To think that if a pay-by-the-mile Road tax is introduced, we won’t want to buy electric cars?

[ThoseFestiveLights]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/04/uk-road-pricing-transport-committee-mps-electric-shift

The government is going to lose millions in fuel duty with the roll out of electric cars, so is proposing recouping this through more complex road taxing.

I suppose I hadn’t thought of this angle, but it makes sense for the government to do something. However, I was tempted to buy an electric car because of the fuel savings. This has put me off.

AIBU to think that if the burden of paying for roads falls across all motorists, then people will just stick to cheaper, petrol cars for now and not invest in electric ones?

@daimbarsatemydogsbone

I am excited by the idea that congestion charging (in addition to road tax) will be implemented by this mechanism, making the roads more reliable and useable (albeit more expensive) in future.

Translation " I am glad all the poorer people will be priced off the roads so people like me who can afford it will be able to get places we want to"

I'm a cyclist. It would be great if there was less congestion, and more people thought twice before making journeys which could have been made differently.

It wouldn't require infrastructure. The government already knows what your annual mileage is, it gets recorded on the DVLA computer every time you get your MoT done.

What about
Vehicles under 3 years old (think it might be 4 in NI)
The fact that it's really really easy to falsify mileage - on the car's recorder, and
The mileage is entered by the MOT tester with margin for error either accidental or deliberate.
The estimated 3 million cars with no current MOT

I don't know what you regard as infrastructure, but how do you think the data would be collated and managed for charging? WHo can I call up when there seems to be an error?
What will you do about unpaid bills?
Who will be sending the bills?

You haven't even given this 10 seconds proper thought.

@Gizacluethen

They could do it from your MOT I guess. But obviously you'd have a huge market for falsifying. But the level of CCTV required to catch every single mile you drive is insane. You'd have an option to avoid the cameras on satnavs like you do for toll roads

You could do a hybrid system - rough and ready mileage calculation from ANPR and if that's a lot more than MOT mileage recorded then vehicle is flagged up for review by traffic police.

I think we could do with a big increase in physical traffic police to clamp down on uninsured/untaxed/unMOT'd drivers - it would probably be self-funding if you increased fines a bit and auctioned off seized vehicles. All motoring crimes are closely correlated so it would keep the roads safer.

Some of these responses are hilarious.

There are at least 31 million cars in the UK.

ANY attempt to have a half way accurate way to record and charge for miles travelled WOULD need massive infrastructure and therefore would be costly.

On the news they mentioned the black box technology some people already use. That monitors speed and driving style apparently. I know someone whose nephew lost his license after going faster than 20 in Manchester a couple of times. He had ignored the emails from them telling him about it though.

They don't want people driving.

They need to act urgently and rethink things like the Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone. That does ZERO for getting people out of cars and on to public transport.
It punishes companies and small business for using vans. Expected to take £10M out of the local economy in charges.

If you want people to not drive a car you have to make it easier to use the alternatives.

I live within walking distance of the tram stop into Manchester. I wouldn't drive in unless I had to take heavy items.
The tram is quick, clean and I don't need to consult a timetable.
However: I can't take a bike on the tram though to finish a journey at the other end.

The roads are very busy and I wouldn't want to cycle on them.

Paying per mile is fairer but there’s no immediately practical way to do that on EV. Once we all shuffle over to electric/hydrogen/whatever else the easiest thing will probably just be a blanket road tax, or a sliding scale depending on the kerb weight of the vehicle.

I actually think charging per mile is a good idea (although agree, it would be very hard to implement). We need to deter people from using their cars and this is a good way of doing it. I try to only use my car for long journeys rather than getting about and this would encourage me further.

I'd also love to have an electric car but as I currently have to park about three streets away from my house due to not having parking I can't really see that happening

Well, I live very rurally and teach 20 miles away over fens with no buses or trains. The nearest supermarket is 14 miles away. That'll be a lovely tax on rural people right there.

@garlictwist

I actually think charging per mile is a good idea (although agree, it would be very hard to implement). We need to deter people from using their cars and this is a good way of doing it. I try to only use my car for long journeys rather than getting about and this would encourage me further.

I'd also love to have an electric car but as I currently have to park about three streets away from my house due to not having parking I can't really see that happening

So the reason for trying to introduce this pay per mile tax is to fill a financial hole due to loss of fuel being brought.

How will they fill the financial hole when people drive less ? What will be the next stealth tax?

How will they fill the financial hole when people drive less ? What will be the next stealth tax?

Maybe it’s time for more transparency. The government step up and say ‘we need £—’ to run the country next year so income tax will be x% y% z% and that’s it, no more sales taxes or fuel taxes or anything else.

Ps quite prepared for people to pile on explain why that’s dumb, but there has to be a simpler, clearer way.

@SockFluffInTheBath

Ps quite prepared for people to pile on explain why that’s dumb, but there has to be a simpler, clearer way.

Transparency and the government ,not two words I've seen in a sentence lol

@DottyHarmer

Just tax electric vehicles. People have them for the fuel saving, but they utilise the road network just the same, creating the same wear and tear, upkeep, improvements etc.

Any charging through mileage etc has too many loopholes, unfairness and as pp observes, it’s a tax on the law abiding and a free pass for many unscrupulous drivers.

Yes, it doesn't make sense that electric car drivers don't contribute to the upkeep of the roads they use.

Pollution and highways maintenance are two separate issues and being exempt from one should not mean a driver is automatically exempt from the other.

The government is currently giving huge grants to people for the installation of home charging points. Since most people buying relatively expensive electric cars will be quite well off (logically from being able to purchase the e-car in the first place), we are all paying through the tax system to subsidise these well-off people installing their home charging points. That is a massive inequality distributing tax back to well-off people.

(has anyone said it is actually better for the environment globally to keep on using already-manufactured petrol/diesel cars rather than manufacture at huge environmental cost new electric cars?)

@SockFluffInTheBath

How will they fill the financial hole when people drive less ? What will be the next stealth tax?

Maybe it’s time for more transparency. The government step up and say ‘we need £—’ to run the country next year so income tax will be x% y% z% and that’s it, no more sales taxes or fuel taxes or anything else.

They don't know how much they need - it's only ever a guess.

Income tax would be massive if it was the only tax (did I understand your post?)

HMRC and the treasury never want to simplify taxation as they'd need fewer people - see also accountants and tax lawyers.

Having bad public transport is a policy choice.

It's not some natural phenomenon we can do nothing about. In areas with poor bus services, this could be changed in a few months if you vote in local council who commits to doing it. It requires little or no infrastructure, just political will.

Ultimately if you choose to live very rurally, then yes, you will pay more on driving (as you do already) because you have to drive more since everything is far away.
But living there is a choice - it has benefits (big house, fields, etc) and cons (more driving).

Re monitoring etc., I'd expect they'd use the ANPR cameras. Most major roads and city centres have plenty now, and they're usually only placed where roads are busy/high volumes of traffic, so they'd pick up vehicles on busy roads, which is where pricing should start. For people in rural areas, there are less cameras, so whether by design or accident, they'd not get "pinged" as much so would in effect pay less road usage, which is the right result as they're places without good public transport.

I think doubling the cost of electricity will probably do more to put people off buying electric cars.

I'm a rural teacher. I suppose all such teachers could choose to live in towns but then all rural schools would be fucked. And farms. And farming. Yeah, screw those farmers and thrir kids. They should choose to live in cities.

Would those of us who need our cars for work? (Community nurse here) also be charged per mile? If so that’s just penalising people who need their car not to mention I live rurally and literally wouldn’t be able to get my children to school, myself to work, appointments etc without paying all the time

@summertimerolls

I would have thought it would be extremely easy to track - your mileage is recorded at each MOT so easily charged from year to year. I don't think any infrastructure is required at all?

(For cars less than three years old that don't require MOTs there would have to be a different system I admit)

The milometer on my Land Rover stopped working ten years ago !.

@RandomLondoner so because I use my car for work in community nursing in a rural location, i am imposing costs on others and should be charged accordingly?

I'm actually quite happy that MP's are for once looking ahead and debating it now.

Amazing really that so many people want so much for free or at least for someone else to pay for it.

Pay per mile? Personally no and that's as someone who doesn't do that much driving. Friends of mine are reps and they'd get absolutely hammered. Or at least their firms/customers/etc would.

Huge population, small island. It's only going to get more expensive going forward.

It does need talking about. NOW.

@DrWhoNowww

It wouldn’t be entirely straightforward when it comes to infrastructure.

How do you track miles travelled? If you use an app then what happens when you have no phone signal, or you don’t have a smart phone? Or you run out of battery or simply decided not to turn the thing on? How do we capture that and ensure people are still charged?

If you use a black box like insurance companies - who pays for that? Who fits it? What happens when it goes wrong? Who pays for repairs?

It’s far simpler to keep a flat rate based on emissions and just raise it for everyone regardless of miles driven.

They take a note of your mileage when doing your MOT, I suppose it could be paid in arrears at that point.

But what do you do with rental cars, new cars not needed MOT’s and change of owner mid way though the cycle?

[quote AlaskaThunderfuckHiiiiiiiii]@RandomLondoner so because I use my car for work in community nursing in a rural location, i am imposing costs on others and should be charged accordingly?[/quote]
If you are in a rural location, you should not need to pay any congestion charge, which is the main cost I'm think of that could lead to people where I live (London) paying thousands extra each year.

Other amounts that may be collected by this mechanism should overall be roughly the same as people are already paying in other ways now, so shouldn't be an issue.

Having said that, in the general example of someone doing a low-paid worthy job, that is not an argument for any of their costs to be subsidised. The economically correct solution to that situation is for pay to be raised so it covers costs, something that will happen automatically once employers realise why they can no longer get any employees to take their jobs.

(That answer also applies to all other jobs, the problem with low-paid and worthy jobs is that some people reason that market-prices should be subverted to facilitate them. They should not, the correct solution in all cases is not to alter market prices of what they buy, but to allow the market price of their labour to adjust so it covers their outgoings. Or let the job cease to exist at its current location, if that's the best solution overall.)