Free bump.
Was temporarily hidden whilst waiting HJ's approval.
DD.
|
Several issues with this.
People moan about fuel costs but many clearly don't really care otherwise they would all drive the most economical cars, yet they don't.
Many people have their fuel paid for by companies, or get a mileage allowance.
Odometers in modern cars are extremely easy to alter with the right (easily available) kit. The scope for fraud is obvious. However GPS tracking would fix that and the EU is keen to introduce it, so this could be another reason to add vehicle tracking. You'd get your rebate less fines for every time you'd broken the speed limit!
|
|
The government giving cashbacks to motorists? You must be joking. We have a tax on mileage, fuel tax, you wont be seeing any of that in your pocket, (unless you are an MP).
|
Lets look at your middle ground case
He covered 8,000 miles, averaged 36.4 mpg (8 miles/l), and got back £400, so his net fuel cost was £600. On average he paid 60 pence/litre.
Which is probably the one most appropriate
This indicates the government will have a shortfall of 40% fuel tax duty. Where is this shortfall to be made up? My taxes probably.
Mind I can probably make up that lost income by starting my "increase the mileage on your car odometer" service. I will call it "clocking on plc" and i will make a fortune.
|
|
There is already incentive to drive more economically, you use less fuel so pay less duty and VAT. Also the costs to run this are minimal.
|
Quite apart from the obvious fraud possibilities:
Buy a scooter, alter the mileage and claim back based on the fuel for a family of 3 gas-guzzlers...
Is there any reason why the oil companies should not increase the price by 5p or more
on an arbitrary basis ?
|
How do you get the refund in the first three years (before the MoT) ?
How would car sales work - you would always MoT before the sale so you get the refund ?
Who gets the refund when fuel is bought with a fuel card ?
Do we really need more bureaucracy ?
|
Ill thought out.
Lets see: I own two cars. Split the mileage to get the biggest rebate.
I can see all sorts of real world problems and of course, huge scope for fraud: winding back speedos etc.
Not worth discussing - even if affordable - and it ain't.
Better to vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party: they have better policies :-)
(Unnecessarily offensive wording removed from first line, and spelling corrected. HJ)
Edited by Honestjohn on 19/08/2009 at 14:58
|
I cannot recall a posting that has attracted such universal condemnation - the OP obviously has some agenda, plenty of time to waste, and an obvious lack of reality! see his website - markthake.org.uk/ His presentational skills are wasted on loony schemes.
Recently unemployed (able) MP perhaps?
Edited by pmh3 on 19/08/2009 at 14:20
|
This does smack of the current party of government. Typical of the sort of scheme they like. Plenty of work to be had for lawyers with this one, which seems to be the main aim of most of their vague and poorly written law.
The only thing which would fly in the face of that theory, though, is the fact that it wouldn't benefit government income.
|
|
Increase fuel to £2 per litre and get the plebs off the road I say.
Edited by Lygonos on 19/08/2009 at 14:50
|
Increase fuel to £2 per litre and get the plebs off the road I say.
Start your own petition and see if you can get more signatures than mine! I don't think you will and that's saying something.
|
Umm, no ;-)
And your idea is weak, albeit novel (that doesn't mean good).
Clocking destroys any potential it may have had, a few thousand extra miles doesn't make much difference on cars that are a few years old.
And your figures still don't show where the billions of lost revenue will come from with fuel around 100p per litre, and your average being much lower.
Put all driving costs onto fuel duty and those who use most, pay most (eg. nominal road tax/MOT, 3rd party insurance - driver can pay to increase to Comprehensive).
Even this idea is badly flawed, but more accurately links fuel use with cost.
|
The key error behind this proposal is the assumption that the government has any real interest in us all driving more economically.
Continued or even increased tax revenues from motorists are seen as a vital part of the nation's economic survival.
Proper environmental improvement will only come with a better all round transport system including proper public transport and proper road management aimed at improved traffic flows.
Straying towards the political here
Edited by commerdriver on 19/08/2009 at 14:51
|
The key error behind this proposal is the assumption that the government has any real interest in us all driving more economically. Continued or even increased tax revenues from motorists are seen as a vital part of the nation's economic survival. Proper environmental improvement will only come with a better all round transport system including proper public transport and proper road management aimed at improved traffic flows. Straying towards the political here
True the Government has no real interest in fuel efficiency, and it loves its stealth taxes, but it's tax revenue in total that's important and not revenue from any one specific tax. My view is that direct taxation is better than stealth taxation, that way people aren't taxed on their lifestyles.
If the your fuel costs per mile varies hugely (18mpg = 20p/mile, 36mpg= = 7.5p/mile & 54 mpg = 3.3p/mile) you are going to want a road system that lets you drive economically and if enough people demand that, then over a period of time, the politicians will have to deliver it or dust off their CV's.
|
This does smack of the current party of government. Typical of the sort of scheme they like. Plenty of work to be had for lawyers with this one which seems to be the main aim of most of their vague and poorly written law. The only thing which would fly in the face of that theory though is the fact that it wouldn't benefit government income.
No Government is going to voluntarily move away from stealth taxes, but with taxes set to rise across the board in the near future, now is a good time to rebalance the whole system.
|
I cannot recall a posting that has attracted such universal condemnation - the OP obviously has some agenda plenty of time to waste and an obvious lack of reality! see his website - markthake.org.uk/ His presentational skills are wasted on loony schemes. Recently unemployed (able) MP perhaps?
Thanks for looking at my site, you're in an elite minority!
|
Ill thought out. Lets see: I own two cars. Split the mileage to get the biggest rebate. I can see all sorts of real world problems and of course huge scope for fraud: winding back speedos etc.
The rebate is based on actual mileage as verified by an MOT Test Centre, the vehicle owner doesn't have any say in that.
You would clock your car forwards not backwards, thereby reducing its residual value.
Why do you like paying so much for your fuel?
|
|
How do you get the refund in the first three years (before the MoT) ? How would car sales work - you would always MoT before the sale so you get the refund ? Who gets the refund when fuel is bought with a fuel card ? Do we really need more bureaucracy ?
Go to an MOT test centre and get an official reading, if you are not getting an MOT at the time you would pay a small charge for the reading.
The refunds are paid to the registered owner of the vehicle, an incentive for everyone to keep their records up to date.
There is little in the way of new bureaucracy; fuel duty continues to be collected as now, vehicle mileages are registered for all vehicle not just those being MOT'ed which is a small change and finally the DVLA already have a mechanism for refunding Tax discs, all that would be needed is to beef this up with a faster printer.
|
|
|
|
Quite apart from the obvious fraud possibilities: Buy a scooter alter the mileage and claim back based on the fuel for a family of 3 gas-guzzlers... Is there any reason why the oil companies should not increase the price by 5p or more on an arbitrary basis ?
The rebate is paid per vehicle and is based solely on the mileage reading, how much fuel you used to cover that mileage is between you and your wallet.
The oil companies are in competition with each other and it is illegal to form price rigging cartels, that should be sufficient to stop orchestrated price hikes.
|
|
|
|
There is already incentive to drive more economically you use less fuel so pay less duty and VAT. Also the costs to run this are minimal.
The financial rewards for driving economically are far higher under this scheme.
|
|
|
|
Lets look at your middle ground case He covered 8 000 miles averaged 36.4 mpg (8 miles/l) and got back £400 so his net fuel cost was £600. On average he paid 60 pence/litre.
Snipquote - in reply to Altea Ego
The reduction in Fuel duty revenues under this scheme is nearer 65%, and whether you pay the tax in the form of fuel duty or VAT or Income Tax you are still handing the money over.
By paying the money in the form of fuel duty you are effectively subsidizing non-motoring tax payers (non-vehicle owning tax payers), are you happy subsidizing non-motorists?
Vehicle depreciation is likely to be higher than 5 pence per mile so while you are defrauding the Government out of £x you will be reducing the value of your vehicle by even more.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 19/08/2009 at 19:50
|
|
|
|
The government giving cashbacks to motorists? You must be joking. We have a tax on mileage fuel tax you wont be seeing any of that in your pocket (unless you are an MP).
No you're right they won't willingly give the money back, they will have to be told to!
|
|
|
|
People moan about fuel costs but many clearly don't really care otherwise they would all drive the most economical cars yet they don't. Many people have their fuel paid for by companies or get a mileage allowance. Odometers in modern cars are extremely easy to alter with the right (easily available) kit. The scope for fraud is obvious. However GPS tracking would fix that and the EU is keen to introduce it so this could be another reason to add vehicle tracking. You'd get your rebate less fines for every time you'd broken the speed limit!
For most people cars are status symbols and most people arn't that aware of how much fuel they use, but if there were a strong financial incentive to use less fuel, say the difference between averaging 18 mpg and paying around 20pence per mile for their fuel or averaging 54 mpg and paying approximately 3.3pence per mile for their fuel, they might change their habits.
I am not an expert on vehicle depreciation but for most vehicles it's probably going to be more than 5 pence per mile (happy to be corrected on that) so you would actually be reducing the value of your car by more than the amount you're defrauding the Government.
I am not a fan of vehicle tracking, but if you are remember you will have to pay for the kit.
|
|
|
|
|
Reply to pmh3's post;
Put VAT back up to 17.5%, its reduction has had no effect on people's spending habits.
Edited by Mark Thake on 19/08/2009 at 19:25
|
the idea doesn't seem to be a go-er. open to abuse and would generate a huge amount of hassle and paperwork.
who would run the system and how would it be paid for?
|
the idea doesn't seem to be a go-er. open to abuse and would generate a huge amount of hassle and paperwork. who would run the system and how would it be paid for?
Yes it is a go-er. Its not open to abuse, the only way of getting a higher rebate is to clock your car forwards which will reduce its residual value almost certainly by more that you defraud the scheme by - so at the end of the day you will be out of pocket.
The DVLA run the scheme within their tax disc department, you get a cheque as well as a tax disc in the post.
|
you get a cheque aswell as a tax disc in the post.
sounds nice, won't happen.
what if:
you don't sell your car, clock it on a few thousand miles a year,run it into the ground and scrap it. no resale value anyway. i win me thinks.
|
sounds nice won't happen. what if: you don't sell your car clock it on a few thousand miles a year run it into the ground and scrap it. no resale value anyway. i win me thinks.
If enough people want something to happen then it can happen. Presently the Government is weak so it might buckle - but only if there was a large ground swell in favour of the scheme. That's not the case as present, but then Rome wasn't built in a day, this is your opportunity to be an early convert.
The scheme ensures that all motorists pay less for their fuel, what motorist wouldn't want that? (And it addresses the environmental issues around motoring).
The number of people who would try to defraud the scheme, using your method or any other, would be too few to affect its successful operation. The amount that you could make per vehicle is small anyway, and you would have to get your ancient vehicle through its MOT which could wipe out your 'profit'.
|
If enough people want something to happen then it can happen.
no offence BUT guff, if enough people want it to happen the government will be more adament to stop us
|
|
|
|
Put VAT back up to 17.5% its reduction has had no effect on people's spending habits.
Mark - I haven't read your original post, but I'm impressed by your fighting spirit :-).
Edited by Focus {P} on 19/08/2009 at 20:21
|
>> Put VAT back up to 17.5% its reduction has had no effect on people's spending >> habits. Mark - I haven't read your original post but I'm impressed by your fighting spirit :-).
Cheers; there are no prizes for giving up!
Please read the original post; there is more on my website if you are interested.
PS: It would be really nice if someone would sign the petition, given the current comments that may be a bit optimistic - today anyway :-).
(If I can find the time I will try and wear you lot down!).
|
So excuse me for not reading the posts above but how does this work for new cars that do not need an MOT for the first years? And who's pays for all the admin?
And how would I get the duty back on my personal mileage vs business mileage when I have a fuel card on which I pay for personal mileage? Do I get some and the company the rest? And who verifies the split?
This idea won't work will it. I can see the thread locked again soon.....
|
|
So I take it the two signatures so far are Mr and Mrs Thake :-)
|
|
|
This idea won't work will it. I can see the thread locked again soon.....
since when was a rubbish idea grounds to lock a thread? what you trying to do, close down most of the site?
Ok its nuts, but the guy has posted it constructively, and most have responded with practical and reasoned rejection.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark - I haven't read your original post but I'm impressed by your fighting spirit :-).
I'm not impressed with him quoting the full message he's replying to however!
Mark, please snip and summarise as the pop up message requests. Thank you. DD.
|
Mark, I don't know how it can be scammed but what I am sure is that it will be. Large amounts of money flowing around involving 30m people in the country would be an enormous incentive to criminal gangs. Front companies, clocking fake documents etc.
Also how would it work with hire cars companies or those vehicles that are exempt from MoT test?
Edited by sooty123 on 20/08/2009 at 12:34
|
We see some nutters on this site with mad ideas, but this is the nuttiest.
>>Also the costs to run this are minimal.
Yeah right. Another 10,000 in a marginal constituency with their salaries paid for by this dead-duck corrupt government. That's an extra Labour seat or three.
>>You would have to clock your car forward so nobody would do it.
The types who are most likely to defraud the government are the poor with the oldest, most high-mileage cars.
5p per mile is £50 per 1,000 miles. Or £5,000 per 100,000 miles. ANY car I buy for £5,000 will be worth more than £0 when it has done an extra 100,000 miles. Few 10k cars will have lost half their value as a result of doing an extra 100,000 miles.
|
The OP's idea is a load of old codswollop. The more you drive, the more money they give you! Wow what an incentive to cut back your unnecessary motoring.....not.
Thankfully stupid proposals like this get filed straightaway.....under waste bin.
Edited by brum on 20/08/2009 at 13:17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
