":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The VAT/duty scheme is an extremely flexible way to tailor taxation
effects to achieve the result you want.

No it's not. Controlled by the EU.


That would be why Brown was prevented from *removing* VAT on domestic fuel
(rather than just lowering it to 5pc) back in 1997 at his first budget, at
the time it was made clear that such fuel could not be zero rated due to
EU tax regulations.


Funny how nulabor want to put a carbon tax on but want to remove VAT.
The VAT was added as an easy to collect carbon tax, not that it works very
well.

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:53:50 UTC, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 47dda9cd@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Too right. My mate drowned in a bowl of muesli. He was pulled
under
by a strong current.............

What was the raisin for that?

Is this going to turn into a cereal?

If so I can barley wait for the next episode.

And the stuff costs an almond a leg.


You're all bananas...


I wander what date the thread will end on?

On Mar 14, 5:54*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...





On Mar 14, 1:28 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
:Jerry: wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:
You really don't know the VED on a small car, do you?

There is only one small car that has zero VED, it's not has not
been
sold in this country for a few years and its availability (to say
the
least...) was some what limited when it was, all other cars have to
pay the VED and that cost (to the motorist) is relative to the
vehicles annual mileage, that was the point being made by "TNP".
Lowest emission petrol/diesel vehicles pay 30 quid and there are a
number
of these.

Yes, and what does that 30 quid represent to an OAP (thus a fixed
income) who does 100 miles pa, travelling to and from the post office
(assuming she still has one) and church once a week, in real terms
it's costing him/her more than the highest VED mean for the so called
"Gas guzzlers" being driven 60k pa driving to and from Scotland each
week.

Exactly.

What high VED does is to penalise low mileage people and benefit high
mileage people.

There is nothing that couldn't be done simply by raising fuel duty.

Given your moniker, you haven't really thought about this one, have
you.

So, lets take some very round figures. A does 1000miles/pa, 25mpg
(mostly short journeys) and pays £100 VED for a small car. Remove the
VED and fuel duty would need to go up by £2.50 per gallon.

B does 60k miles per year at 50mpg (longer, more efficient runs) and
pays £300 VED for a larger car, so pays 60000/50*2.5 or £3000 pa extra
or 10x the VED.

I don't think so.

MBQ

However the one doing 60k is producing more pollution (1) so if it polluter
pays it is fair.

1: assuming water and CO2 are pollutants.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depends how you measure it.

The one doing 60K is more likely to be doing longer journeys,
essential for their livelihood and running the car much more
efficiently. Why should they be penalised over the low mileage case
that is probably used for short, inefficient (ie more polluting per
mile) journeys?

I realised I took the extreme case in my example. Even if you removed
VED in a way that was revenue neutral for someone doing, say 12k miles
pa, you would still be adding about 60p/litre to fuel and penalising
higher mileages ouot of all proportion.

MBQ

On Mar 15, 1:24*pm, ":Jerry:" wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in ...





In article ,
* Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* *The Natural Philosopher wrote:
What high VED does is to penalise low mileage people and benefit
high
mileage people.

But it's not high. It's peanuts.

GBP445 is not peanuts.

If you can afford the sort of vehicle that costs that in VED it will
still
be a small percentage of the overall running costs.

You are still missing the point, that is, for some this is not a
choice issue but one of need. Tax is a blunt tool and in this case
(pollution) is not doing anything to make the polluter pay for their
pollution - as I said way up, someone who does 1k in a Range Rover pa

Is probably doiong short journeys with a cold engine and causing far
more pollution per mile than...

someone does 60k
in a SMART car

Which implies long journeys at or near to the most efficient rpm.

but the Range Rover owner is subsidising the owner of
the SMART car!

Because they are polluting more per mile!

MBQ

On Mar 16, 10:56*am, Roger wrote:
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

*I can just imagine all the moans on here if they put up the price of fuel
even more to cover the loss of VED income.

Surely only from those who lost out.

You don't really think it will be done in such a way that anyone
gains?

MBQ

The message

from "Man at B&Q" contains these words:

The one doing 60K is more likely to be doing longer journeys,
essential for their livelihood and running the car much more
efficiently. Why should they be penalised over the low mileage case
that is probably used for short, inefficient (ie more polluting per
mile) journeys?

I realised I took the extreme case in my example. Even if you removed
VED in a way that was revenue neutral for someone doing, say 12k miles
pa, you would still be adding about 60p/litre to fuel and penalising
higher mileages ouot of all proportion.

Out of all proportion to what?

Restrict the tax on cars to tax on fuel and the tax is automatically in
proportion to the pollution regardless of the length of each individual
journey or the total mileage.

--
Roger Chapman

The message

from "Man at B&Q" contains these words:

*I can just imagine all the moans on here if they put up the price
of fuel
even more to cover the loss of VED income.

Surely only from those who lost out.

You don't really think it will be done in such a way that anyone
gains?

It could be designed to be revenue neutral and even if it wasn't it is
hard to see how the price of fuel could be loaded to such an extent that
all low mileage users of economical cars would lose out.

--
Roger Chapman

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 5:54 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in
...





On Mar 14, 1:28 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
:Jerry: wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:
You really don't know the VED on a small car, do you?

There is only one small car that has zero VED, it's not has not
been
sold in this country for a few years and its availability (to say
the
least...) was some what limited when it was, all other cars have
to
pay the VED and that cost (to the motorist) is relative to the
vehicles annual mileage, that was the point being made by "TNP".
Lowest emission petrol/diesel vehicles pay 30 quid and there are a
number
of these.

Yes, and what does that 30 quid represent to an OAP (thus a fixed
income) who does 100 miles pa, travelling to and from the post
office
(assuming she still has one) and church once a week, in real terms
it's costing him/her more than the highest VED mean for the so
called
"Gas guzzlers" being driven 60k pa driving to and from Scotland each
week.

Exactly.

What high VED does is to penalise low mileage people and benefit high
mileage people.

There is nothing that couldn't be done simply by raising fuel duty.

Given your moniker, you haven't really thought about this one, have
you.

So, lets take some very round figures. A does 1000miles/pa, 25mpg
(mostly short journeys) and pays £100 VED for a small car. Remove the
VED and fuel duty would need to go up by £2.50 per gallon.

B does 60k miles per year at 50mpg (longer, more efficient runs) and
pays £300 VED for a larger car, so pays 60000/50*2.5 or £3000 pa extra
or 10x the VED.

I don't think so.

MBQ

However the one doing 60k is producing more pollution (1) so if it
polluter
pays it is fair.

1: assuming water and CO2 are pollutants.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depends how you measure it.

The one doing 60K is more likely to be doing longer journeys,
essential for their livelihood and running the car much more
efficiently. Why should they be penalised over the low mileage case
that is probably used for short, inefficient (ie more polluting per
mile) journeys?

If they are doing more MPG then they will pay less per km.


I realised I took the extreme case in my example. Even if you removed
VED in a way that was revenue neutral for someone doing, say 12k miles
pa, you would still be adding about 60p/litre to fuel and penalising
higher mileages ouot of all proportion.

Not according to my maths..

£150 VED / 12000 miles = 1.25p/m
assuming the average is 35 mpg = 44p per gallon or about 8p/l
assuming the average is 17 mpg = twice the above.



MBQ

On 17/03/2008 14:32 Roger wrote:

Restrict the tax on cars to tax on fuel and the tax is automatically in
proportion to the pollution regardless of the length of each individual
journey or the total mileage.

Two additional points 'for':
- the tax can't be avoided
- the industry that exists to administer tax discs will disappear
overnight along with the expense of maintaining it.

--
F

(Beware of spam trap - remove the negative)

The message
from F contains these words:

Restrict the tax on cars to tax on fuel and the tax is automatically in
proportion to the pollution regardless of the length of each individual
journey or the total mileage.

Two additional points 'for':
- the tax can't be avoided
- the industry that exists to administer tax discs will disappear
overnight along with the expense of maintaining it.

The saving on the collection and enforcement would be substantial but
the DVLA would still be required to keep track of cars and drivers so it
would make sense for the tax disc to metamorphose into a visible MOT
certificate.

--
Roger Chapman

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:34:55 +0000 F wrote :
- the industry that exists to administer tax discs will disappear
overnight along with the expense of maintaining it.

You have got to have some form of registration of vehicles and
keepers. The tax disc part of this must be trivial in relation to the
rest.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In article
,
Man at B&Q wrote:
I realised I took the extreme case in my example. Even if you removed
VED in a way that was revenue neutral for someone doing, say 12k miles
pa, you would still be adding about 60p/litre to fuel and penalising
higher mileages ouot of all proportion.

Think your figures are way out.
Say 25 mpg. That's 5.5 miles per litre. So 2182 litres needed for 12,000
miles. 60p a litre extra equals 1309 quid.

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
F wrote:
Restrict the tax on cars to tax on fuel and the tax is automatically in
proportion to the pollution regardless of the length of each individual
journey or the total mileage.

Two additional points 'for':
- the tax can't be avoided
- the industry that exists to administer tax discs will disappear
overnight along with the expense of maintaining it.

No it wouldn't. New cars would still need to be registered. Change of
ownership too - and a database kept up to date. Even those vehicles which
pay no VED still have to be registered every year if used on the roads.
And even those which aren't if you may wish to return them to the road at
some time. (SORN)

--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 14, 5:54 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...





On Mar 14, 1:28 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
:Jerry: wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:
You really don't know the VED on a small car, do you?
There is only one small car that has zero VED, it's not has not
been
sold in this country for a few years and its availability (to say
the
least...) was some what limited when it was, all other cars have to
pay the VED and that cost (to the motorist) is relative to the
vehicles annual mileage, that was the point being made by "TNP".
Lowest emission petrol/diesel vehicles pay 30 quid and there are a
number
of these.
Yes, and what does that 30 quid represent to an OAP (thus a fixed
income) who does 100 miles pa, travelling to and from the post office
(assuming she still has one) and church once a week, in real terms
it's costing him/her more than the highest VED mean for the so called
"Gas guzzlers" being driven 60k pa driving to and from Scotland each
week.
Exactly.
What high VED does is to penalise low mileage people and benefit high
mileage people.
There is nothing that couldn't be done simply by raising fuel duty.
Given your moniker, you haven't really thought about this one, have
you.
So, lets take some very round figures. A does 1000miles/pa, 25mpg
(mostly short journeys) and pays £100 VED for a small car. Remove the
VED and fuel duty would need to go up by £2.50 per gallon.
B does 60k miles per year at 50mpg (longer, more efficient runs) and
pays £300 VED for a larger car, so pays 60000/50*2.5 or £3000 pa extra
or 10x the VED.
I don't think so.
MBQ
However the one doing 60k is producing more pollution (1) so if it polluter
pays it is fair.

1: assuming water and CO2 are pollutants.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Depends how you measure it.

The one doing 60K is more likely to be doing longer journeys,
essential for their livelihood and running the car much more
efficiently. Why should they be penalised over the low mileage case
that is probably used for short, inefficient (ie more polluting per
mile) journeys?


Because they are producing more pollution?


I realised I took the extreme case in my example. Even if you removed
VED in a way that was revenue neutral for someone doing, say 12k miles
pa, you would still be adding about 60p/litre to fuel and penalising
higher mileages ouot of all proportion.

Utter ********.


MBQ

Roger wrote:
The message

from "Man at B&Q" contains these words:

The one doing 60K is more likely to be doing longer journeys,
essential for their livelihood and running the car much more
efficiently. Why should they be penalised over the low mileage case
that is probably used for short, inefficient (ie more polluting per
mile) journeys?

I realised I took the extreme case in my example. Even if you removed
VED in a way that was revenue neutral for someone doing, say 12k miles
pa, you would still be adding about 60p/litre to fuel and penalising
higher mileages ouot of all proportion.

Out of all proportion to what?

Restrict the tax on cars to tax on fuel and the tax is automatically in
proportion to the pollution regardless of the length of each individual
journey or the total mileage.

I think we have someone else here who 'doesn't count' Roger..;-)

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 16, 10:56 am, Roger wrote:
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

I can just imagine all the moans on here if they put up the price of fuel
even more to cover the loss of VED income.
Surely only from those who lost out.

You don't really think it will be done in such a way that anyone
gains?

MBQ
How ould you tell? yoiu have obviouly been through the 'mo maths, no
competition, no knowledge, Nu Laber' school system..;-)

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

I realised I took the extreme case in my example. Even if you removed
VED in a way that was revenue neutral for someone doing, say 12k miles
pa, you would still be adding about 60p/litre to fuel and penalising
higher mileages ouot of all proportion.

Out of all proportion to what?

Restrict the tax on cars to tax on fuel and the tax is automatically in
proportion to the pollution regardless of the length of each individual
journey or the total mileage.

I think we have someone else here who 'doesn't count' Roger..;-)

I had ignored his actual figures until Dave pointed the disparity out as
it doesn't really matter how much is charged for the fuel, the cost is
always in proportion to the mileage. I don't always get my own
calculations correct but in this particular case I think B&Q probably
meant per gallon. not per litre. It doesn't fit the £30 VED that
surfaced earlier in the thread but it would fit my car with £205 VED and
30ish overall consumption. 12000 miles, 400 gallons =£240. (Not exactly
neutral). 5000 miles = £100, Saving = £105. That at least would have
gone part way to offset the tax rise ******* Brown and his Darling crony
have imposed on me this year.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger wrote:
The message
from F contains these words:

Restrict the tax on cars to tax on fuel and the tax is
automatically in proportion to the pollution regardless of the
length of each individual journey or the total mileage.

Two additional points 'for':
- the tax can't be avoided
- the industry that exists to administer tax discs will disappear
overnight along with the expense of maintaining it.

The saving on the collection and enforcement would be substantial but
the DVLA would still be required to keep track of cars and drivers so
it would make sense for the tax disc to metamorphose into a visible
MOT certificate.

Or a valid insurance certificate.

If you watch those Cops on Camera type Police shows, they often stop cars
which the number plate reader & computer show as untaxed only to find a
whole new can of worms. many of the drivers are uninsured, banned or in
posession of drugs & stolen goods.

I reckon you still need some kind of registration system.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In article ,
Roger wrote:
The saving on the collection and enforcement would be substantial but
the DVLA would still be required to keep track of cars and drivers so it
would make sense for the tax disc to metamorphose into a visible MOT
certificate.

Too open to fiddling. It is far too easy to buy an MOT without the car
being tested - so the same would apply if private garages carried out the
annual registration too.

--
*I didn't drive my husband crazy -- I flew him there -- it was faster

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 17/03/2008 22:24 The Medway Handyman wrote:

I reckon you still need some kind of registration system.

Confirm registration details when you buy insurance?

Insurers already tell DVLA you've bought insurance so the same
notification would tell them who's got the car. If it's sold then the
new owner would need to insure it so the change of ownership would be
automatically provided. If the car doesn't show up as being re-insured
within 12 months of previous insurance then they send the boys round to
find out what's happened.

At least if you're driving it without insurance then when you buy petrol
to do so you can't avoid having to pay for what used to be a tax disc.

And yes, visible proof of insurance & MOT would be a good idea even if
we kept tax discs.

--
F

(Beware of spam trap - remove the negative)

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

The saving on the collection and enforcement would be substantial but
the DVLA would still be required to keep track of cars and drivers so it
would make sense for the tax disc to metamorphose into a visible MOT
certificate.

Too open to fiddling. It is far too easy to buy an MOT without the car
being tested - so the same would apply if private garages carried out the
annual registration too.

It is easy enough to print one but that applies just as much to tax
discs. But would a MOT testing station operative really risk his and his
employers livelihood by registering a MOT certificate without carrying
out the test? It would only take one to come unstuck for the whole
business to collapse and with the computer link there is no way the
perp. could argue that someone had copied his details off a genuine
certificate.

Fake MOTs could presumably be of some use in obtaining a real tax disc
at the PO counter but so too would be a fake insurance certificate. But
if going down that route why bother. Automatic number plate recognition
is out there looking and the first thing plod seem to do after stopping
a motorist is a vehicle check which would immediately expose any
clerical forgeries.

--
Roger Chapman

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:24:12 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Roger wrote:
The message
from F contains these words:

Restrict the tax on cars to tax on fuel and the tax is
automatically in proportion to the pollution regardless of the
length of each individual journey or the total mileage.

Two additional points 'for':
- the tax can't be avoided
- the industry that exists to administer tax discs will disappear
overnight along with the expense of maintaining it.

The saving on the collection and enforcement would be substantial but
the DVLA would still be required to keep track of cars and drivers so
it would make sense for the tax disc to metamorphose into a visible
MOT certificate.

Or a valid insurance certificate.

If you watch those Cops on Camera type Police shows, they often stop cars
which the number plate reader & computer show as untaxed only to find a
whole new can of worms. many of the drivers are uninsured, banned or in
posession of drugs & stolen goods.

And sometimes the database is out of date. At least one car was
crushed when the owner _did_ have insurance. If anything like this is
to work then the information must be accurate so a sticker on the
windscreen proving MOT/insurance would be a benefit to the driver.

M.

Roger wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

I realised I took the extreme case in my example. Even if you removed
VED in a way that was revenue neutral for someone doing, say 12k miles
pa, you would still be adding about 60p/litre to fuel and penalising
higher mileages ouot of all proportion.
Out of all proportion to what?

Restrict the tax on cars to tax on fuel and the tax is automatically in
proportion to the pollution regardless of the length of each individual
journey or the total mileage.

I think we have someone else here who 'doesn't count' Roger..;-)

I had ignored his actual figures until Dave pointed the disparity out as
it doesn't really matter how much is charged for the fuel, the cost is
always in proportion to the mileage.

No it isn't.Its proportional to the fuel used. ;-)


I don't always get my own
calculations correct but in this particular case I think B&Q probably
meant per gallon. not per litre. It doesn't fit the £30 VED that
surfaced earlier in the thread but it would fit my car with £205 VED and
30ish overall consumption. 12000 miles, 400 gallons =£240. (Not exactly
neutral). 5000 miles = £100, Saving = £105. That at least would have
gone part way to offset the tax rise ******* Brown and his Darling crony
have imposed on me this year.

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Restrict the tax on cars to tax on fuel and the tax is automatically in
proportion to the pollution regardless of the length of each individual
journey or the total mileage.

I think we have someone else here who 'doesn't count' Roger..;-)

I had ignored his actual figures until Dave pointed the disparity out as
it doesn't really matter how much is charged for the fuel, the cost is
always in proportion to the mileage.

No it isn't.Its proportional to the fuel used. ;-)

I really must give up posting post night-cap. I got it right the first
time around but picking up the random wrong words isn't something a
spell checker will do. :-)

Come to think of it I am not sure it is right to blame the single malt.
I am forever typing words that have little if any connection with what I
I think I am typing.

--
Roger Chapman

On Mar 17, 9:19*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 16, 10:56 am, Roger wrote:
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

*I can just imagine all the moans on here if they put up the price of fuel
even more to cover the loss of VED income.
Surely only from those who lost out.

You don't really think it will be done in such a way that anyone
gains?

MBQ

How ould you tell? yoiu have obviouly been through the 'mo maths, no
competition, no knowledge, Nu Laber' school system..;-)

They were old Labour when I was at school.

MBQ

In article ,
Roger wrote:
The saving on the collection and enforcement would be substantial
but the DVLA would still be required to keep track of cars and
drivers so it would make sense for the tax disc to metamorphose into
a visible MOT certificate.

Too open to fiddling. It is far too easy to buy an MOT without the car
being tested - so the same would apply if private garages carried out
the annual registration too.

It is easy enough to print one but that applies just as much to tax
discs. But would a MOT testing station operative really risk his and his
employers livelihood by registering a MOT certificate without carrying
out the test?

Yes - for money. It's near impossible to prove afterwards. A trading
standards type would have to actually obtain one to have decent proof.

It would only take one to come unstuck for the whole
business to collapse and with the computer link there is no way the
perp. could argue that someone had copied his details off a genuine
certificate.

Fake MOTs could presumably be of some use in obtaining a real tax disc
at the PO counter but so too would be a fake insurance certificate. But
if going down that route why bother. Automatic number plate recognition
is out there looking and the first thing plod seem to do after stopping
a motorist is a vehicle check which would immediately expose any
clerical forgeries.

The paperwork isn't fake.

--
*My designated driver drove me to drink

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

It is easy enough to print one but that applies just as much to tax
discs. But would a MOT testing station operative really risk his and his
employers livelihood by registering a MOT certificate without carrying
out the test?

Yes - for money. It's near impossible to prove afterwards. A trading
standards type would have to actually obtain one to have decent proof.

We will just have to agree to disagree then.

FWIW I don't see false MOT certificates as an area for trading
standards. It would be a police investigation in conjunction with the
MFT.

--
Roger Chapman

In article ,
Roger wrote:
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

It is easy enough to print one but that applies just as much to tax
discs. But would a MOT testing station operative really risk his and
his employers livelihood by registering a MOT certificate without
carrying out the test?

Yes - for money. It's near impossible to prove afterwards. A trading
standards type would have to actually obtain one to have decent proof.

We will just have to agree to disagree then.

Perhaps you just need to know a few low lifes. ;-)

FWIW I don't see false MOT certificates as an area for trading
standards. It would be a police investigation in conjunction with the
MFT.

The certificates aren't false. It's the actual test that is. And as i said
very difficult to prove afterwards. There are of course some prosecutions
but this doesn't stop some making a quick buck.

--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.