One core problem with this plan is that we are desperately trying to incentivise purchase of new EVs (through giving everyone who buys one a bung of £3750), and at the same time disincentivising ownership (through the imposition of VED) and use (through road-pricing).
It also overlooks that the electricity put into EV is already taxed: at 5% if at home and 20% at a roadside charger. It is eminently possible for these charges to increase to replace fuel duty.
Nearly all charging at home is done using smart chargers which can distinguish EV charging from say boiling the kettle. And those early chargers which don’t have this capability will need replacing soon. It would be simple to increase the VAT on this element of home electricity use to the (absurd) level of 55% of petrol costs which is made up of tax. It would, however continue to run counter to the government’s stated aim of decarbonisation and would disincentivise use of home micro-generation and storage.
Garages already have to send paperwork off as a part of the MOT process, why not incorporate sending odometer readings as a part of the process? You’ve got a defined time period (annually between MOTs), a price-per-mile (truppence), and a third-party agent available (mechanic).
Unless there’s going to be a radical change to the MOT system, there shouldn’t really be a need for all sorts of wizardry to implement road-pricing.
Sure, and in such circumstances motorists could pay in advance based on an estimated mileage with any difference being reconciled either of the car is sold on in the intervening three years or at their first MOT.
Dealing with a "random" bill once a year, which might increase radically if you get a new job, or your living situation changes, is fine if you are well-off; but if you are living payday-to-payday that just isn't realistic - you'll end up with thousands and thousands of people who are unable to pay.
Paying a few quid in tax every time you fill up (as now) is very, very different to paying a big annual bill, even if the overall number is the same. And if you don't understand why, then you have never been poor.
That sounds like an argument for payment-in-instalments (like road tax or insurance), as opposed to an argument against the principle of pay-as-you-drive taxation.
That would have advantage of simplicity, but it would be nice to keep the option of having differential rates for different areas. You could have lower rates for rural areas, and effectively add congestion charging for any cities you want. Potentially could have surge pricing during high traffic times. Wouldn't do this right away, but would be good to keep the option, by going down the "GPS tracker installed in all EVs" option, maybe.
We’re gonna find out middle class EV drivers will lose their minds if expected to pay for the roads they use every day, Simon Holmes a Court who funded the Teal Independents in Australia proved this years ago with disgraceful false arguments about road funding and petrol excise 4 years ago
These people will never describe a tax that impacts them that they prefer to road user charges and this tells you just how unserious and selfish these people are
Allowing petrol car drivers to opt in means that petrol stations would have to charge for petrol with and without tax. Making the tax paid really in your face. That could well lead to pressure to reduce road taxes.
The politics of any option are just so toxic. But it is hard to see how to avoid it. I don't envy the politicians!
One core problem with this plan is that we are desperately trying to incentivise purchase of new EVs (through giving everyone who buys one a bung of £3750), and at the same time disincentivising ownership (through the imposition of VED) and use (through road-pricing).
It also overlooks that the electricity put into EV is already taxed: at 5% if at home and 20% at a roadside charger. It is eminently possible for these charges to increase to replace fuel duty.
Nearly all charging at home is done using smart chargers which can distinguish EV charging from say boiling the kettle. And those early chargers which don’t have this capability will need replacing soon. It would be simple to increase the VAT on this element of home electricity use to the (absurd) level of 55% of petrol costs which is made up of tax. It would, however continue to run counter to the government’s stated aim of decarbonisation and would disincentivise use of home micro-generation and storage.
One enforcement option: your MOT.
Garages already have to send paperwork off as a part of the MOT process, why not incorporate sending odometer readings as a part of the process? You’ve got a defined time period (annually between MOTs), a price-per-mile (truppence), and a third-party agent available (mechanic).
Unless there’s going to be a radical change to the MOT system, there shouldn’t really be a need for all sorts of wizardry to implement road-pricing.
We’d need to cater to the fact that new cars don’t need an MOT for the first three years, but it might be a good starting point for older cars.
Sure, and in such circumstances motorists could pay in advance based on an estimated mileage with any difference being reconciled either of the car is sold on in the intervening three years or at their first MOT.
Dealing with a "random" bill once a year, which might increase radically if you get a new job, or your living situation changes, is fine if you are well-off; but if you are living payday-to-payday that just isn't realistic - you'll end up with thousands and thousands of people who are unable to pay.
Paying a few quid in tax every time you fill up (as now) is very, very different to paying a big annual bill, even if the overall number is the same. And if you don't understand why, then you have never been poor.
That sounds like an argument for payment-in-instalments (like road tax or insurance), as opposed to an argument against the principle of pay-as-you-drive taxation.
That would have advantage of simplicity, but it would be nice to keep the option of having differential rates for different areas. You could have lower rates for rural areas, and effectively add congestion charging for any cities you want. Potentially could have surge pricing during high traffic times. Wouldn't do this right away, but would be good to keep the option, by going down the "GPS tracker installed in all EVs" option, maybe.
Perhaps, you if simplicity and minimising the political snafu is preferable, incorporating it into the MOT process would probably be best.
As for differential rates, you could still levy differential rates for vehicles registered in specific areas, eg rural areas/ farm equipment.
We’re gonna find out middle class EV drivers will lose their minds if expected to pay for the roads they use every day, Simon Holmes a Court who funded the Teal Independents in Australia proved this years ago with disgraceful false arguments about road funding and petrol excise 4 years ago
These people will never describe a tax that impacts them that they prefer to road user charges and this tells you just how unserious and selfish these people are
Allowing petrol car drivers to opt in means that petrol stations would have to charge for petrol with and without tax. Making the tax paid really in your face. That could well lead to pressure to reduce road taxes.
The politics of any option are just so toxic. But it is hard to see how to avoid it. I don't envy the politicians!