4x4 for reasons which I can justify, but won't trouble you with here, and I estimate it would cost me at least £15K to make the sort of change you suggest - money which will instead buy fuel to keep me going, and which I won't have to lay out all at once.
To conclude: of course the Chancellor has to balance the books, and roads and everything else have to be paid for. But to pick on the motorist to make up a significant part of central funds is grossly unfair, particularly when so many in rural areas are dependent on their wheels both for work and for other legitimate purposes.
Tony (who wouldn't mind paying an extra penny on income tax if necessary, having in the past - as already said elsewhere on the site - paid 83% on the top slice. 50% or 45% - peanuts!).
why is the motorist singled out to make an extra contribution to that pot, over and above the contribution made by the non-motoring citizen.
Why should the smoker or alcohol-drinker? Why should those who choose to send their child to private school, or pay for private health care have to pay to fund the state's versions? EVERYONE gets taxed.
Yes, The One Who, everyone gets taxed - but the motorist gets taxed much more, which is hardly fair if he has little choice but to run a car. The tax on tobacco and alcohol is not a fair comparison since those who smoke or drink are not obliged to do so; many motorists have no other realistic alternative.
And don't start me on how much the state owes me for not obliging it to educate my sons!
Everything gets taxed, but I think, regardless what car you drive there should be a flat rate of tax. If it costs me £30 a year on my hatchback, it should cost my brothers the same regardless of the size of their car. Toll roads/bridges, CONGESTION CHARGE, parking fines, speeding tickets, and other "pay to pass" fees generate enough money for road maintenance- not that any of the money from road fines and road tax combined are even being used where it should (I know plenty of roads that are in desperate need of repaving).
We underestimate how driving is a necessity for many people. My neighbour is disabled, has regular trips to the hospital, public transport is both uncomfortable for her and not something she could use on her own (she only has use of her arms). Taxis would cost her more than she can afford, and the hospital will only pay for on site parking and travel for those who live within a certain radius and that's only to the hospital not if she needed to go to a different surgery or clinic. She has no choice but to get around in a car.
Taxing motorists has become far too much especially when you put it into perspective for the average person, for example. My brother gets taxed almost half his wages, he then pays almost £150 a month x10 months a yr for council tax, road tax, insurance, his mortgage, bills (which include tax)... so on and so forth. It's ridiculous. How he has any money left over (which I'm sure he doesn't) is beyond me.
Personally, I would like to see tax on alcohol go up a bit. I drink (maybe 2 or 3 nights a month, up to a max of around 8 units/3 pints a time) myself, but I do think of alcohol as very much a luxury item. Of course, it's a vote-loser, so it's unlikely to happen. Cigarettes I think are already taxed enough (almost 80%) - yes, I'm a smoker, but I don't often buy cigarettes in the UK, I bring tobacco back from the Netherlands when I go and make it last until my next trip. The UK has made smoking tobacco bought here unaffordable for me, so they're losing out on the tax I would pay if it were cheaper.
With regards to motoring, I do think that motorists are unfairly hit. I don't drive - couldn't even afford lessons, let alone anything else. I pay almost £60 for a monthly bus ticket, which is just over 15% of what I earn. Bus prices have gone up 3 times in the last 18 months here, which I haven't been pleased about but at least we have decent, regular services right now. Next year the Welsh assembly are massively reducing their subsidies on public transport though - while insisting that OAPs retain their free bus passes. On the busses I use, I'd say roughly 7 out of 10 people (as a modest estimate) on it are not paying for the service. So in the worst case scenario, if our services are drastically cut, I will be out of a job, because I won't be able to get there.
And the illusion of love is the only promise of defence, and even that will crumble.
Infinity, I'm glad to see the case you put for many people being positively obliged to run or use cars. That is undoubtedly true, especially in rural areas which someone, unkindly, earlier in this thread, dismissed as being of no significance. And it emphasises the unfairness of the present tax system, which weighs not only against the motorist in general but, particularly, against the rural driver.
Of course the books have to be balanced and the Chancellor has to get things right, but surely not at the expense of unduly hammering the motorist ...
As to the cost of car insurance, one of the very few advantages of ageing is that one doesn't get hit quite so badly by the exorbitant cost of insurance. The insurance companies understandably regard young drivers as an excessive risk - caused I think mainly by the high accident rate of young male testosterone/alcohol/drug driven drivers. But that is irrelevant to the question of government tax (though I'm struck by the intensive advertising on Sky TV for motor insurance, no doubt driven by the huge profits to be made).
Tony
PS. Having once learned a fair amount of colloquial Arabic, but sadly none of the written which can be highly artistic, just what does the quote beneath your posts actually mean?
I'm another who would like to see taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, fast food/ready meals even fizzy drinks go up, if it meant that driving costs went down (and fruit/veg was cheap)
I like a drink, and will have a drink maybe 3 or 4 nights a week, although usually just one. I also like a takeaway every so often. But I'm under no illusion that these aren't luxuries and I can do without them if money is tight.
I completely sympathise with people living in rural areas, city-goers are quite quick to dismiss because they have the luxury of convenience. I too once lived in a village, sort of on the outskirts of Hampshire. We had only managed to get broadband as of 2005, and it wasn't long before that that we only started getting Gas, I kid you not. So imagine what life would be like if we didn't have cars? Buses would come by every hour and half (which really means when they felt like it) very slowly as most of our country roads only had one, completely unlit, lane. That'd take you into the nearest town, from there you'd have to catch another two or three buses depending on where you need to go. There was a local joke, about how it would be much faster for injured person to drive themselves to hospital than to call an ambulance. Lol. So the necessity here in the country is very genuine.
And in my opinion there are more than enough places where the Chancellor can make up the difference (as mentioned before from tolls, charges and colossal amounts of fines place on drivers nowadays).. Or even Starbucks if he was so very desperate. And I don't agree with the whole "We need to tax motorists stupid amounts to maintain roads" at all. I'd buy it if roads were being built and maintained, but once you look around you'll see they're really not.
Insurance is something I know, I'll just have to behave and grow up for, there's not much else I can do to make it any cheaper, but at least it's not the government screwing me over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley's Dad
PS. Having once learned a fair amount of colloquial Arabic, but sadly none of the written which can be highly artistic, just what does the quote beneath your posts actually mean?
This is Qur'anic arabic. My boyfriend's father passed away last week. And I was very close to him. So the arabic in my sig means: "To Him we belong and to Him we return". It is something one says when sadness or a calamity befalls them, to remind oneself, that life is temporary, but extremely precious.
Kind of like the notion of stewardship, to make the most of our lives and look after the world, as we are on loan to ourselves from God, and there is solace knowing that we return to him... It just makes me feel more at peace knowing my boyfriend's Dad is in a better place and that we'll one day see him again.
Just realised I totally over-answered that one^ lol. Sorry.
A last word on this thread: I see reported today that the Chancellor is reputedly considering not enforcing the 3p rise per litre on petrol/diesel which was apparently planned for later this year. I should bloody-well hope so, having been paying £1.55 a litre for diesel in the Hebrides earlier this year.
At risk of repeating myself, the motorist is burdened with an unfair proportion of tax since he is subsidising the central tax "pot", from which non-motorists are spared, and this hits those who live in the country and are obliged to use their cars, hardest.
Long ago, I worked in the Cabinet Office and, very occasionally, I had cause to use Government armoured Jaguars, which weighed about 2 1/2 tons and, in London traffic, probably did very much less than 10 mpg. But Ministers who use these vehicles at no personal cost, sit in their comfortable London environment and impose crippling extra taxes on the poor unfortunate people who live in the country.
Motoring is not a crime. It is a necessity for many people and the Government should surely recognise it in terms of taxation ...
But Ministers who use these vehicles at no personal cost, sit in their comfortable London environment and impose crippling extra taxes on the poor unfortunate people who live in the country.
People who live in the country mostly choose to live in the country. Higher costs on almost everything are part of country living.
People who live in the country mostly choose to live in the country. Higher costs on almost everything are part of country living.
oh reaaaallly,
when i was ten years old after years of living away from their families my parents moved to deepest darkest dorset as thats where my mums family live. yes 6 years ago i moved away to a more urban area but i had a breakdown and needed to be near our families so now i live back in dorset where i have support, and i now have a job where i have to borrow my mums car to travel to work which is literally surrounded by fields and has no public transport access at all.
so basically yes i guess it is a choice, if i wanted to have reached the point where i killed myself due to the isolation of living away from my loved ones. my parents had the choice of living in a more urban area away from their families and loved ones.
when i was ten years old after years of living away from their families my parents moved to deepest darkest dorset as thats where my mums family live. yes 6 years ago i moved away to a more urban area but i had a breakdown and needed to be near our families so now i live back in dorset where i have support, and i now have a job where i have to borrow my mums car to travel to work which is literally surrounded by fields and has no public transport access at all.
so basically yes i guess it is a choice, if i wanted to have reached the point where i killed myself due to the isolation of living away from my loved ones. my parents had the choice of living in a more urban area away from their families and loved ones.
but should i have to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One Who
People who live in the country mostly choose to live in the country. Higher costs on almost everything are part of country living.
Not true - when I lived in the country (which was my parents choice) the vast majority of people who live there are farmers, with farms often handed down through generations. Yes they could leave, but the farm is their livelihood and their home.
A friend of mine in Yorkshire lives on a farm where his nearest neighbour is over a mile away. The farms been in the family for 5 generations and although these days they don't keep as many sheep as they used to, and rent out a lot of their land, they love the farm and don't want to lose it. They need the Land rover to get out and feed the sheep, and to get to the nearest shop half an hour away, especially if the weather is bad.
i still don't think its true, its where peoples homes are most of the ime, where their families are from where they have spent most of their lives, SOME people choose to live in the countryside but a lot of the people i know live where they have grown up, where their parents grew up etc
