Car tax evasion triples after paper version scrapped

[Deleted member 6183]

I can't agree with the old or the new system. I have 9 cars & car tax is a pain in the butt. Tax on fuel is the perfect proportionate tax. Also gives a good benefit to EV etc. giving zero car tax as most are now anyway.

Abolish car tax & put it on fuel saves millions as there would be so much less resource needed at the DVLA. I've been saying it for years & many others have too. Scrap it all, tax fuel job done.

Man with 9 cars wishes tax was on fuel rather than each car.

Never saw that one coming!

 

[rockits]

I never have all cars taxed & only tax any I will use for that month so SORN the others.

I'm happy to pay what I pay now it is just an admin headache. Not just for me but for the DVLA as well. The DVLA make mistakes & take payments when they shouldn't do I have to get them to credit back.

If I was paying 9 x Car Tax I want 9 x better roads!

I agree cars could be left on roads but I'm sure between us we can work out a solution & resolve that little issue easily enough.

 

[rockits]

Plus it will also affect lorries, meaning a rise in freight and haulage costs and a rise in food and clothing prices for the consumer....

I understand freight costs might go up but why are we protecting the biggest polluters?

I read an article a few years back detailing global Co2 emission contributors. Not sure if the current figures are the same but from memory it was:
Shipping 40%
Aviation 17%
Motor Vehicles 1%

So removing all motor vehicle emissions would reduce global emissions by 1%! Surely shipping & aviation should be focussed on & targeted first as they account for over half of all global emissions on their own.

 

[markjay]

I understand freight costs might go up but why are we protecting the biggest polluters?

I read an article a few years back detailing global Co2 emission contributors. Not sure if the current figures are the same but from memory it was:
Shipping 40%
Aviation 17%
Motor Vehicles 1%

So removing all motor vehicle emissions would reduce global emissions by 1%! Surely shipping & aviation should be focussed on & targeted first as they account for over half of all global emissions on their own.

Greenhouse gasses and pollution are two different types of emissions.

CO2 in itself does not affect air quality or cause any health issues. The drive to reduce CO2 emissions stems simply from governments' attempt to meet CO2 emissions targets, but it is not related to air quality or disease.

The Diesel saga is a good example, encouraging Diesel reduced CO2 emissions but had the undesirable side-effect of increasing pollution and reducing air quality in city centres.

The point you are making is valid in that it suggests that governments should perhaps drop the idea that cars should be taxed by CO2 emissions as this will not help them achieve their CO2 targets anyway and it is killing us in the process, and that they should tax vehicles simply by pollution levels instead.

As for EVs... the idea that pure-EVs generate zero emissions at the point of consumption and should therefore not be taxed is great but only as long as very few people actually drive pure-EVs. As soon as EV's become commonplace, they will have to be taxed like any other car. Firstly, because HMRC will not be able to simply give-up the revenue from VED, but also because they will no longer be a need to 'encourage' more drivers into buying pure-EV once the majority of cars on the roads are already pure-EVs anyway.

 

[rockits]

I agree. There isn't an easy answer but some of the decisions being made are very poor at best.

There is no real long term strategy or planning. You get the feeling they really have no idea what they are doing and that breeds little confidence.

The answer isn't always to tax the sh1t out of something to stop people doing something. Sometimes it needs a bit more clever, strategic thinking & better decisions for the future as well as today. There are some seemingly fantastic academic/clever minds working on things but they are not coming up with seemingly good ideas or decisions. Maybe we should get more non-academics in the govt. allowing much more common sense attitudes & thinking.

 

[Markssl]

They do recover some of the unpaid tax from us.
I just bought another car and sold my other one, both privately. Both transactions done early this month. Therefore I have paid two lots of tax on both cars for November and so has the seller/buyer. It’s about time they did tax on daily basis!! How hard could it be!!!

In Switzerland you have to pay an annual motorway charge. For about 60euros. They go me going over the border. A simple sticker that goes on windscreen with the year on it. Suggest we do the same for all foreign drivers coming in to the UK. That would help!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[grimree]

Have you seen the VEL cost for an HGV?

Plus it will also affect lorries, meaning a rise in freight and haulage costs and a rise in food and clothing prices for the consumer....

 

[Scott_F]

That's like saying don't increase the sentences for robbery, because they will will just buy better getaway cars??
Please explain.

Or "don't increase car security as it will only lead to an increase in burglaries and assaults for car keys".

Oh wait, hang on.......

 

[Fudger]

I have an idea, scrap every tax except VAT. That way, everyone pays on a usage basis. In fact, I'll do Philip Hammond's next budget speech; piece of pee

 

[Scott_F]

Paying tax through fuel does have a flaw, you could then leave a car parked up on the road for months or years and not be prosecuted/ fined. Roads are crowded enough without abandoned cars left rotting away

There is at least one other obvious flaw.

Any increase in fuel prices is highy emotive and quickly gets people very worked up. Even if it was partially offset by scrapping VED, people would soon forget that they no longer have to pay a large sum once or twice a year, would focus instead on the price that they pay every time they fill up and would complain bitterly that fuel prices have never been higher.

As the fuel protests in 2000 showed, any significant hike in petrol and diesel prices would be an extremely difficult sell and the next general election is never that far away.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

As I see it the biggest flaws with the “new” system are -

1. As alluded to earlier, people now find it easier to SORN a vehicle whereas before people would just let the tax run.

2. This “new keeper needs to tax the car” when a car is sold is the biggest waste of time I’ve ever heard; tax should follow the old arrangement of six month or twelve month and once someone’s paid the fee it should stay with the car until it runs out, regardless of who owns it. Then add in the admin of refunding part payments of the road tax and it just sounds a mess.

3. Relates strongly to point 2; allowing people to tax their cars on a monthly basis by direct debit must cost a lot of money in back of shop admin; only take payments of a block of six or twelve months.

Overall though, the whole affair shows how woeful government departments are when having to take into account admin costs etc and the people who work in these departments would really struggle in the private sector where, if you don’t make a streamlined business, you go bust! But it’s ok when we’re picking up the bill!

 

[Dippo]

Abolishing VED and imposing a corresponding increase on fuel tax would have more of an impact on those in rural areas, and less on those living in the inner cities.

Now imagine which political party each of those groups is more likely to vote for.

 

[rockits]

Does anyone know the actual cost that it costs to operate the current scheme?

It is likely millions but how many? The cost savings effectively mean an increase in revenues. The current scheme just seems a very expensive way in admin resources to operate.

Surely a toll system or tax system based on fuel is the best option with some small tweaks. The more you use the more you pollute the more you pay. I'm saying this with 5 x V8's and a 3.2 V6 amongst others.

I currently pay about 2-2.5k per year on car tax to do approx 12-15k miles per year for both myself & my wife total. If there was a system of paying for car tax on all vehicles all the time it would be circa 3-3.5k per year which would seem a little ridiculous per mile.

My love of cars is getting much harder & much more expensive to support although I don't do that many miles. Anyone got any good ideas or answers? Other than selling them all & having one car each that in turn reduces DVLA revenues by about 1750 quid a year just me alone.

 

[Martin 1]

Replacing the RFL with a fuel tax, thus paying for usage, would be the logical way to go, the problem for us, is that it wouldn't become a simple swap, the costs would rise, and we would have three separate taxes on fuel, not just two, we are a soft target, and you know what bulleys do to soft targets !

 

[Martin 1]

To be honest rockits, your post doesn't engender much sympathy !

 

[rockits]

To be honest rockits, your post doesn't engender much sympathy !

How so? I guess I would be better off working less hard, less hours, less responsibility & giving less of a care about anything or anyone which seems to be the common way these days.

We don't really have holidays & we sacrifice a great deal. We are not rich & have been given nothing so not priveledged in any way.

Just saying the current system is flawed & expensive to run.

What is your suggestion on how it should be done out of interest?

 

[TheFoX]

I cannot understand how the can state that they are losing money. The only way they could lose money is if the cost of administering tax collection cost more than collecting the tax.

Essentially, car tax or VED is like P.A.Y.E. If you earn money, you pay a portion to the state. If you don't earn, you don't pay. Tax is given freely or otherwise to a central body. There is no exchange of services or goods. We simply pay over a portion of what we earn to the state. We pay when we earn, and we pay when we spend.

So, how can anybody state that they are losing money? They are simply not collecting all that is due under the rules they are supposed to enforce. After all, how much money is the state losing to legitimate tax avoidance schemes? None. How much money is the state failing to collect from legitimate tax avoidance schemes? That is debatable, as the tax avoidance scheme essentially means that no tax is liable, even if we do feel that it is unfair to the rest of us that some wealthy people pay less towards services than the rest of us.

Our tax system is flawed when someone worthy millions of pounds can claim Tax Credits because, on paper, they have no earnings.

Maybe the tax system should be simplified rather than made more complex.

 

[leef44]

How so? I guess I would be better off working less hard, less hours, less responsibility & giving less of a care about anything or anyone which seems to be the common way these days.

We don't really have holidays & we sacrifice a great deal. We are not rich & have been given nothing so not priveledged in any way.

Just saying the current system is flawed & expensive to run.

What is your suggestion on how it should be done out of interest?

I would tend to agree with you. The more cars you buy, the better it is for the UK economy. The less you spend on overseas holidays, the less you are exporting and thus reducing the trade deficit. The more cars you maintain, the less they get scrapped and is better for the environment.

Maybe I'm biased. I'm not a high earner, I don't go on holidays abroad, I save my money to spend on cars. I only have two, but I only do 4k miles a year since I walk to work. But I do love cars.

 

[rockits]

Thanks for the support. Seems we are a little in the minority. I agree with your points as well. The jury is very much out on if keeping some older cars on the planet for longer as being better for the environment in comparison to producing new cars all the time with all the new raw materials & resources it takes to do so. Over consumption is not healthy.

It would be interesting to know the data on how many miles an old car would you be able to do in comparison to the impact on the environment a new car would use in comparison. It wouldn't surprise me that my 4.4 V8 petrol XC90 could do another 200,000 miles on top of the existing 200,000 to the same cost to the environment as 1 mile in a new car. I have no idea but would be very interested to see the data to understand this.

Myself & my wife can only drive a maximum of 2 cars at any given time so to have 4 or 5 cars taxed at any given time is a little harsh. It is my sons 10th birthday today and yesterday as a treat I picked him and 2 of his mates up from school in the 4200. It was SORN so I had to tax it for a month. It is unlikely I will drive again for the rest of the month so that 3-4 mile journey cost £46.81 in car tax. As always only one winner.

Mayber tax or insurance done on the person and not so much the car.

 

[leef44]

Also the more well maintained a car is kept, then the less polluting it is, compared to the same car not maintained so well