Why not do it the way the French do it? Charge a single fee, related to engines size, for registering a car and that's it.

VED is an example of the British government's typical way to do anything, make it complicated, inefficient and unfair.

How many pre-1973 cars of any type do you actually see on the morning commute or on the M25 in a Friday night rush hour?

Not many I suspect. These type of cars do very little mileage so I support the free VED for all of them.

In the case of a pre-1973 I would imagine the amout of fuel it uses means the owner pays a lot of tax for two day trips out a year anyway!

"Government giving away £67m to Ferrari owners..."

This is typical rubbish .

Who pays RFL? Taxpayers.

Who does the money belong to? Taxpayers.

The previous but several Government decides not to tax older cars. So the taxpayers don't pay tax.

It takes a really serious type of inverted logic to equate "not paying tax" with "the Government is giving money away".

Presumably teh writer thinks all money belongs to the Government and property owning is theft? Because that is what the headline means...

'writing a cheque to millionaires' by reducing the top rate of tax.

Since the big earners generally aren't on PAYE and don't pay much income tax, it doesn't much matter if the niminal rate is 50% or 45%. The whole argument over 50p was very depressing. Osborne announces a non-existent tax cut and Balls denounces him for writing cheques to millionaires. Meanwhile Jimy Carr carries on paying an effective tax rate of 2%...

Can't we just use a flat tax system set at a practical rate, or would that be too simple?

Labour's line that the tax cut will 'cost £3billion' is just embarassing now.

Waht can you expect from the Shadow Chancellor Ed BBBBalls? Economic competence?

He had his chance in Government and proved he was a useless spendthrift with no financial nous.

It might be vaguely near £3bn if the people they believe should pay it were actually paying it. It also might be sort of £3bn if the raising of taxes didn't influence behaviour. For instance how many high earners fled to Zurich when the tax came in?

Government has this hilarious tendancy to think 'lets bring in a higher tax' and then do the calculations to work out how much they'll get from all these people, no doubt the calculator told them £3bn in regard to the 50p rate but no calculator could've told them what those liable would do to avoid it. Government never realises every policy has a knock on effect to something else, like all that extra NHS 'investment' is now bankrupting the pensions bill because people live too long.

A great example of this is motoring taxes, such as the idea of road pricing. In the same paragraph they say the plan is to use the money raised from road pricing to improve public transport but the main focus is to get cars off the road. Well if we stop driving then they won't get their money will they? Can't have it both ways. The Scottish Government recently announced plans to charge a supertax levy on all big stores who sell tobacco products. In the same breath they claim it'll save thousands of lives but also raise £400m over 4 years, well not if the shops stop selling it surely?