[leonEV979jones]

The government has decided that EV owners must pay a vehicle excise duty of £190 from our car’s second year onwards, while owners of older, smaller diesel cars registered before 2017 are still paying as little as £20 a year.

This is not just a personal issue, but of widespread concern. The discrepancy is glaring: older cars, with substantial CO2 emissions, end up paying less in VED than new EVs that emit no CO2 at all. This undermines the very concept of vehicle taxation that’s supposed to be based on a vehicle’s CO2 emissions and undercuts the incentive to go green.

Given the considerable benefits of electric vehicles in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, this decision seems counterproductive. According to the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, a typical electric car in the UK may emit 60% less CO2 than a petrol car over the course of its life (source: UK Government).

This is an urgent appeal. The unjust taxation disincentivises the adoption of electric vehicles and hinders the country's progress towards environmental sustainability. We call on the government to rethink its decision and foster equitable taxation that truly reflects a vehicle's impact on the environment. Please sign to make your voice heard.


The UK government says:
From 1 April 2025, drivers of electric vehicles will need to pay for VED – road tax. Announced by the Government in the 2022 Autumn Budget, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt stated: “To make our motoring tax system fairer I've decided that electric vehicles will no longer be exempt from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)
Fairer for who?
The continued freeze of fossil fuels prices at the pump, will cause the Government financial loss of significant revenue, the VED increases on low CO2, hybrid and EV vehicles will not offset the revenue lost for by the freeze on ICE CO2 generating vehicles

Please see the petition here:
https://www.change.org/ExciseDutyonElectricVehicles

[Drivingforfun]

Not saying the new laws are right or wrong but taxes are changed with a long-term approach and a minority of short-term outliers will find they are being punished for doing the right thing

What I'm saying is in 10 years most of the cars you mention will have been scrapped and it will be irrelevant anyway

When VED was changed to be based on the car's RRP (cars over £40k pay more) there were a few cars that were very polluting but cost under £40k. The Ford Mustang is a good example, the tax on a pre-2017 Mustang was over £500 and a post-2017 car was ~£140. At the same time some clean-but-expensive cars like the Tesla Model S ended up paying more VED than a 5L V8 Mustang as they paid £0 base tax but they paid the ~£300 tax for being a "luxury" car!

[olduser]

I think, this will help to get at the facts:

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ved-ca...ll-it-cost-you

As to fairness, my thought is tax in any form is only fair when others are paying.
Yet tax is needed to finance the state.

[Rolebama]

In 1903, when I think road tax was introduced, (by any other name), it was relevant to horsepower. Since then it has been sorted by just about everything. Bearing in mind it was introduced to build and maintain roads, now it goes into the kitty to pay for MPs duck houses and the like.

[NMNeil]

A diesel powered car/van/truck is taxed with road tax, fuel tax, VAT on spares etc.
An EV pays no tax on fuel and, as they don't need regular oil changes, spark plugs etc. they pay almost nothing in VAT for spares, so the only way to make up the difference is to increase the road tax, and as the UK is billions in the red, expect the road tax to steadily climb. After all as far as governments are concerned the motorist is a cash cow that needs to be milked on a regular basis.

[olduser]

I noticed a short piece in one of todays news papers, a road fund tax based on vehicle weight is being considered.
That would be a blow to the road haulage companies, and therefore increase the cost of living.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by olduser

I noticed a short piece in one of todays news papers, a road fund tax based on vehicle weight is being considered.
That would be a blow to the road haulage companies, and therefore increase the cost of living.

It depends what you mean by "being considered".

It has been proposed by one "expert" in a book, for which he has now had some free publicity on a slow news day.

[olduser]

You are probably right.

The last government kept leaking proposals to see if the public liked any, I suppose this could be the same sort of thing.

[Rolebama]

I was told years ago that if you hear a rumour of a that affects you negatively, whatever the source, you can bet on it being introduced three months later. This has proven to be true more often than not. Promotions, demotions, layoffs, re-structuring, and anything that means either local or central government take more money from us.

[olduser]

Yes, I suppose that's why we don't talk or even think about death...🙂

I think roads cost the government £10 - £15 billion a year in the last few years.
VED raised about £7.5 billion less with Covid.
Fuel duty was worth about £27 billion (perhaps that should read £26.9 billion as it is petrol or diesel 😏) but fuel duty was supposed to pay for the 'greening' of the UK?

[NMNeil]

@olduser Supposedly only 25% of the taxes extorted from the motorist is actually spent on the roads.
https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/road-spending-falls-to-quarter-of-motoring-tax-income

[olduser]

Little if any Tax is ring fenced in the UK, taxes tend to go into one big pot which pays for everything.

The £10 - £15 billion is an estimated figure by government sources covering 2020 - 2023.
It supposed to include new roads, maintenance, administration, policing, and health issues, etc.

The article you refer to doe's not mention that Fuel Duty was introduced to fund 'green' projects and by increasing the cost of fuel, would encourage the public to buy economical vehicles, pushing the industry to produce such vehicles.

Apart from the discount on EV's, and Domestic Heat Pumps, it's hard to think of any funded green projects but the motor industry certainly had to respond to the demand for better fuel consumption, in response to the pressure from the public, the EU, and the West's pollution regulations.

As an aside, I read the decision by the EU to ban IC engines was because the motor industry pleaded, to go any further than the E6 regulations was not possible or at least too expensive.
The EU countered with OK we will go to EV's, and ban IC's!

[Rolebama]

I have noticed a couple of things about the various theories and ideas about pollution and green-ness. Never a mention about culling the human race. As a nation, we have culled squirrels, badgers and a whole variety of wildlife. Yet we all run around breathing out CO2 and driving cars, using lorries and vans to transport our wants around the country.
Cull the humans. Less people driving, breathing, lighting barbecues and fire pits, and less people working in polluting industries and cutting down trees.

Or is that a bit too radical?

[Mark07]

Originally Posted by olduser

The article you refer to doe's not mention that Fuel Duty was introduced to fund 'green' projects and by increasing the cost of fuel, would encourage the public to buy economical vehicles, pushing the industry to produce such vehicles.

It may be correlation than causation, but it seems to me that there are fewer cars with larger engines than 20-30 years ago.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by olduser

The article you refer to doe's not mention that Fuel Duty was introduced to fund 'green' projects and by increasing the cost of fuel, would encourage the public to buy economical vehicles, pushing the industry to produce such vehicles.

It was introduced in 1909, some considerable time before green issues became fashionable. 3p per gallon, FWIW.

I don't remember that, but I have been driving since the 1960s. Fuel duty was usually a headline item in the budget, along with beer and fags.

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by olduser

The article you refer to doe's not mention that Fuel Duty was introduced to fund 'green' projects and by increasing the cost of fuel, would encourage the public to buy economical vehicles, pushing the industry to produce such vehicles.

Funny how many taxes they introduce or want to introduce saying that it will pay for a noble cause.
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/bl...health-funding

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

Funny how many taxes they introduce or want to introduce saying that it will pay for a noble cause.
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/bl...health-funding

Very true. But in the case of the duty on petrol, that cause wasn't a green one, but the introduction of the state old-age pension. That needed a lot of other tax increases, including the usual income tax, booze and fags.

[olduser]

I think it was around 2007 -2008 the shift to funding green projects was given for the annual increases in fuel duty.
Though the increases have been cancelled for the last few years.

[Rolebama]

Originally Posted by Mark07

It may be correlation than causation, but it seems to me that there are fewer cars with larger engines than 20-30 years ago.

I think that engines are far more efficient nowadays. Coupling better fuel usage and performance. My first 2-litre was a Standard Ensign which, downhill with a tail wind, might pull the skin off a rice pudding. Took all day to reach 60mph which was not far short of it's max speed. Drank petrol like Desperate Dan ate cow pies. Nowadays the simple 3-cylinder 1-litre engine jobbies would run rings around it in every way, and those I have been in are far more comfortable.

[olduser]

Modern engines are a big improvement, as long as we avoid the oiled toothed belt problem!

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by olduser

Modern engines are a big improvement, as long as we avoid the oiled toothed belt problem!

I agree on the belt, but not on the engines.
New Chevy 1500 pickup, which is available with different engine options.
6.2 liter V8 15-17 MPG
5.3 liter V8 16-19 MPG
2.7 liter turbocharged 4 cylinder 17-20 MPG
So rather than a large slow revving engine getting roughly 17 MPG it's replaced by a turbocharged high revving screamer that has an appalling reliability history that only gets about 19 MPG.

[Rolebama]

I remember when the Range Rover first made its appearance, I asked a few owners what they thought of them. The Buick-rejected 3.5L lump did around 7 - 10mpg. They weren't really that good either.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

I agree on the belt, but not on the engines.
New Chevy 1500 pickup, which is available with different engine options.
6.2 liter V8 15-17 MPG
5.3 liter V8 16-19 MPG
2.7 liter turbocharged 4 cylinder 17-20 MPG
So rather than a large slow revving engine getting roughly 17 MPG it's replaced by a turbocharged high revving screamer that has an appalling reliability history that only gets about 19 MPG.

But this is what killed the US car industry, big inefficient engines, with restricted breathing giving low power output but high torque, fed with cheap fuel.
It sounds as though, they have not learned, an engine has to be designed properly to have a turbo, it's not just a matter of bolting a turbo on.

I was referring to European car engines, these were exposed to world markets from about 1950 onwards.
The local conditions demand a car that would stop, go, and go around corners, and do this whilst running on high priced fuel.
The Japanese had showed that engines could be made to have a longer life by using better production methods.
Even then, it was not until antipollution measures were forced upon the manufacturers, any significant progress was made in efficiency.

[Rolebama]

The only antipollution measures I worked with were catalytic converters and enclosed crankcase ventilation systems. Both were proven to be very likely to increase pollution levels due to their stifling engine efficiency. As to EGRs, I had them on both my diesels, and they were both capable of well over 60mpg and 40mpg around town. Now we have DPFs, where, initially, an occasional thrash was recommended. Very good for pollution. I have no idea of the pollution level of Ad Blue, but adding to the running cost is not conducive to efficiency in terms of cost per mile.
As far as I am aware these were foisted on manufacturers by relevant governments.

[olduser]

As far as I can remember catalytic converters, were the American motor industries fix to comply with California's pollution regulations, later copied by other manufacturers (America was already using them as standard)
But anyway, Cat's, EGR's, DPF's, and Ad Blue were all created by the industry as ways of meeting pollution regulations.
The pollution regulations, were the outcome of consultations between governments and the industry.
Whilst I agree these were all foisted on the end user but by the manufacturers not governments, all the governments specified was a pollution level.

Exhaust gas recirculation had been in use for a long time by using valve overlap and exhaust manifolds designed to hold exhaust gases, not particularly to avoid pollution but to stabilise tick-over and low speed (revs) running, on both petrol and diesels it was found that unburned hydrocarbons were reduced, and particularly on diesels Nox was reduced.
I think EGR valves came in when manufacturers wanted better control of recirculation, and more recirculation.

DPF's were again the industries response to a government consultation on Particulate matter (soot).
I read somewhere, that Dyson (he of vacuum cleaner fame) offered a vortex design to the industry, the vortex dumped the particles into a container that could be cleaned out or replaced but they were not interested, they could do it better.

Adblue (urea solution) is the industry trying to do what it told government's it could do, to reduce NOx emissions from diesels, it mixes with the exhaust gases and catalyses a reaction to break down the NOx in the exhaust gases.

Of late, the Turbo has joined the pollution battle by allowing small engine boosted, to do the work of a larger less efficient engine.

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

As far as I am aware these were foisted on manufacturers by relevant governments.

I believe it was pressure on government from citizens who wanted to breath clean air that caused the changes.
https://cleanair.london/app/uploads/...-GLA-20021.pdf