You don't pay road tax

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Lizban

New Member
Having read the argument and rebuttals against the moronic chant of 'you don't pay road tax' I am confused.

The rebuttal appears to rely on the fact that road building is paid for by general taxation and is based on emissions therefore cyclist have zero emissions therefore pay zero.

However I can't think of a way of driving on the road (legally) without paying tax to access them even if you have a very low emission car.

So have the much derided motorists actually got a point? If so can we come up with a better rebuttal?
 
Location
Edinburgh
Band A cars pay a VED of £0.00
 

Archie

Errrr.....
Lizban said:
Having read the argument and rebuttals against the moronic chant of 'you don't pay road tax' I am confused.
Here's an easier one then.

"What are you then, the tax inspector?"

Folk don't like being called that, for some reason. :biggrin:
 
OP
OP
L

Lizban

New Member
User3143 said:
No, because there is no such thing as road tax - only car tax which should be refered to as VED (Vehicle Excise Duty)

I'm fully aware of this but I see 'road tax' a generic catch all term rather than 'a tax that pays for roads'

The English language is full of such short cuts. When I go to the post office I don't ask for my Vehicle Excise Duty to be updated, I say can I have a new tax disk please.

So let’s be clear to drive a car on the road you MUST pay tax. So I ask again have the motorists got it right (and if so do we need a better rebuttal)
 

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
Lizban said:
Having read the argument and rebuttals against the moronic chant of 'you don't pay road tax' I am confused.

The rebuttal appears to rely on the fact that road building is paid for by general taxation and is based on emissions therefore cyclist have zero emissions therefore pay zero.

The main idea behind "you don't pay road tax" is that motorists are somehow a unique and oppressed entity that pay something that generously subsidise all us peasant pedestrians, cyclists and any other road users they don't like.

As hypothecated taxes do no exist in this circumstance (and many others) that is pretty much all that needs to be said on the matter. That is to say that as it is out of general taxation, various other people are subsidising their motoring activities in a sense, not the other way round!
 
OP
OP
L

Lizban

New Member
User3143 said:
Indeed, which is based on either Carbon emissions or the size of the engine. A bike doesn't have any of these so therefore you don't pay.

I can see your point however when you look at the reasoning behind VED you realise that it does not apply to cyclists and therefore motorists don't have a point.


Don't forget fuel duty - and if it was purely for emissions can someone explain ‘red’ diesel to me!?!?!?!?
 
User3143 said:
No, because there is no such thing as road tax - only car tax which should be refered to as VED (Vehicle Excise Duty)

How much is the VED on your lorry and why did they set the rate at 10 times that of a regular car ?
 

XmisterIS

Purveyor of fine nonsense
Lizban said:
Yes but pay tax on fuel still!


Aye, but we pay tax on our "fuel" if it is classed as "non essential".

E.g. you pay tax on cake ...

.... Mmmm, cake!!!!!

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=6269602

:biggrin:
 
OP
OP
L

Lizban

New Member
marinyork said:
The main idea behind "you don't pay road tax" is that motorists are somehow a unique and oppressed entity that pay something that generously subsidise all us peasant pedestrians, cyclists and any other road users they don't like.

As hypothecated taxes do no exist in this circumstance (and many others) that is pretty much all that needs to be said on the matter. That is to say that as it is out of general taxation, various other people are subsidising their motoring activities in a sense, not the other way round!

But there IS a direct correlation between using the roads and HAVING to pay for them if you are in a car. Drivers have to pay cyclists don't - drivers cost more to look after and build roads for but that doesn't mean cyclists are free to cater for - there is a direct cost of us using the road.

The rebuttal unfortunately is very weak as the motorists have a point.

(Having said that the manner in which they make this point weakens this considerably.)
 

swee'pea99

Legendary Member
For most of us, the correct response is 'yes I do'. For those of us who don't have a car as well as a bike, might I suggest 'Up yours'.
 

Dan B

Disengaged member
Lizban said:
So have the much derided motorists actually got a point?
No. They pay road tax - I don't - so what? You don't see smokers demanding preferential treatment from the NHS because the duty on their fags helps fund it.

My favourite response to the chant remains "no, I don't pay for sex either", but it's unlikely ever to calm the situation.
 
OP
OP
L

Lizban

New Member
User3143 said:
You don't pay VAT on food or otherwise you could argue that. edit: It would appear that you do actually pay some sort of tax on food but not at the checkout. It is taxed very early on in the products life.

Fuel duty, well of course because it brings in an enormous amount of revenue to the Goverment. Also an enviromental issue as well (pay less fuel duty and VED buy a car with a bigger engine)

Red diesel is used for engines that don't travel on the road and is used to run machinery - however the duty is going up on this as well. Trust me -it's not as cheap as it used to be.

Always makes me smile the tax on food argument!

The red diesel confirms in my mind that fuel duty is a direct (unavoidable) tax you must pay to use the roads – strengthening the drivers arguments and sense of injustice.
 

Dan B

Disengaged member
Lizban said:
But there IS a direct correlation between using the roads and HAVING to pay for them if you are in a car. Drivers have to pay cyclists don't - drivers cost more to look after and build roads for but that doesn't mean cyclists are free to cater for - there is a direct cost of us using the road.
Which cost is met through general taxation, into which pot I pay a goodly chunk every month.

But the fundamental premise is flawed: it's a tax (actually a duty), not a licence. There's nothing immoral about legally avoiding it any more than there is about minimising your exposure to any other kind of tax.
 
Top Bottom