I can't see how they can possibly police this. It would cost so much to put cameras everywhere and put extra motorway rozzers on duty that it completely negates the extra revenue they're hoping to generate.

Motorways, A roads and bridges were built to stop people clogging up towns and cities and crashing many timesi n the process. Now they want to make a few quid they want to reverse all of that?

I just think it's about time they started targeting somebody else with their pocket-fleecing machine. The motorist gives them £50billion direct and probably helps generate most of the rest of what they get as it is. Isn't it time to start taxing bicycles, oldpersonmobiles, skateboards etc? Maybe we should scrap the fuel duty break the buses get while we're at it. Start kicking somebody else.

One day Government will work out we haven't got a massive budget deficit because we never taxed people enough.

The problem is that when electric cars are more common how can they tax the fuel on them?

An excellent point. Electric cars should be paying taxes on electricity on the same pro rata basis as road fuels. This was a foreseeable problem that would have been remedied if electric cars were mandated to have meters installed at their charging points.

Too much affluence has caused the congestion.

Yesterday I saw the figures for a "Living Wage" which are above the Minimum Wage level - they're also nearly double the State Pension which it's perfectly possible to live on (and buy new cars) - the problem is that people expect so much these days.

Sometimes you have to travel because that's where the job is. When wifey was made redundant priority was a new job in town like her old one, after 2 months got one, walked to work on the first day to be told "sorry, cannot afford to pay you, should have written or phoned I suppose, goodbye". Next job offer was 3 junctions up the M1 which she took and 2 years later still joins the busy traffic on a daily basis. Travelling is not by choice, if she wants a job its essential.

The theory says reduce taxes to just one or two - income and sales for example.

Problem? totally transparent, and that would never do! A scarily large number think the amount of tax they pay is that shown on their payslips, which suits HMG just fine.

And it doesn't allow Governments to play with their people's lives, which they so love to do to "encourage" different types of behaviour.

If your car is in the £0 RFL bracket any increse in fuel duty is going to upset you.

If your car is in the £30 a year RFL braket and you do 10,000 miles a year in a diesel doing 45 mpg you use 1000 litres a year approx. Any increase over 3p per litre is going to upset you.

If your car is in band E at £120 an year RFL and you do 10,000 miles a year at 40mpg any increase over 10.5p per litre is going to upset you.

If you drive some polluting beast in band L and currently pay £460 a year RFL and do 10,000 miles a year at 25mpg any increase over 25 per litre is going to upset you.

Based on that there are going to winners and losers and since we are being encouraged to buy low RFL cars there will be more losers. Since both our cars are in the £30 bracket I am 100% certain we would be big loosers.

This has been an ongoing debate since the early 70's when I first started driving. Originally it was not really about anything other than stopping people dodging paying the RFL, think we can forget about that as a reason now due to continual taxing rules and ANPR cameras. Some still avoid paying but its a much smaller number.

So basically if its 3 pence a litre or less I am all for it.