Thieving scumbags

[ChristoT]

A few weeks ago, I signed a petition for bringing road tax for motorcycles in line with car road tax based on CO2 emmissions. The petition has received a response from government, which basically says: "You're cash cows, STFU and pay up". Bastards. 

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48869

[Lawrence]

You thought an online petition asking for a cut in VED would get any other response?

[ChristoT]

You thought an online petition asking for a cut in VED would get any other response?

More reasonable (I would have thought) that the one asking for total exemption!

The attitude of STFU pissed me off though.

[mr self destruct]

which basically says: "You're cash cows, STFU and pay up". Bastards. 

Actually they make a good argument for keeping it the way it is. They say they've not got the data to say exactly what CO2 emissions every bike produces so can't create a system to tax them.


I signed the petition on the off chance that it might work (yes I do the lottery too  ) but I've not really got a problem with how things are now.


I mean, I pay £175 a year to tax my Mondeo that does 45mpg and 0-60 in 9.5 seconds, while I pay £57 a year to tax my Fazer which does 45mpg and 0-60 in 3.8 seconds.
To put it in perspective, for a 2013 Jaguar XFR-S you'd pay £490 a year to tax, it does 24mpg and 0-60 in 4.4 seconds.

[rustyrider]

I don't have a problem with how things are now and the answer they gave was perfectly understandable, you can't bring it into line with cars when only some bike manufacturers quote emissions figures.  What would you like, leave it as it is or go over to an emissions based system where every bike must be fitted with a catalytic converter and have the performance strangled out of it?  Me, I'd rather leave it as it is.

I'm actually looking forward to October when they do away with the tax disc and allow you to pay monthly.  That'll allow me to tax my cars and bike as and when I want.  Paying even 6 months tax on a car I am likely to only use very occasionally seems a bit steep, but when the time comes that I can just tax it for a month at a time, then fine.

And before anyone comes out with the old chestnut of doing away with it and putting it on the fuel price, all that will do will cause fuel prices to rocket.  France collects road tax on fuel but their petrol costs the same as ours, their diesel is even cheaper.  Their motorways are privately owned and funded from tolls at roughly £1 for every 10 miles.  Which means it costs me around £90 to get from Calais to the South every time I go.

[Dead Eye]

I don't have an issue with the current tax system for motorcylces - I think the majority of people who really do are pure motorcyclists (obviously exceptions to this). Their justification is fairly solid at this moment in time imo

People who run a car as well, are fully aware of how much it costs and are typically thankful that motorcycles are not as expensive. I can tax both of my bikes, for 2 years, for less than it costs me to tax my car for 1

I also don't think putting the road tax on top of fuel will work out effectively unless it was staggered (first x miles costs more than the subsequent) - which would be impossible to implement.

[Fazerider]

Having just done some sums, my Fazer does about 53 mpg which just puts it in Band D by my reckoning... so that'll mean an increase in VED to £105 a year.
Perhaps I should get one of those VFRs. If the petitioner's manages 16.1g CO2 per km, that works out at about 400 mpg, easily paying for the extra costs of the tax disc.

[rustyrider]

You won't complain about how much it costs to tax a bike when your Peugeot diesel tax needs renewing Christo.......

[ChristoT]

It's old enough to be covered by the old scheme: thank God!!

[Dead Eye]

The Pug should still be over £100 if I remember correctly... £130~ by now?

[ChristoT]

Yes, but fuel economy is worse, and it's 3 times heavier: road wear.

[Grahamm]

The "we don't have enough data" argument is, frankly, a red herring, although, IMO, the original petition should probably have not mentioned emissions at all.

The point is that bikes cut congestion because when all the cages stop, the bikes are filtering through the gaps, thus not sitting there burning fuel and therefore using less. If there were more bikes, there would be even less congestion.

As for "unavoidable economic challenge of tackling the debts inherited from the previous Government", this is total bullshit, George Osborne has borrowed more money in the last three years than the last Government did in 13!

The Tories have lied about "paying off our debts", with their Austerity crap, all they are reducing is the *deficit* which is the difference between how much we get and how much we spend.

[Dead Eye]

Yes, but fuel economy is worse, and it's 3 times heavier: road wear.

Fuel economy should be about the same (was with mine - but you have an over heavy foot...) and road wear is a fair point I guess... but you are paying more in the car, so that's about right

[ChristoT]

But a hybrid weighs more than my car, with fuel economy worse than bikes: and pays nowt.

[midden]

Leave well alone I'm happy with my £130 yr Octavia and whatever it is for the bike cheers
Next thing they'll be screaming for is to charged same as cars on toll bridges.....I doubt very much 

[rustyrider]

But a hybrid weighs more than my car, with fuel economy worse than bikes: and pays nowt.

We were talking about this at work yesterday and decided that the best thing you could do with a Prius would be to remove all the heavy stuff, the batteries, Atkinson Cycle engine, electric motors and all the other heavyweight stuff and bung the 2.0 litre twin cam motor from a Celica in it.  It would probably go like the clappers but you'd still be able to drive around London without paying the congestion charge.  Hadn't thought about the free road tax as well.

[BBROWN1664]

The fairest way, which we know the government wont take is to add it to fuel on the basis that emssions are pretty well related to fuel consumption.
The average car does 12,000 miles a year and costs (for arguments sake) £130 a year to tax whilst managing 45mpg.
To recoup £130 through fuel would add 10p per litre or thereabouts which I for one would pay as it would then mean that I only pay tax when the vehicle is being used.
My bike has sat in the garage since Christmas eve by has used 2 months of tax whilst not going near a road.

[thunderpantz]

I signed it too, but we all knew deep down thing's would never change!

[Lawrence]

My bike has sat in the garage since Christmas eve by has used 2 months of tax whilst not going near a road.

There's already a system in place to save paying tax on vehicles like this.  If you don't want to tax/insure it if you're not using it for months at a time then SORN it.

[Grahamm]

There's already a system in place to save paying tax on vehicles like this.  If you don't want to tax/insure it if you're not using it for months at a time then SORN it.

But what if you're someone like me who sometimes only uses the bike a couple of times a month? I might only ride it for eg 30 days in a year, but I have to keep it taxed for the other 335 days.

It would be fairer and cheaper (for me) to only pay tax on the petrol I use. YMMV (quite literally!)

[Lawrence]

But what if you're someone like me who sometimes only uses the bike a couple of times a month? I might only ride it for eg 30 days in a year, but I have to keep it taxed for the other 335 days.

It would be fairer and cheaper (for me) to only pay tax on the petrol I use. YMMV (quite literally!)

I use mine every day and do 20k+ per year.  It's fairer and cheaper (for me) to pay tax based on engine size.

You can't please everyone   10p/litre would cost me ~£20/month so I vote to keep it how it is.

[AndyL]

But what if you're someone like me who sometimes only uses the bike a couple of times a month? I might only ride it for eg 30 days in a year, but I have to keep it taxed for the other 335 days.

It would be fairer and cheaper (for me) to only pay tax on the petrol I use. YMMV (quite literally!)

I use mine every day and do 20k+ per year.  It's fairer and cheaper (for me) to pay tax based on engine size.

You can't please everyone   10p/litre would cost me ~£20/month so I vote to keep it how it is.

It's not fairer for you to pay based on engine size, it's cheaper. To be honest I don't think there can be a completely fair way of doing it.


Personally I think it should be based on amount used but if you assume that it should be linked to road wear then you doing 20k a year on a bike is a lot less wear then a car with a similar MPG so it still wouldn't be fair on bikes, if you wanted to look at pollution caused then it could only be fair if you also taxed new vehicles based on pollution caused when making them in the first place (this could also apply to spares). That would bump be very telling.


I think one advantage of the tax the fuel argument is that it more more simple and so cheaper to maintain

[Lawrence]

It is fairer, we both have a 600cc bike that's allowed to use the road so we pay the same. I already pay 80p/litre in duty and tax so tax based on emissions is covered.

Realistically it's never going to be canned. They might add 10p/litre to fuel but why take off the VED fee?  People will still pay it because they have to.

[BBROWN1664]

[Grahamm]

I use mine every day and do 20k+ per year.  It's fairer and cheaper (for me) to pay tax based on engine size.

You can't please everyone   10p/litre would cost me ~£20/month so I vote to keep it how it is.

Cheaper, yes, but fairer? Why should I pay the same VED as you? And, more to the point, why should both of us pay VED when there are cars with bigger engines and which take up more space than both of us which are exempt?