ipayroadtax.com

[Norm]

That doesn't alter the fact that they are in error if they believe they pay 'road tax' as there is no such tax.

None of which changes the point that, when told that I shouldn't be on the roads because I don't pay road tax, my reply of "I have three cars and two motorbikes, I pay all the tax I need to pay" will get the attention of the average, or below average, motorists far better than all the pedantic stuff about the difference between a tax and a duty.

Better answer yet, though, is often to ask the driver whether the car is theirs or a company vehicle. I urinated all over one colleague's fire when I asked him how much road tax he paid on his company Saab.

 

[sgw]

my reply of "I have three cars and two motorbikes, I pay all the tax I need to pay" will get the attention of the average, or below average, motorists far better than all the pedantic stuff about the difference between a tax and a duty.

Perhaps...

But it also plays along with the ignorant motorists assumption that paying VED gives them some right of priority over those who don't.

In fact it implies that you agree with such a misconception to a degree.

(I am sure you don't. )

 

[yello]

As somebody said before does it really matter? Call it tax or call it duty it's a cost involved in running a vehicle.

Indeed. And I believe it was bonj in one of his moments of lucidity.

He went further; it actually makes the cyclist appear anal and pedantic to thrust an essentially semantic point forward as some kind of knock out argument. I could see his thinking.

 

[martint235]

Well I actually have one of the cycling tops and for whatever reason, I haven't had the road tax conversation with a motorist whilst wearing it. I agree that they probably don't get the irony of it, I think it just rams it down their throat in such a way as they realise they have to find another "failing" to berate me with (and I must have many cos I still have "conversations" with drivers )

 

[Norm]

He went further; it actually makes the cyclist appear anal and pedantic to thrust an essentially semantic point forward as some kind of knock out argument. I could see his thinking.

Indeed, although many do still seem hung up on the semantics. Fine for a reasoned pseudo-intellectual debate from the comfort of the armchair. Take it to the motoring forums, take it to the Daily Mail but it'll mean two parts of sod all to someone intent in asserting his position from inside a tin box.

 

[benb]

They should rename it "emissions surcharge"

 

[Riding in Circles]

Just ask a driver how much of of the money spent on a tax disc is actually spent on the roads. The answer should be none as the roads are paid for from general taxation like income tax, that is the whole point of the website in the OP, however I agree that that the average plank who shouts abuse about "road tax" will not be able to grasp either the irony or the argument.

 

[benb]

Just ask a driver how much of of the money spent on a tax disc is actually spent on the roads. The answer should be none as the roads are paid for from general taxation like income tax, that is the whole point of the website in the OP, however I agree that that the average plank who shouts abuse about "road tax" will not be able to grasp either the irony or the argument.

More accurately, some of the income from VED may end up being spent on roads, but there's no way of knowing, as it's not ringfenced in that way, from any source. You can just as easily say that the VAT from buying crisps pays for the roads.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Wouldn't a simple answer to, "You don't pay road tax!" be the accurate reply, "No, I don't, great innit?"

Might get a few more swinging a leg over iron?

 

[MartinC]

I agree that gettiing involved in semantics is a waste of time, especially when arguing with the ignorant. The simple fact is that everyone who pays tax in the UK pays road tax. No harm in pointing that out.

 

[yello]

The simple fact is that everyone who pays tax in the UK pays road tax. No harm in pointing that out.

Absolutely! I wholeheartedly agree.

Next time someone says 'I pay my road tax', the answer is 'so do I'.

Getting all anal about it (e.g. saying 'well, no you don't because road tax was abolished in blah blah blah vehicle emissions duty blah blah zero rated blah blah') is a waste of your time, imo. Get to the nub of the argument; challenge their assumption that the road is somehow theirs by virtue of paying this tax, whatever it may be called. To do that effectively, you have to use exactly the same terminology they would use but in a non-confrontational way.

 

[benb]

I think you can say something like "roads are paid for out of all taxation, so yes I do pay for the roads just as much as you do"
It's concise, yet doesn't perpetuate the "tax disc" myth.

 

[spire]

I think you can say something like "roads are paid for out of all taxation, so yes I do pay for the roads just as much as you do"
It's concise, yet doesn't perpetuate the "tax disc" myth.

The problem with this, while true, is that a motorist also has to pay directly to use their vehicle on the road, hence their perception of unfair treatment. (I am not defending this BTW.)

 

[benb]

The problem with this, while true, is that a motorist also has to pay directly to use their vehicle on the road, hence their perception of unfair treatment. (I am not defending this BTW.)

They should definitely rename it an emissions tax.

 

[spire]

They should definitely rename it an emissions tax.

This idea has a lot of merit – whose was it?