On 21/05/2021 22:19, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/05/2021 21:41, Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/05/2021 16:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,

Â*Â* Tim+ wrote:
Everyone here seems to obsess over the negatives and refuse to
acknowledge the positives of EVs.

On my current variable tariff my fuel costs less than 2p per mile.
Even
if I was on a standard fixed rate tariff of say 15p/kWh, it would
still
be under 5p per mile.

Enjoy it while you can. As the tax revenue from petrol and diesel
falls,
the government will have to find a way to replace it. And the most
likely
way, road pricing.

If so, this will be yet another example of how we're progressing
back to
the days of travel by stagecoach.

Can't really see any other way. With diesel etc you pay more tax the
more
you drive. And it's not really possible to tax electricity used in EVs
separately.

I am absolutely fine with per mile payment - as long as it is flat
rate (not penalising people from needing to travel at peak times or on
congested roads), is revenue neutral (no taking the opportunity to
hike up motoring taxes), done by tamper proof odometer (no tracking of
where, when, how fast, etc. you drive) and is not used to penalise
existing petrol and diesel vehicles by by charging it on top of fuel
duty.

I think you're being very optimistic. A long while ago it was said that
motor revenue was equivalent to Income Tax. Why do you think all the
cash will go to providing road maintenance and nothing else?

I didn't say that I said revenue neutral - replacing fuel duty with per
mile charging, but setting the rate so that it is a direct replacement,
raising neither more nor less.

I'm sure there will be more congestion charges too, since its revenue
goes to the local council and not the Treasury.

Which should not be allowed. Charging on top of charging!