On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:54:59 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2017 00:12:32 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
What a very odd view. There is no difference in principle between
raising tax revenue on petrol diesel or electricity - where it is
used to power a car.

But why would specifically tax say alcohol for fuel more than if you
use the same to drink or power your camping stove.

For the same reason you pay less tax for heating oil than diesel used in a
car.

That's not a reason, just a stating of the status quo.

You asked for the reason.

Yes, I did, where is it? ;-)

Fuel is fuel, no matter how it is used. It's the system that decides
to add taxes depending on how the fuel is used, not the fuels
themselves.

And how to raise indirect taxes is decided by a principle. In this case by
taxing fuel used for road vehicles. Not boats or trains or planes or
agricultural ones. Road.

So you are saying if I buy a gallon of petrol or diesel for my boat I
don't pay tax on it? How do they know at the petrol station what I'm
going to use it for?


So it is a nonsense to exclude electric ones,

I'm not sure the others create as much pollution in our cities though
do they?

excepting that it would be
more difficult to tax the electricity used for a car, than a fossil fuel.

That is a practical consideration, true.

So a different method of raising tax from them will have to be derived.

Maybe once all the IC vehicles are removed (at least in the cities)
maybe they will bring in more toll roads and (GPS / ANPR tracked)
miles driven (= wear on roads)?

Cheers, T i m