Road Tax Communication

freespirit1 wrote:

The powers that be are scared of putting VED on petrol because of the effect on inflation.

No, they are more scared of people beginning to question if that car journey is really necessary as VED won't be seen as a sunk cost as in I've already paid it, I might as well use it...

Oil company profits, duty on fuel and VAT on top of it all would fall quite a bit then and we can't have that now can we

ronin wrote:

I sometimes think it's probably better to just charge everyone who uses the road, just so the afore mentioned cave dwelling motorist cannot perpetuate this fallacy.

They do, most everyone pays council tax and income tax...!

Him Up North wrote:

Emissions Tax. How's that sound?

Damn,,,I emit about 5% carbon dioxide when I breathe out (~1kg/day)!
Will I be charged per breath?

This sounds another RyanAir ploy to charge you more cash for literally breathing!

petertaylor123 wrote:

Damn,,,I emit about 5% carbon dioxide when I breathe out (~1kg/day)!
Will I be charged per breath?

I've actually seen people using that argument with a straight-face: "cyclists produce carbon dioxide when they breathe"

You can try to explain the difference between CO2 in the existing carbon cycle compared to sequestered CO2 being released from fossil fuels but they just glaze over...

oozaveared wrote:

Ther road tax zombie myth is an absolute gift to cyclists in any argument with the anti cycling lobby. They bring it up and then you simply point out that there is no such thing.

I'm not so sure. It's very easy for the "there's no such thing as road tax" retort to sound like we're just being pedantic and splitting semantic hairs, which does us no favours.

You'll often get a reply along the lines of "it doesn't matter what you call it, it still pays for the roads". At which point you get dragged into more minutiae about hypothecated tax versus general taxation.

GrahamSt wrote:

You'll often get a reply along the lines of "it doesn't matter what you call it, it still pays for the roads". At which point you get dragged into more minutiae about hypothecated tax versus general taxation.

This. Irrespective of how the tax is calculated and what it is actually used for, those who are too ignorant to understand simply see it that if they don't pay the tax then they can't drive their cars (which is technically correct), therefore it is seen as a tax to use the roads. Hence the belief that cyclists not paying said "tax" means they shouldn't be on the roads.

ydrol wrote:

Without simply qualifying. in plain English, what the tax is for. and how roads are actually paid for.

This.

Call it what the hell you like, as long as motorists believe that whatever tax 'pays' for the roads and that cyclists etc. don't pay then the problem will remain.

There might be a political problem in adding the VED to fuel prices instead, since fuel prices in the UK are already relatively sky-high (due to HMG excise). The only way they could justify the hike in fuel prices is by underlining the abolishment of VED, and that would still leave the motorists thinking that they've paid for the roads.

A better approach would be a thoughtful public information exercise, perhaps infomercials during the highlights of Britain's Got Stupids. Along, perhaps, with big lettering on the VED renewal forms.

truffy wrote:

There might be a political problem in adding the VED to fuel prices instead

There might be a psychological problem as well.

The declared purpose of a CO2-based yearly payment is to nudge consumers towards the cars that produce less CO2. That only works when the payment is separate and obvious.

e.g. if you are choosing between new cars then a Band B car (paying £20 a year) seems like an obvious plus point over a Band D car (paying £110 a year).

But we're only really talking about a £90 difference. If you pushed that into petrol the impact would be lost.

GrahamSt wrote:

truffy wrote:

There might be a political problem in adding the VED to fuel prices instead

There might be a psychological problem as well.

The declared purpose of a CO2-based yearly payment is to nudge consumers towards the cars that produce less CO2. That only works when the payment is separate and obvious.

e.g. if you are choosing between new cars then a Band B car (paying £20 a year) seems like an obvious plus point over a Band D car (paying £110 a year).

But we're only really talking about a £90 difference. If you pushed that into petrol the impact would be lost.

I'd use a surcharge (basically VAT+) on the purchase price of new cars based on the current VED bands. We already provide a subsidy at purchase for electric cars, so it's an obvious counterpoint to that. Surcharge on large engines pays for the electric vehicle subsidy, an association that can be made so obvious that everyone should understand it.

That, along with a small rise in petrol duty to replace the tax disc would I believe produce more or less than same benefit, and be cheaper to collect.

GrahamSt wrote:

truffy wrote:

There might be a political problem in adding the VED to fuel prices instead

There might be a psychological problem as well.

The declared purpose of a CO2-based yearly payment is to nudge consumers towards the cars that produce less CO2. That only works when the payment is separate and obvious.

e.g. if you are choosing between new cars then a Band B car (paying £20 a year) seems like an obvious plus point over a Band D car (paying £110 a year).

But we're only really talking about a £90 difference. If you pushed that into petrol the impact would be lost.

I don't think a £90 difference has any impact what-so-ever anyway. For many, it's a week's worth of fuel, maybe two. I also don't think they associate this cost with *driving* the car really, it's more like the TV Licence, which is just one of those costs of living that come around yearly.

jacknorell wrote:

I don't think a £90 difference has any impact what-so-ever anyway.

If you look at new car advertising in magazines and showrooms the lower CO2 cars tend to make a big thing about being Band A or B, so I think it does have the desired nudge effect at purchasing time.

But yeah I agree that further down the line it becomes just another bill to pay which people no longer really link to their choice of car.

That's an issue, but putting it on petrol wouldn't solve that problem, it would just remove the initial nudge effect whilst protecting the revenue.

truffy wrote:

ydrol wrote:

Without simply qualifying. in plain English, what the tax is for. and how roads are actually paid for.

This.

Call it what the hell you like, as long as motorists believe that whatever tax 'pays' for the roads and that cyclists etc. don't pay then the problem will remain.

There isn't really a problem though. Or if so it's the same problem as believing the moon is made of green cheese. There just isn't a road tax or any hypothecated tax that motorists pay for the road. There isn't one and that's it.

I had a white van man shouting that at me once and when I pulled up level to his window I simply told him there's no such thing as road tax and unless he was way over 90 years old he had certainly never ever paid any. That roads are paid for from general taxation. That I already paid VED on my three cars but none were on the road that morning and that I almost certainly paid more income tax than he did. I did it politely. He didn't say anything.

Ther road tax zombie myth is an absolute gift to cyclists in any argument with the anti cycling lobby. They bring it up and then you simply point out that there is no such thing.

ydrol wrote:

Being pedantic about the name doesn't have any impact unless it comes from the powers that be along with a clear/obvious statement of what it covers.

This too.

A few months back, I (presumably with numerous others) brought to Mitsubishi UK's attention an inaccuracy in their TV advertising campaign for their Outlander hybrid SUV which referred to the fact that [by owning one] "paying road tax would be a thing of the past". Whilst there is a degree of unintended irony in that, the response I received stated that various advertising standards groups had considered that the colloquial use of the term "road tax" was still acceptable, and the ad still runs to this day (even more ironically, I saw it several times during ITV4's coverage of the Tour of Britain).

Essentially, all the while businesses the size of this are encouraged that the term is still valid, the myths that follow will continue to be perpetuated.