On 2006-08-15 22:50:19 +0100, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
That's why it would be better to put the tax onto fuel in the form of a
higher VAT rate rather than vehicles. Those consuming more fuel and
used more often would attract higher cost.

But there are many people who live in areas where there is little or no
alternative to private vehicles.

If VED was banded according to the address of the registered keeper,
people in cities would pay more for possessing a car; people in rural
areas could pay less. Similar to a congestion charge, but without the
need for spy cameras to police. Admittedly some people would falsify
the keeper's address, but that would render the insurance invalid and
would also be a specific offence.

Reasonable.



Although people moan about petrol tax, it doesn't affect behaviour
because it's paid so gradually that it's absorbed into general
household expenditure. An extra few thousand quid demand once a year
would, however, prompt a fair number of people to consider if they
really need/can afford a car.

Which would again favour those with the ability to pay. Is that what
you intended?



And any employer saying that an employee must have access to a private
car should have to pay the VED, to encourage increased use of pool cars
or even a taxi account.


That's impractical. Increasingly people work from home and so a
private car for business purposes becomes essential. Secondly, there
is a trend away from company provided cars to car allowances. This
becomes somewhat moot because it is treated as income for tax purposes.

Generally though, if people consider that they have a need or desire to
use a private car, they will do so, and TBH, the government is wasting
its time and our money if it believes it can alter behaviour.