Submitted by nastratin t3_yxunbx in Futurology
Comments
compounding t1_iwqsi6d wrote
Tax schemes need to consider the incentives they create. Pushing everyone towards not replacing tires as the tread wears down and becomes less effective is a legitimate safety issue.
And there are tire types that wear far more slowly, such as summer tires over winter… so this would essentially create a large subsidy of the former over the later. Not to mention that companies can capture an arbitrary amount of that tax if they can just make more durable tires that are more expensive but still extend the lifetime of the tire enough to reduce the cost of the tax.
bodhi85uk t1_iwqw96y wrote
They're not talking about a tax on a tyre when you buy a new tyre. They're talking about a tax on the car based on how big the tyres it requires are.
They're saying, big car, big tax, little car, little tax.
VED, also known as Road Tax in the UK, is based on emissions.
neverbeaten t1_iwqz1jl wrote
I actually was talking about a tax on tires at time of sale. I know it isn't perfect as a concept, but it is far more fair and equitable than taxing on weight, length, value, year, displacement, etc. It would be far simpler to implement than taxing a rate per mile driven while also factoring variables like model efficiency and weight and payload (which would be the most fair, but also be impossibly expensive, complex, and raise privacy concerns).
We already use a point of sale tax on fuel and gasoline. This would be similar to execute, but with tires instead of gas.
bodhi85uk t1_iwr5w3c wrote
The person you responded to was talking about tyre size as an indicator of vehicle size, and you started talking about people not replacing tyres that are worn, because they wouldn't want to pay these hypothetical taxes on their big tyres. I know you are advocating for that, but we already have a better system than it.
Taxing based on size, weight, and emissions of a car's known specification from the factory is drastically simpler, and doesn't allow for loopholes like your tax at the time of purchase on tyres, where people just decide not to get tyres. To drive a vehicle in the UK, you must have paid road tax, have insurance as a driver, and a valid MOT (safety check and inspection certificate issued annually).
Taxing tyres isn't any more inherantly fair than the way we do it now. Plus, tyres last years on the average car. You'd have many people going 3/4 years between charges. My Road tax is £220 a year - am I supposed to pay £1000 every 4 years for tyres? Really?
What happens when you get a flat tyre from a nail? You expect people to pay a large premium again? No? Well then how do you stop people taking tyres they drove a nail into themselves as a way of avoiding paying Road Tax?
There's no need to complicate things trying to take into account how much a person is hauling on any given day, or how many miles they drive. You tax tham annually on how polluting their car is, and how big it is as a proxy for how much stress it puts on the physical road surface.
grundar t1_iwsy4ze wrote
> The person you responded to was talking about tyre size as an indicator of vehicle size, and you started talking about people not replacing tyres that are worn
You're responding to the person who started this thread.
Look at the usernames -- both u/neverbeaten. The one talking about not replacing tyres was u/compounding; different person.
This is the original commenter clarifying your misunderstanding of their original comment.
Blunt_White_Wolf t1_iwr7ubb wrote
In UK and most EU countries there are legal requirements for how worn out tyres can be. It's checked whenever your car is in for an MOT/road worthiness check.
compounding t1_iwrgkvo wrote
In the US too. Still bad to set up artificial incentivize people to go all the way to the minimum in conditions they might not otherwise. For example, “all weather” tires essentially become summer only by half tread, and by legal minimums they aren’t performing great in wet weather either. Many don’t go completely to minimums because it’s not smart to let traction/control get the their literal smallest amount the government considers safe, but more will if you put a heavy tax to account for the entirety of the vehicle impact. Not to mention it severely disincentivizing high-wear high-traction tires like winter/ice ones entirely.
neverbeaten t1_iwqyc9p wrote
Yes, these things would definitely need considered. There would need to be some sort of legal minimum level of tread enforced in traffic stops and annual inspections.
Blunt_White_Wolf t1_iwr7mle wrote
In UK there is one (just like in most EU countries).
compounding t1_iwrhsi8 wrote
Still doesn’t fix the fact that it shifts the incentives towards buying tires with low wear but worse traction (because the rubber is less pliable). You can buy some tires that have over 100k tread life, but winter/ice tires only last 3-5 seasons (less than 1/4 the lifespan at best). Making the safer choice significantly more expensive is terrible incentives for a tax scheme.
daliksheppy t1_iwr0ahr wrote
Isn't it simpler to just have weight categories and base the tax on that?
Weight category multiplied by a yearly mileage reading (MOT or declared for first 3 years and corroborated at it's first MOT so you can't lie)
Seems safer than people risking it on a set of overly worn tyres to avoid paying. I also envisage tyre theft becoming a problem there too. Also very unfair if an unlucky driver who only does 3000 miles a year and just has brand new tyres who unfortunately runs over some debris causing a failure.
neverbeaten t1_iwr1548 wrote
That is, indeed simpler. And safer.
TheRoboticChimp t1_iwrt19c wrote
Is a number of miles travelled per year really an infringement on privacy? Is it any more of a privacy infringement than buying season tickets for trains or having meter readings for gas and electric?
CriticalUnit t1_iwu4hia wrote
> really an infringement on privacy?
That depends on HOW you go about collecting that information! (an how accurate you want it to be)
ledow t1_iwr231n wrote
You tax the energy contained in the fuel they use.
Anything else is dumb and will result in manufacturers trying to cheat the system by having smaller, denser tyres, etc.
You need to tax based on mileage, but you can't do that accurately, but a tax on fuels and electricity etc. are really easy to implement. You literally just add a tax onto the point of sale. Done.
Taxing tyres would be a nightmare of multiple classes of tyres, like classes of engine now, where manufacturers would produce a 184.99999 size tyre because the tax increases at 185 and so on.
Tax the fuel, including electricity for electric cars. If they want to charge at home, they're already paying domestic electricity rates.
More driving? More fuel.
Less efficient engine? More fuel.
Less aerodynamic? More fuel.
Larger weight? More fuel.
Worse driving? More fuel.
And all by saying "10% added tax on fuel or electricity used to charge cars". Done. The paperwork, administration is a significant cost and already in place.
The extra administration of your system, and also every car manufacturer and tyre manufacturer producing all kinds of expensive tyres to get the luxury cars through on lower tax brackets, etc. would outweigh any benefit.
Only a few of those things listed above would have any impact on your tyre wear, and the greatest impacts (pollution, oil usage, etc.) are completely ignored so you'd get highly inefficient and incredibly dirty vehicles (or vehicles JUST UNDER the maximum limit) with the right tyre and be paying almost no road tax.
BobbyP27 t1_iwr4ial wrote
When you can simply charge an EV from a domestic electricity supply, actually implementing such a tax system is extremely difficult. It is already a challenge preventing people from using untaxed red diesel in road vehicles, making a system that can work for electric cars will be a whole lot harder.
ledow t1_iwr6cnp wrote
That's why you tax electricity.
"Red diesel" is dumb because you expect people not to abuse an untaxed official product.
If you just taxed "all diesel", then offered registered farmers a rebate on their diesel tax receipts, it would actually make FAR MORE SENSE.
Similarly, if you just taxed "all electricity" - which you're already doing, with consumer tax rates on electricity being as high as charging at a service station - they're saving nothing.
The loophole is the people with their own solar power supply capable of fully charging the vehicle. The tax from purchasing which is significant anyway. And it's also encouraging the exact behaviour you want - people to use less oil, less road facilities (e.g. service stations), and generate less pollution.
tomtttttttttttt t1_iwrdd3t wrote
Except that then you are taxing all sorts of electricity usage which simply do not have the same external costs as the air pollution and road wear that cars do.
Car usage needs to be taxed at a much higher level than things like lighting or heating a home.
neverbeaten t1_iwr2jic wrote
That concept is ideal if all cars use equally taxed energy. There are always ways to cheat a tax. Charging EVs with untaxed solar would be so simple to rig up.
ledow t1_iwr3iks wrote
People installing solar is exactly what you want to encourage, however.
And the people who save any significant amount of tax by doing so would need fields of the damn things to keep up with their own demand.
P.S. As a commercial venture, it wouldn't work as in my scenario I taxed "electricity intended to charge cars". As a private entity, you'd be paying a ton of VAT etc. on the solar panels in the first place.
Plus, powering a car entirely off-grid means far less demand for motorway services, fuel stations, etc. Win-win.
In time, yes, you may have to adjust the rules slightly, of course. But by then the world is an entirely different place.
Surur t1_iwrb2lm wrote
> you'd be paying a ton of VAT etc. on the solar panels
Solar panels are either 0% of 5% VAT.
And you can charge an EV from any 3-pin plug overnight at least enough for your daily commute.
neverbeaten t1_iwr4nf8 wrote
A better place
[deleted] t1_iwqxdb1 wrote
[deleted]
Kike328 t1_iwr4hkl wrote
Anyone can change tires in their house, also poor neighborhoods with shitty pavement are going to pay more
Buchaven t1_iwrbazh wrote
Someone’s gotta say it… not a terrible start of idea. I like it.
TomSurman t1_iwr6vpe wrote
The tax exemption was only ever going to be temporary, as a way to encourage EV adoption. It was always going to end, after enough people were in EVs.
momentimori t1_iwtf0jy wrote
A tax break that overwhelmingly benefits rich people isn't going to be viewed as fair by people who aren't Guardian journalists.
CriticalUnit t1_iwu4brv wrote
> rich
If you count "rich" as being able to afford to buy a car.
I knew the UK was having economic problems post brexit, but is everyone only earning 20k per year now?
momentimori t1_iwwgyzk wrote
Electric cars are significantly more expensive that those powered by an internal combustion engines.
H1ld3gunst t1_iwymzrt wrote
The gap is constantly closing
Baz_EP t1_iwqll4r wrote
I assume they will be taxed based on their co2 emissions so will be in the lowest charge then (£20 iirc).
Fowlnature t1_iwqoekl wrote
Once everyone has EV's, that wont be enough revenue to maintain infrastructure. They'll change it to a usage tax or something and the amount we all pay in tax will be the same (or more, obviously).
cjeam t1_iwr8moq wrote
Nope, the standard charge, which is £165 annually. Only the first year's payment is based on CO2 for new vehicles, article says that'd be £10.
PhantomHeartBraker t1_iwr42z4 wrote
Very misleading title - I thought EV owners in the UK would be charged an extra tax. Turns out they are no longer exempt from an existing one.
filosoful t1_iwqplu8 wrote
It was a matter of time. Sooner or later everyone will do it.
When the technology is mature and the adoption rate high enough, cut back subsidies.
ledow t1_iwr2733 wrote
Yep.
And I bet if it wasn't for the energy crisis, they'd be adding a huge percentage to everyone's electricity at the same time to make up for loss of fuel duty.
nastratin OP t1_iwqiy4i wrote
Electric cars will no longer be exempt from vehicle excise duty from April 2025, the chancellor has said.
Announcing the change as part of his Autumn Statement, Jeremy Hunt said the move was designed to make the motoring tax system "fairer".
The RAC motoring group said it did not expect the change to dampen demand for electric vehicles (EVs).
FuturologyBot t1_iwqo3k8 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/nastratin:
Electric cars will no longer be exempt from vehicle excise duty from April 2025, the chancellor has said.
Announcing the change as part of his Autumn Statement, Jeremy Hunt said the move was designed to make the motoring tax system "fairer".
The RAC motoring group said it did not expect the change to dampen demand for electric vehicles (EVs).
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yxunbx/uk_electric_car_drivers_must_pay_tax_from_2025/iwqiy4i/
[deleted] t1_iwqxylv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwtdr43 wrote
[removed]
3y3sho7 t1_iwrbwbd wrote
More tax money is needed so the country can afford to pay the interest on the debts its has to international banks 🤣🤣🤣
Spoogerific t1_iwr6427 wrote
Here's a wild idea. Quit coming up with new tax laws to justify your job and move to the private sector and get a real job.
neverbeaten t1_iwqocoz wrote
I think the fairest way to tax vehicles of all types, based (roughly) on usage amount and damage done to infrastructure (mainly by weight), but without eroding privacy (no GPS milage tracking, please), is to tax the weight of tires. Bigger heavier tires go on bigger heavier vehicles. More axles, more tires. More distance driven, more frequent tire replacement and therefore a fairer tax burden. You could even include bikes, scooters, and motorcycles in this for fairness. They'd only pay a pittance of a tax compared to a Ford F250, but it would be a fair and equitable portion based on actual costs to society.