well you have a simple choice. Tax the muppets who speed through fines.. or tax everyone a bit more on VAT or income tax.
In addition to funding a war, we have to pay for the unemployed, the incapable of work, the judiciary, the lawyers (and there are lots of them: since most ministers are lawyers a succession of new laws ensures they are never unemployed),
8< SNIP - some comments removed as were reported as offensive - DD
There are lots of higly competent civil servants in the Home Office ensuring we are kept safe from terrorists, ensuring the prisons are overfilled and the immigration service works.
And so on..
As far as road taxes are concerned, either pay them or 1p on income tax raises about £2 billion in a year.. Do the sums.. cut UK road taxes to nil and income tax rises 20p? ish...
Personally I think speeding fines should treble..
madf
|
Madf you sound like Humphy out of the 'Yes Minister/Priminister' TV program.
Good thought about raising fines. Why can't the criminals pay us? However this will never happen as we have seen the poor who run cars illegally face fines that are less than their required insurance/tax/M.O.T etc.
|
I think total tax take (percentage of GDP) in the UK is a little below the international average. Things have to be paid for. We can have more prisons, smaller classes etc etc but they have to be paid for. People (especially middle and upper class people) strongly object to income tax rises and so the tax has to be raised in some other way. Personally I think income tax is best because it is highly visible and also progressive - but most voters don't agree.....
Unlike in manufacturing and industrial sectors the public services show very little increase in productivity over time. This is because their productivity is naturally limited by the type of service they deliver (i.e. teachers still teach classes of 30 kids, like they did when I was a youngster nearly 50 years ago). This is called the 'Baumol Effect' and it means that public services will take a larger and larger slice of GDP. In a way that's a good thing because its increasing our quality of life (despite all the moaning I actually think that medical treatment is far better now than it was 20 years ago).
One thing I can't understand and have never seen explained is why the 'benefits' of the IT revolution have not translated into much higher growth in the economy. It is still averaging about 2.5% pa long term.
|
I think total tax take (percentage of GDP) in the UK is a little below the international average. >>
Yes though it is not equitable, the burden on motorists is just one example of this, take two workers commuting 50 miles a day, a night shift worker (NSW) earning £15k with no public transport options and a professional (P) earning £50k, the latter has no real interest in cars so drives a £5k car similar to the NSW therefore their transport costs are also similar though are disprortionate to their income. If the tax bias was more income based the NSW would lose a lesser proportion of his income due to his need to commute by car and the P would pay a little more. As I say just one example.
Motoring costs, fuel etc are necessary day-to-day living costs for so many people though are taxed as though they are an extreme luxury!
One thing I can't understand and have never seen explained is why the 'benefits' of the IT revolution have not translated into much higher growth in the economy. It is still averaging about 2.5% pa long term.
>>
Because across the economy as a whole IT is as much of a cost burden to the public sector and companies who's revenues are not IT based than it is a profit centre to the IT companies themselves.
|
>> If the tax bias was more income based the NSW would lose a lesser proportion of his income due to his need to commute by car and the P would pay a little more. As I say just one example.
I quite agree. Moreover, in reality the £50k pa man is likely to get a company car/allowance (and pay some tax on it) whereas the NSW is likely to have to borrow money on his taxed income and pay interest of 6-15% on it.
|
"If the tax bias was more income based the NSW would lose a lesser proportion of his income due to his need to commute by car and the P would pay a little more. As I say just one example. "
That's the logic that applied to setting road tax bands in Ireland. The idea was that a "standard" family car is a 1.6 litre hatch (fair enough, the best selling cars in the country are the Corolla and Focus). There would be a discount on environmental grounds for running a small car, hence a "low" rate applies to cars of 999cc and less, and "luxury" cars attract a penalty tax, hence a higher rate for anythign over 1999cc.
Result: an Aygo costs ?151 a year to keep on the road, a 1.6 costs ?391 and running your 10 year old large saloon (hands up anyone with a Legend, 3 litre Maxima, 530d etc...) will set you back a staggering ?1,343!
So be careful what you wish for - you just might get it, only not in the form you expected!
And no, our public health service isn't any better than yours - which is why we have VHI, the semi-state private health insurance company...
|
|
|
all the equality talk is carp imo.
The system should be skewed to reward results.. The Gov't pays more per week to a person on Invalidity Benefit than Job Seekers allowance. Skew the system to fairness and it encourages people NOT to work...
I saw last night the various discussions on Road Pricing: an intersting subject. No comments on how foreign hauliers would be handled and what if soemone fiddles the electronics on their car so it reads as if someone else's.
Typical Gov't repsonse to a problem : throw Billions at it. Not solve the problem Throw billions at an IT system and hardware to control usage and NOT improve the transport systems...
madf
|
Auz and the US solved the road usage problem the simple way: abolish road tax, and charge higher fuel tax instead. So, the more you drive, the more you use the roads, the more you pay.
The Aussie's bright idea was to also add third party insurance as a fuel tax, so all third-party claims processed through the courts are paid from a central fund. Result: less insurance fraud, because equitable payments are in the treasury's interest, and no losses from uninsured drivers.
Simple is good!
|
Simple is good!
What the Aussies have done sounds great. I'm sure there must be drawbacks, though - for example, would a driver with a lousy record get no insurance premium penalty as everyone is treated equally other than, of course, on their mileage?
|
|
|
>>Auz and the US solved the road usage problem the simple way: abolish road tax, and charge higher fuel tax instead. So, the more you drive, the more you use the roads, the more you pay.
>>The Aussie's bright idea was to also add third party insurance as a fuel tax, so all third-party claims processed through the courts are paid from a central fund. Result: less insurance fraud, because equitable payments are in the treasury's interest, and no losses from uninsured drivers.
I like the thought of these solutions, however I can still see a few extra solutions and some extra problems.
1. Abolishing road tax would certainly ensure that no car would be without tax, as it was included in the fuel tax. This would reduce the number of people needed to administer road tax - a cost saving for all of us.
2. Adding 3rd party insurance to fuel costs would also mean no uninsured car on the road, great for other drivers whose cars have been damaged in an accident knowing their car will be repaired or they will be compensated if written off. This only replaces the proportion of our existing insurance that goes into a central fund to meet these claims. The big drawback to this would be that good low risk drivers will pay more as a proportion than high risk groups.
3. High risk drivers driving old low value powerful cars would not to have any additional insurance as the current statutory minimum has already been met. Or should all drivers have compulsorary insurance to drive vehicles, this would be price according to age, risk and cars within certain bands?
4. At present all cars over 3 years old have to have an MOT, and this has been checked, along with insurance, when road tax is applied for. Computerisation has recently meant records are available to check both. Would this mean MOT reminders would be issued to the registered keeper? Would the ANPR then be used to find cars without an MOT, rather than road tax/insurance? If so this would be a good safety check for all road users to take unsafe cars off the road.
5. The cost of fuel would rise, I would guess, by about 20p a litre to cover the road tax and 3rd party insurance. Not a popular move politically, but you would not have road tax or 3rd party insurance to pay. Once our pockets grew used to this benefit, I feel sure vehicle maintence standards would get better as well.
6. There would be no way for foreign drivers not paying, unless over for a short trip with fuel they brought with them. This would mean they pay slightly more than at present to use our roads and we would be guaranteed they had 3rd party insurance.
7. The large rise in fuel costs would mean that fuel smuggling would become more likely as the profits would be greater. Alternatively, other fuels might be used (chip oil instead of diesel) to save money. This might mean large teams of customs testers checking legal fuel is being used.
There may be additional points I have not thought of, but overall I think it would be a brilliant idea.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
