Having just renewed my car tax online I'm reminded yet again about how much the motorist is shafted by the Exchequer - and how much he/she is demonised by the Government and other slanted organisations.
I haven't bought a new car for years but, when I last did, a Special Car Tax was added to the price and then VAT was added to both the basic cost of the car and also to the Special Car Tax - what a blatant rip-off!
As to fuel costs, much the greater part of the cost of a litre of petrol (why the hell are we dealing in bloody litres for God's sake - at the whim of overpaid Brussels bureaucrats) the greater part (repeating myself) goes to the Government in tax. Why do I even have to pay a road tax at all when the Government is already milking the poor bloody motorist till he/she bleeds. Petrol in the Western Isles last summer was over £1.50 a litre and diesel about £1.55. Those of the poor bloody locals who even have jobs have to drive to and from their scattered crofts to their work at excruciating expense - but of course they are "wrong" to even be motoring at all in the eyes of some.
The most recent figures I have (some 2/3 years out of date) show that the Exchequer derived some £42 billion per year from the motorist - yet the expenditure on roads was a mere £6 billion, just one pound in seven. More recent figures are no doubt worse. The motorist is utterly shafted on all counts. The roads are inadequate, the sad death toll on the roads is too high (but actually no higher than before WW2 when there were hugely fewer vehicles on the roads), and he is just a figure who can be squeezed to the absolute limit. I strongly suspect that the senior civil servants who make recommendations to Ministers live within easy commuting distance of London, use public transport, and are spared the realities of today's motoring.
But I've just paid my Road Tax, not a fraction of which will go towards roads, and I'll continue to subscribe to the Exchequer every time I refuel my car. Why do I deserve this?
Tony (don't let's start on ecology for the moment, particularly those who live in urban areas!)
It tends to be - at least where I live, in Central London - more the rich and middle class that drive, so taxing cars seems fairly fair. At the end of the day, money for the NHS, schools, police, roads, housing, infrastructure has to come from somewhere, and at least this way it's (prodominantly) coming from those who can afford to spare the money.
Increasing tax on fuel however taxes everyone - as it also increases the cost of public transport, food, goods, - and so would be a poor way to increase revenue.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
I saw this and thought it was going to be a story.
Other than that i really cant comment, i dont know the first thing about the costs of driving.
He was no longer jean valjean but no. 24601 -les miserable
Some of life's mysteries will never be solved, such as why, after spending an entire evening listenong to Bach, do I find myself humming "the birdie song".......
I am reaching, but i fall, and the stars are black and cold, as i stare into the void of a world that cannot hold- les miserables
Insurance (3rd of of driving, 2 years no claims, third party fire and theft only.) - £500
Road tax for one year - £170
Cost to fill tank (at approx 1.37 per liter) - £40 - 50.
Talaiporia (in my ignorance, what does that actually mean?) what a telling response from someone who lives in London. Actually, the vast majority of motorists don't live in London. They live in rural or semi-rural areas and they need their cars for stuff like going to work, getting the kids to school in the morning (and collecting them later), shopping, visiting Granny to see that she's OK and a mass of other things essential to their lives. They are not criminals, they are not wealthy - they just need their own flexible transport to live their own innocent and unselfish lives. And it is grossly unfair to impose extra taxes on them just because they have the effrontery to try to use the roads to conduct their reasonable daily business.
What a privilege for you to enjoy having adequate public transport available to you. The vast majority of us have to make our own arrangements at our own expense which is then, as I've said, taxed further by the Exchequer! The Chancellor himself enjoys the privilege of Government cars to get him about his business (and he lives in London). But, out in the sticks, I don't have his clout, and I greatly resent being made to pay extra taxes for the privilege of driving on what are still inadequate roads - the badly needed improvements of which I've already paid for many times over ... and still seem to be doing!
I grew up in the country, my family (working class) have just decided that we'll have to get rid of the car when it goes wrong, as we can't afford to keep it - my mum recently suffered a head injury and can no longer work - and they will no longer be able to visit my gran, in another village. I can see both sides.
But tax has to come from somewhere. Schools, hospitals, police, roads, water, public transport, and studies show that countries with higher state involvement tend to be "happier" (whatever that means). In addition, countries like America, without an NHS, spend almost TWICE as must on care, while recieving (on average) a substandard level of care, in that many are not receiving care at the point of need. I imagine this is a simmilar story for other aspects of their infrastruture.
The vast majority of motorists don't live in London, but the vast majority of people live in cities. In fact, the combined population of NI, Scotland and Wales is only slightly larger than the population of greater London. Should we make exceptions for the (extremely small) minority (<10%) that live in non-urban areas?
Last edited by talaiporia : 19-11-2012 at 12:52 AM.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
I'm from York but live in Lincoln for uni, it is actually cheaper for me to run a car to get back to York than it would be for me to get a train! Especially as I usually take my cousin back with me so he pays half the cost of travel.
I'm a 25 year old female driver, qualified for 7 years, but have 0 no claims bonus due to not having a car from 2008 until this year. And I will still be 25 when my insurance is due next year which means the cost will go up.
But the cost for me in the same terms that Tiff has just given;
Road Tax- £170
Insurance (Fully comp)- £400! Was cheaper than 3rd party.
Filling from empty-petrol currently costs £1.32ish and my car has a 50l tank- £66 But usually I put £10 of petrol every other time I go shopping.
It costs me about £10 to get too and from York in my car- but £20+ to go by train depending on how far in advance I book, that is with a rail card.
Wow, talaiporia (whatever that actually means?). Of course the Exchequer has to raise money from somewhere to feed all our modern extravagances - but why should the poor bloody motorist be singled out? If the need is there (which it no doubt is) we should all contribute equally - repeat equally!
And how very unfair to dismiss rural areas as of no consequence on the mere basis of numbers. People living in the country have every bit as much right to be heard as those living in the cities. You cannot just dismiss them as a mere minority - what the hell sort of democracy do you want? Not all that long ago we had the dreadful Tony Banks proclaiming against fox-hunting. He got hundreds of ignorant urban Labour MPs on his side, since they felt they must cultivate the dear-little-dicky-birds TV syndrome, and passed one of the most undemocratic Acts that have ever been through Parliament. And, because foxes (which really do have to be controlled in large numbers) are now being shot to control their numbers, many more are wounded and suffer a painful and lingering death since however careful a rifle shot is, he's bound to mortally wound a few. So, however Banks produced his case to Parliament, he actually imposed more suffering on foxes than the alternative, brutal but quick, hunting solution. And much more importantly, he set ignorant urbanites against the countryside in an inexcusable way, to create animosities that will linger on for many years to come ...
What would you increase tax on instead? Food, goods, fuel, smoking, income tax, council tax? Nobody likes tax, but it is necessary for society to function in a civilised manner.
Motorists are predominantly people who can afford to be taxed. Yes, some people will suffer unfairly, but that happens with absolutely everything. Honestly, I think the systems in the UK work pretty well, certainly compared to many countries. Despite the recession, the Pound is strong, the country is afloat and functioning. Things could be so much worse.
In regards to fox hunting; it does indeed seem ludicrous that people who know very little about a subject are able to vote on it, but then again that is democracy. But foxes are still able to be hunted; just not with dogs. And I don't know about where you live, but where I grew up, people who have guns, like my dad, are very, very good at catching foxes, rabbits, always first time, without suffering.
People moan about lots of things. People moan about RYL. People want things to be perfect; that's not life. Life isn't fair, or easy. But you know, this is probably the best country in the world to live in, and I for one am pretty happy about the way things work.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
R
Insurance (Fully comp)- £400! Was cheaper than 3rd party.
*grumble* That's awesome, I am jealous! :P
But yeah, again, it's cheaper for me to travel by car than by public transport - for example, to get home from Portsmouth it's an hour and about £20 (my car is a sink hole for petrol), but by public transport it's at least 3 hours and 3 times the price.
Motorists are predominantly people who can afford to be taxed. Yes, some people will suffer unfairly, but that happens with absolutely everything. Honestly, I think the systems in the UK work pretty well, certainly compared to many countries. Despite the recession, the Pound is strong, the country is afloat and functioning. Things could be so much worse.
I disagree. I find that the government imposes higher taxes onto people who can't do anything about it (I quote student tuition fees to support my argument). I have to run a car in order to get to university, Zumba classes and appointments. That doesn't necessarily mean that I can afford it, it means that I don't have a choice. Yes, it'd be wonderful, I'm sure, if I could get the tube or walk to wherever I needed to get to and if I could, I would, as I walk if the location is close enough but to say that I can afford to pay all these taxes is a gross generalisation and is unfair to assume.
If you live in a rural area (where I live is semi urban/rural), you have to have a car because otherwise you would be completely cut off from society and a lot of the population lives in such areas where public transport simply doesn't happen. For me, if I were to get the train - and my train links are actually pretty good, considering the size of my town - I have to be prepared for changes where I wait forty minutes in the station or on two hour intervals, so I cannot expect to plan my life around such things, especially if the destination cannot be reached by train.
Yes, tax is necessary. There's no denying it and I'm not expecting everything to be handed to me on a plate. I work in a supermarket, have a student loan, take Zumba classes and may be starting a job in a garage to make ends meet and sometimes (rarely), I still have to turn to my parents, so yes, I can afford to run a car but please don't assume that that is because it's easy and the money is just there because it isn't and I am up a lot at night worrying about money and how to deal with the bills I have to pay.
In my honest opinion, the country is full of people who dictate who should pay what and when simply because they live in London (not that I have anything against people who live in London, I just find that if you do, there are better facilities and funding opportunities there) and don't have to worry about the added difficulties that living more remotely (and most places are more remote than London!) indicates. Perhaps I am bitter, especially following the tuition fee increases and my experiences of the education system/budget cuts, but I don't think that the country is run by people who know what it is like to actually live in the real world.
Reading my reply, I didn't realise I felt so strongly about all of this. Awkward...
Absolutely. Until recently we lived in a very rural area. Our nearest shop was about 4 miles away. There was a bus once an hour that went that way. Our nearest train station was only a mile away but the train only stopped there twice a day so unless you were planning a day trip you were stuck and you would have to change to get to most places.
But seriously - walking an 8 mile round trip with shopping, or trying to bring. A weeks worth of shopping for a family of 5 back by bus is just unrealistic and stupid. We needed the car. My dad actually used to cycle 10 miles to work every day because he believes in being Eco friendly and stuff, but in the country (especially if you had children or a full time job) the car was still essential for shopping, getting to the doctors, dentist, etc. and when i got a job i needed the car to get there too, going to uni i had to drive the 4 miles to the nearest station with regular trains and then got the train from there.
Farmers needed their cars or tractors to get to their fields, many feed their sheep from the back of a moving land rover - again it's impossible to walk even just a couple of miles carrying lots of bags of grain for the sheep.
Getting to college took an hour and a half by bus, or half an hour in the car. And the bus cost £4.50 a day anyway. So it was probably cheaper and quicker to drive.
Now I live in a small town, walking distance from several shops, and from a train station so I rarely use my car anymore except to go and visit family an hour away, so i could live without a car, but my boyfriend still relies on his to get to work, but living in the country the car was unfortunately essential.
I think belle is spot on. It's easy to sit in a city or even a town like where I am now (which similar to belles is still semi rural) and say you don't need a car. It's easy as a single person without a family to say you don't need a car because you can bring back enough food for one person on the bus or in saddlebag on a bike, but its harder with a family (especially bearing in mind if you are a single mum with kids you'll have to pay the bus fare for them as well if they are too young to stay home alone). If you live out in the country without a regular bus or train service (and I have friends who live even more remotely and it's a mile or two to their nearest neighbour, with no public transport links at all) then you need a car whether you can afford it or not. The government know this, and similarly to how petrol is ridiculously expensive at motorway service stations - they tax us because they know we have no choice but to pay up.
I agree with whas been said about cars. Where i live is kind of rural, but me and my brother go to college, only about 15 minutes away by car or an hour by public transport (mostly walking really, theres no bus) in annarea that conuts as a different borough, so we cant get any kind of travel discount or whatever except our student rail cards, everyone i go to college with has a bus pass but because i dont live their i dont qualify.
And mum takes loads of stuff to work, shes a teacher and she brings resources home to fix, she carts all her planning and other peoples planning back and forth and all sorts. I could pack enough clothes for a month in the bag she takes to work. She couldnt carry that very far, and it'd take her about two hours to get to work anyway.
Cars are very necessary, though luckily we dont ahev any trouble with the costs
He was no longer jean valjean but no. 24601 -les miserable
Some of life's mysteries will never be solved, such as why, after spending an entire evening listenong to Bach, do I find myself humming "the birdie song".......
I am reaching, but i fall, and the stars are black and cold, as i stare into the void of a world that cannot hold- les miserables
As someone who does not drive and who comes from a family that does not have a car, I find it quite amusing that people rely on their car for so much. My parents always managed with shopping, I always managed to walk to school, and I have gotten to know my way around public transport. I live in a semi-rural area, not central London. You know, those people who choose to live in a very rural areas managed quite well before the motor car came along. Yes it's more convenient, but it could quite easily still be viewed as a luxury.
Those who use public transport are squeezed for costs as well. Almost every time I get on a bus I see a sign detailing upcoming price increases, and the trains go up every six-twelve months. Everything gets taxed, costs of everything will increase over time. Might as well get used to it.
Are you suggesting it would have been acceptable for a 4 year old child to walk 6 miles to school each day, and 6 miles back? We did live really remotely for a while. We got around a lot by bike and when we moved nearer to the school i could and did walk there but when we lived miles away it was totally impractical and there was no bus.
Yes people managed years ago but there were more local shops years ago, my village used to have a post office, that stock bread, milk etc and a bank, and since its predominantly a farming area I assume most people were fairly self sufficient. The post office and bank have long since been closed down so there really was nothing! Mothers stayed at home so if it took an hour to get to the shop that would be fine, with most working full time now it's not practical for a trip to the shop to take two hours round trip!
I have a new car, it's about 5 months old and I really like it. I live in a small town, but work in another one about 10 miles away, and I need my car to get to and from work. Reason - there is no train station in the town I work, there is no bus service from the nearest station to the town where I work, and I also work shifts (tonight I'm starting work at 11pm), so using public transport isn't an option.
I also work some times 50-60 hours a week, get paid quite a bit, but the majority of my salary (in percentage terms) goes on my car, road tax, fuel tax, and don't forget tax on the insurance as well. And now, recently, we've just got shafted again since the government have voted to increase fuel duty in the new year by another 3 pence.
In October 2011 the cost of a litre of diesel was as follows -
51.1p for the actual fuel
58p for the duty
23.1p for VAT
1.5p for the cost of refining
4.7p retailer markup
So basically I pay duty to the government on the fuel, then have the privilege to be taxed on that duty, which also goes to the government. (figures from BBC website published 08/11/2011). So, duty will be increased by 3p, which also means the VAT figure will be increased because it's a percentage of the cost.
Lovely.
And I know what some people are going to say - you've got a new car so you must be loaded etc. etc. I actually had no choice in buying a new one, I'd driven my old one into the ground and to repair it would cost more that it was worth. I used it as a deposit for the new one, and only managed to do that because the one I have now is a model not made any more and the garage wanted to get rid of it. (and it's very nice too, which helps!)
You don't have to be a monkey to recognize a banana!
It takes me near enough 2 hours to get to work by public transport/walking. My partner does the same journey in 20 minutes because he is driving and although it costs more than the £4 (for a single trip), I would rather arrive at work not tired or cold like I do on public transport.
You can't lose hope when it's hopeless.
You gotta hope more,
then put your fingers in your ears and go,
"Blah blah blah blah!"
But I've just paid my Road Tax, not a fraction of which will go towards roads
Just to point out, road tax doesn't exist In fact it was abolished in 1937. Furthermore the ring fence surrounding taxes on cars and spending on the roads was removed by Winston Churchill in 1926 who was then chancellor of the exchequer. The proceeds from VED all go into the consolidated fund along with everything else such as income tax, VAT, etc where everything is then redistributed as necessary. There hasn't been any direct link between what you call 'road tax' and spending on the upkeep of the roads for over 75 years.
Everyone funds the upkeep of the roads through general and local taxation even those who don't own a motor vehicle.
It just makes motorists look silly when they get in a huff about road tax given it's been over three quarters of a century since it was axed.
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 fact it was abolished in 1937. Furthermore the ring fence surrounding taxes on cars and spending on the roads was removed by Winston Churchill in 1926 who was then chancellor of the exchequer. The proceeds from VED all go into the consolidated fund along with everything else such as income tax, VAT, etc where everything is then redistributed as necessary. There hasn't been any direct link between what you call 'road tax' and spending on the upkeep of the roads for over 75 years.