Taxed by the Mile

[Benzowner]

To tax a car on mileage could be quite easy. Buy a new car and tax paid based on mileage you claim you will do per annum. After 3 years the car goes in for first MoT and the mileage is recorded on the certificate. At that time you either pay excess if over or a refund (probably not ) if under. Then future charges will be charged at MoT time by DVLA (?) sending you a bill for mileage covered each year.

If you drive a car you do not own, lease or otherwise, they will forward the bill onto the user if appropriate.

Changing ownership the mileage will need to be recorded on the V5 before being sent to DVLA.

Seems logical, but must be reason why this cannot be used

 

[Fastcar155]

Hi , well I feel that cars should be taxed on miles driven on the road , perhaps with a few miles free per year.I would go further that each year from new each car should have an MOT , when serviced.Its not unreasonable that if a car has been serviced correctly it should pass an MOT easily.

For the first three years the MOT has an automatic pass but mileages are then recorded.

It's only a suggestion

 

[Dippo]

When I worked for a manufacturer, my mileage meant that I would normally change my car three times a year, Of course, I changed more often that because my car was often sold by our fleet department before it reached the disposal mileage. I also regularly drove cars borrowed from other manufacturers for appraisal purposes, lent my car to dealers for demonstrations, had it used for track days, photo shoots, etc etc. How would an upfront charge cope with all that - or daily rentals, car clubs, dealer demonstrators, service loan cars etc?

 

[markjay]

To tax a car on mileage could be quite easy. Buy a new car and tax paid based on mileage you claim you will do per annum. After 3 years the car goes in for first MoT and the mileage is recorded on the certificate. At that time you either pay excess if over or a refund (probably not ) if under. Then future charges will be charged at MoT time by DVLA (?) sending you a bill for mileage covered each year.

If you drive a car you do not own, lease or otherwise, they will forward the bill onto the user if appropriate.

Changing ownership the mileage will need to be recorded on the V5 before being sent to DVLA.

Seems logical, but must be reason why this cannot be used

An upfront charge won't be fair because it won't be taking into account the different circumstances.

You want to penalise people living in big cities and driving 3 miles to work every day during ruch hour instead of taking the bus, not a farmer in the West Country driving his Landie on rural roads covering many miles daily.

The charge has to be based on the car type, the location, the time of day, and the congestion level at the time. A bit like how Uber prices go up during a 'surge'.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

An upfront charge won't be fair because it won't be taking into account the different circumstances.

You want to penalise people living in big cities and driving 3 miles to work every day during ruch hour instead of taking the bus, not a farmer in the West Country driving his Landie on rural roads covering many miles daily.

The charge has to be based on the car type, the location, the time of day, and the congestion level at the time. A bit like how Uber prices go up during a 'surge'.

That’s one of the reasons why per-mile charges will be based upon use of arterial roads only. It’s where the majority of miles are covered, requires only a fraction of the infrastructure required for total coverage.

To your point it avoids penalising those in more remote areas without regular public transport, families doing the school run, and those who are unable to walk to use neighbourhood facilities, eg shops, surgery, etc.

 

[ALFAitalia]

Don't forget that EVs have to pay RFL soon anyway....not before time.

 

[Harrythedog]

The incentives were going to end sooner rather than later, the only question now is what will be the rates of increase and when will they apply ?

Welcome to my web said the spider to the fly !

 

[Big Janner]

The only really easy to tax per mile, without many of the problems highlighted, is to tax the fuel and here, we have to think like poiticians;
There are all the difficulties as discussed here, plus the politicians input;
Abolish road tax and:
- Tax electric cars on a sliding scale based on published distance capability
- Add a premium on fuel for IC vehicles . . .yes, a 3rd tax on oil based fuels
- Add a premium to all vehicles based on weight, this can be an annual charge, like road tax is now, BUT it won't be road tax, as this has been abolished.
- Add an additional amount to the above annual tax, to take into account the emissions from tyres (this will be an arbitrary amount, based on what the Gov't thinks it can get away with)
- Apply to all vehicles

You see
NOW you are thinking like politicians.
Loadsa money, no added bother, no loss of jobs . . .winner, winner

 

[Benzowner]

An upfront charge won't be fair because it won't be taking into account the different circumstances.

You want to penalise people living in big cities and driving 3 miles to work every day during ruch hour instead of taking the bus, not a farmer in the West Country driving his Landie on rural roads covering many miles daily.

The charge has to be based on the car type, the location, the time of day, and the congestion level at the time. A bit like how Uber prices go up during a 'surge'.

The only upfront charge is when the vehicle is bought new, after that it could be retrospective on the mileage between each MoT.

There is really no fair way of charging, 2 cars the same one driver does 30k miles per annum the other does 4k miles. At present both pay the same RFL, the higher mileage pays extra duty on the fuel purchases.

 

[markjay]

The only upfront charge is when the vehicle is bought new, after that it could be retrospective on the mileage between each MoT...

But this will penalise people living in remote locations, rural areas, and the countryside in general, who will typically not have many public transport alternatives... while rewarding city dwellers, who do usually have public transport alternatives, for using their private cars.

 

[Darrell]

But this will penalise people living in remote locations, rural areas, and the countryside in general, who will typically not have many public transport alternatives... while rewarding city dwellers, who do usually have public transport alternatives, for using their private cars.

This is happening already due to the ULEZ extension.
Drivers cannot afford to replace their non UKEZ compliant cars so now must rely on a bad public transport service.

 

[markjay]

This is happening already due to the ULEZ extension.
Drivers cannot afford to replace their non UKEZ compliant cars so now must rely on a bad public transport service.

But that bit only affects owners of old Diesel cars who need to travel into the ULEZ, which overall constitute a relatively small percentage of UK drivers overall, whereas a flat per-mile charge will have an adverse effect on all car owners in the UK living outside of the main cities.

 

[Big Janner]

But that bit only affects owners of old Diesel cars who need to travel into the ULEZ, which overall constitute a relatively small percentage of UK drivers overall, whereas a flat per-mile charge will have an adverse effect on all car owners in the UK living outside of the main cities.

Isn't that the point?
If you drive more miles, you pay more tax

Living in a rural area, means more miles.
Agreed.
But is that a penalty or just a case of circumstance?

Personally, I would choose to live rural, every time.
How many of those living in a rural area, would move into a city, given the choice?
I don't know, but, I bet there are many that wouldn't.

There is, unfortunately, no such thing as fair, speaking of which . . . Oyster card . . .how fair is that?

 

[markjay]

Isn't that the point?
If you drive more miles, you pay more tax

Living in a rural area, means more miles.
Agreed.
But is that a penalty or just a case of circumstance?

Personally, I would choose to live rural, every time.
How many of those living in a rural area, would move into a city, given the choice?
I don't know, but, I bet there are many that wouldn't.

There is, unfortunately, no such thing as fair, speaking of which . . . Oyster card . . .how fair is that?

The argument here is that people living in rural areas have no choice but to use their cars, due to the lack of adequate public transport network in these areas. Taxing them excessively for driving could mean that people's ability to work and earn a living is curtailed, in some cases actually confining people to their homes.

In contrast, people living in big cities are generally spoilt for choice between busses, trams, trains, taxis, Ubers, etc, with cycling or walking also being a more viable option. Those who still insist in driving their private cars because it's 'more convenient', are not in the same category as people who live in remote areas and who have to travel everywhere by car or stay at home.

The argument that simply says that those who use the roads more should pay more is devoid of any sense of social fairnes. It is essentially no different to saying that people who do not have a job and cannot afford to buy or rent a house should not have one - i.e. it's the application of simple economic logic that ignores our commitment to the more vulnerable members of society.

 

[ChipChop]

Instead of recklessly persuing enforcement to fill their bottomless coffers maybe the current breed of grifters (AKA politicans) should follow the publics lead and tighten their financial belts.

 

[markjay]

Instead of recklessly persuing enforcement to fill their bottomless coffers maybe the current breed of grifters (AKA politicans) should follow the publics lead and tighten their financial belts.

Are you a proponent of 'small government, low taxes'?

 

[ChipChop]

Are you a proponent of 'small government, low taxes'?

Generally no. More an advocate for fiscal prudence as a fundamental quality for anyone who wishes to be trusted with the publics limited funds.

 

[Big Janner]

The argument here is that people living in rural areas have no choice but to use their cars, due to the lack of adequate public transport network in these areas. Taxing them excessively for driving could mean that people's ability to work and earn a living is curtailed, in some cases actually confining people to their homes.

In contrast, people living in big cities are generally spoilt for choice between busses, trams, trains, taxis, Ubers, etc, with cycling or walking also being a more viable option. Those who still insist in driving their private cars because it's 'more convenient', are not in the same category as people who live in remote areas and who have to travel everywhere by car or stay at home.

The argument that simply says that those who use the roads more should pay more is devoid of any sense of social fairnes. It is essentially no different to saying that people who do not have a job and cannot afford to buy or rent a house should not have one - i.e. it's the application of simple economic logic that ignores our commitment to the more vulnerable members of society.

Many people living in rural areas do so voluntarily, knowing that thay will be driving to get anywhere, it's their choice.
Having made that choice, they must accept the disadantages, few though they may be.
Yes, some live in rural areas because they must and additional tax on fuel could be seen as an additional but unfair tax for them
I'm not in any position to define "excessively", so, I'll leave that to others.

Those in cities again, mainly live there by choice, knowing the benefits of urban living.
Again, I mention the Oyster Card . . . . . . .
Agreed, urban drivers and rural drivers are different catagories, but, primarily by choice, rather than necessity.

As for social fairness . . . . There is very little of any type of fairness.
We live in the real world, which is unfair, period.
We are talking taxation; care to name a fair tax?

One thing worth considering is that many of our city drivers have large gas guzzlers, which would mean they pay even more tax, which they can afford.

 

[markjay]

Many people living in rural areas do so voluntarily, knowing that thay will be driving to get anywhere, it's their choice.
Having made that choice, they must accept the disadantages...

Would you apply this principle to young women who choose to become single mothers? To alcoholics, heavy smokers, or obese people? To drug addicts? To people who became disabled through their own reckless driving? They have all voluntarily made their choices, knowing the consequences. I am not taking a view here, just pointing-out that at current our social contract is such that we simply help those who need our support, regardless of the circumstances they brought them into the situation they are in. If you want to change this, then this needs to be done across the board, not just in respect of people living in remote areas.

 

[Big Janner]

Would you apply this principle to young women who choose to become single mothers? To alcoholics, heavy smokers, or obese people? To drug addicts? To people who became disabled through their own reckless driving? They have all voluntarily made their choices, knowing the consequences. I am not taking a view here, just pointing-out that at current our social contract is such that we simply help those who need our support, regardless of the circumstances they brought them into the situation they are in. If you want to change this, then this needs to be done across the board, not just in respect of people living in remote areas.

No one is, as far as I know, planning to tax single mothers, alcoholics, heavy smokers or the obese, by the mile.
But yes, if each chose to follow their particular path, the, they must accept responsibility for their actions.

I'm not sure that you can place all those who choose to live the rural idyll in the same social bracket as single mums.
If we extend your view of our 'social contract', if we are to consider everyone living in a rural location as needing our support, then count me in.
I need social support for my chosen path in life;
Apprenticeship, precision machinist, power generation, Eng'g Sales and European Training Manager. . . . .if Mr Rich Clogs needs help because he has chosen to live in a rural pile, then I sure as hell need help living in a house in an urban area.