VED rip off

[Dave48]

Was just checking the rate of duty for my 700 Tracer on the DVLA website and I see that bikes over 600cc are rated at £85 per annum (or more if you pay half yearly or by instalments).
Now I run a small car a Fiat Panda Pop 1.2 with an emissions figure of 119gms C02/km. This is the latest version of the car with the Euro 6 compliant engine & the VED is £30 per annum.
This got me looking at the V5c for the Tracer and I see it doesnt state a C02 figure but seeing as its a 2016 model with fuel injection,catalytic converter etc and with better fuel consumption than the Panda (DVLA quote 54.5mpg for the car), regularly returning 65plus mpg I wonder why bikes are penalised so?


This wasnt the end of this story as I then looked at the VED rates for new cars first registered April 2017 onwards and it appears they have new criteria for calculating duty rates which mean that the motorist once again is going to be mugged by the govt.


There are several different tables for VED based on age of vehicle(date 1st registered) and I accept that older vehicles are going to be more polluting than new ones but there is no fairness in the present system and I assume that they tax us motorcyclists on the basis that they see us as hobby riders or leisure pursuers not as a class of road user that actually helps reduce pollution & congestion.


And finally why all this emphasis on C02 emissions? In my opinion diesel particulates represent a far more immediate & significant threat to our health & well being but of course diesel was "sold" to Joe Public as the way forward a few years ago and now we have 50% of cars diesel powered, many of these being used for short stop-start journeys rather than for their intended purpose-long distance travel.
Crazy world isnt it?

[Dudeofrude]

To be honest I don't mind £80 A year for the bike given that to tax a car of the equivalent performance you'd probably be looking around £400 A year. i don't agree with the random engine size thing but heyday least it's a two their system and not like the car one.
Also I wouldn't pull at the thread of motorbikes and co2 emissions as a study i read a year or two back proved that bikes are much more harmful to your health due to another more dangerous gas that comes out of them. I cant remember off the top of my head but some sort of nitrate or something that's far worse than carbon monoxide, either way if the government actually looked into it and started taxing people based on how dangerous the toxins in their exhaust gases are, us motorcyclists would be screwed

[Hugh Mungus]

I agree with the 'Don't rock the boat' theory.
We might be able to gain a few quid saving but on the other hand it could go the other way and if they start basing bike tax on emissions then the MOT will have an emissions test just like cars. I certainly don't want that.


I've got a car that was tax free for the first year and then £30 a year afterwards. It's not guaranteed to remain at that rate forever though. My other car was £145 a year but that is far better than my old Vivaro van which cost a fortune. Some of the rates are strange and if you're buying a car then it's best to check first.


Bearing in mind that the tax for a 125 is £18 a year the government could class any bike over 500cc as a 'sports/luxury' vehicle and increase the tax like they're planning to do for expensive cars (I don't know if this plan is in yet or whether they were just talking about it). Maybe best to bite our tongues on this one.

[YamFazFan]

And of course everything made prior to Jan 1st 1977 is VED exempt. Free.

That includes, amongst others, the Kawasaki H2 750 two-stroke

If the rolling 40 year exemption policy continues, the first Fazers should be VED free in 2038

[BBROWN1664]

just do away with VED and increase the cost of fuel. That way, the more uneconomic vehicles (ie the ones that pollute the most) will pay the most and those of us that have several vehicles will only pay for what we use.

Transport companies would be able to claim back the additional costs and not inconvinence them either.

[Hugh Mungus]

I know that seems to be the way to go as it keeps costs relative to your own use but a 1 pence rate of duty per litre would cost us an absolute bomb per year - I can't imagine it would be any less.

[tommyardin]

just do away with VED and increase the cost of fuel. That way, the more uneconomic vehicles (ie the ones that pollute the most) will pay the most and those of us that have several vehicles will only pay for what we use.

Transport companies would be able to claim back the additional costs and not inconvinence them either.

Not so sure I want eight quid a gallon to cut my lawn and hedges. 

[bludclot]

I accept that older vehicles are going to be more polluting than new ones

Not necessarily so. 60% of all vehicle lifetime emissions are during manufacture. 30% are during decommission. Of the remaining 10% there is what comes from the exhaust but also heat pollution, noise pollution, brake pad pollution, used fluids and other repairs and service items / consumables etc.


Also bear in mind that when cold catalytic converters don't really work. And a modern ECU will pretty much forgo any environmental considerations when foot to the floor performance is asked for. Actual fuel energy performance extraction has changed little in recent decades. So all in all it can be argued that it's less environmentally damaging to run an older vehicle rather than buy new, particularly if that older vehicle is cared for carefully and driven considerately.


VED rates (in my opinion) are not set to encourage environmentally friendly travel as opposed to new vehicle purchase. Sadly and as ever, it's all about money, not the environment. Mr. and Mrs. average feel good spending tens of thousands and having 'eco' written on the back and not seeing exhaust smoke. Instead it's already smoked for them at the factory.

[Dave48]

Thanks for all your thoughts,guys.
My thinking now is along the lines suggested of "pay for the fuel". Accepting that the real cost of IC engines is substantially more than the showroom price but has to include manufacture,distribution,service & consumables over life of vehicle, effects on environment in terms of pollution, whether atmospheric,noise,etc add in costs resulting from RTCs and the REAL costs are astronomical. So, accepting that we value personal mobility so highly, why not abolish the unfair VED system altogether & simply put the tax on fuel? The more you drive the more you pay. Not sure how you arrive at the £8 per gallon Tommy! If fuel did become that expensive and it may well do in the near future with increased global demand coupled with diminishing supplies then we may all be seriously looking at how we move about.(Hence the Honda C90 in the shed! )

[YamFazFan]

I know that seems to be the way to go as it keeps costs relative to your own use but a 1 pence rate of duty per litre would cost us an absolute bomb per year - I can't imagine it would be any less.

Neither can I.

I'd be quids in at just 1p a litre!. Both car and bikes.

10,000 litres of fuel would still only accrue £100 of VED at that rate.

I bet it would be set at a much higher rate than that

[Fazerider]

I’ve always preferred the idea of ditching VED and putting the tax on fuel.
The difficulty is that it’d hurt those less well-off who have to drive a lot of miles and can’t afford a newer vehicle, while wealthy folks who want to drive big thirsty cars won’t give a damn about an extra 10 pence on a litre. VED allows the government some flexibility in targeting big polluters… though to judge by the latest rates, their aim isn’t very good.

[YamFazFan]

You can just guess what rate they would set if the VED was transferred onto fuel.

Whilst a few would gain and some lose, I bet it would result in the vast majority having to cut back a bit in order to continue paying the same as they did the previous year (plus the usual increase) .

[Hugh Mungus]

I suppose I might gain an advantage in my car as my 'commute' is 15/20 miles per week and I use Sarah's car at the weekend when I'm not on the bike.

[BBROWN1664]

Whilst a few would gain and some lose, I bet it would result in the vast majority having to cut back a bit in order to continue paying the same as they did the previous year (plus the usual increase) .

If it was done properly, and the average rate of VED was divided amongst the average amount of litres a car uses in a year, the average car owner doing average miles would be no worse off.
The ones who currently pay zero or low VED would be worse off and complain like hell that they bought "clean" cars and now no longer have the benefit but the ones who have "dirty" cars and bikes would pay less.

Overall, anyone with more than one vehicle would probably pay less as they would only be paying the new VED when they actually used their car. People like me with a car and a bike would save, as would my elderly neighbours who use their cars once a week to go shopping. Companies would end up paying more for their road warriors and in my mind, they should. They at the ones using the road the most.

Transport companies (trucks/busses etc) would lose out compared with now but a scheme can be devised easily enough to off-set any additional fuel tax against other taxes.

[Hugh Mungus]

Yeah I got my maths wrong at 1p a litre for tax. I do think it would be a fairer system as it would also apply to anyone visiting our country in their vehicle (although I would also pay a small VED for cutting my lawn...) but even though the idea has been talked about for a number of years I don't see a government having the balls to implement it.

Transport companies (trucks/buses etc) would lose out compared with now but a scheme can be devised easily enough to off-set any additional fuel tax against other taxes.

I use about 70,000 litres of diesel per year in my truck. The money would have to come from somewhere. I don't think the government would implement a rebate scheme as it's open to abuse/fraud and if the only other way to absorb the cost is to pass it on to the customer then you know what that means as we are the customers at the end of the chain.

[BBROWN1664]

I use about 70,000 litres of diesel per year in my truck. The money would have to come from somewhere. I don't think the government would implement a rebate scheme as it's open to abuse/fraud and if the only other way to absorb the cost is to pass it on to the customer then you know what that means as we are the customers at the end of the chain.

When the Lorry Road User Charge (LRUC) was planned the idea was that every truck in the UK would be fitted with a GPS tracker. this included all the foreign trucks on entry into the UK too. As they clocked up the miles they would be billed as a way of getting some revenue from Johnny foreigner. For UK based trucks, it would have been cost neutral as all the fees would be netted off against fuel tax. If Johnny Foreigner decided to buy fuel in the UK they could off set some too. Many would just have to pay the bill though as they just filled up in Luxemborg did all of their UK work and back to Lux to fill up with cheap fuel. It was these ones that they were trying to get some money out of as otherwise the UK government got nothing.

In the end LRUC was dropped as the infrastructure to set it up was going to cost billions (I was involved in the bidding process for one company) and the payback period was too long.

For VED its much simpler. Lets say you have an average car that does 45mpg. The average car tax is £130 and the average mileage is 10,000 per year. You need to add just under 13p/litre to recoup that.

You have a truck that you currently pay (lets say) £1000 a year in VED for. You use 70,000 litres a year so you will pay £9,000 extra for fuel but you just put your claim in each month or year to claim back 11p/litre meaning you are back to where you started. No worse off and simple to do.

The ones it wont get to pay into the system still are the ones that fill up in Lux with enough fuel to run around the UK for a week before heading back across the channel. Under EU rules we cant charge them a tax on entry/exit but come 2019, if we want the EU to start reciprocating, we could.

[Hugh Mungus]

Good points there. I'm not too worried about johnny foreigner filling up in Lux or Belgium and running round the UK tax free as to be honest if a reciprocal agreement was introduced after brexit we could end up worse off.
It would be better if the tax 'rebate' could be given at the point of sale (I suppose fuel card companies could do this) but again it could be open to abuse and I'm sure there'd be a few cowboys trying it on.
The vignette system that Belgium/Holland etc use is much simpler, just buy a ticket for how many days you want (which can be bought a petrol stations etc or on-line) and away you go. Even if you get delayed you can buy one easily.


As for VED for UK vehicles, do you think the govt are worried that they'd lose money with a fuel tax system and have to hike up the tax therefore losing votes?

[mtread]

Interesting BBrown re LRUC. I was involved in that too, from the other side of the fence, shall we say. Must swap notes sometime
 
Trouble with vignettes is they have to be enforced, and for that you need people. Just look at the number of foreign cars and lorries avoiding the Dartford Tunnel charge. Is it enforced?
Soon all new bikes cars and lorries with have black boxes and GPS, and you will be charged based on where you travel, how far and at what time. Yet another reason for keeping an old Fazer