Devon TRF Group Forum

Schoe000 · Expert

Bike Tax

TTR · Powermonger!!

Yes cry

What should happen is that when DVLA get the V5 to change ownership, they refund the previous owner any whole months of tax left on it.

You can check if the change has occurred on the DVLA website.

You start from zero.

TTR

PS What did you buy???

Blueray · Clubman A

I think so as once the owner sold the bike any out standing tax becomes non and void on that bike , it is then up to the new owner to re tax it , a win win for the Tax man

Schoe000 · Expert

Ps I forgot to add the robbin ****s want Fridays off and law abiding citizens pay twice.

Schoe000 · Expert

TTR wrote:
Yes
What should happen is that when DVLA get the V5 to change ownership, they refund the previous owner any whole months of tax left on it.
You can check if the change has occurred on the DVLA website.
You start from zero.
TTR
PS What did you buy???

250 2 stroke freeride. I checked on the DVLC site and even though I have the V5 it is still taxed to March.

Nige · Expert

They are quite quick at jumping on you. I had a warning letter within 2weeks of a purchase.

OTT · Clubman B

Never sell any vehicle other than on the 28th,30 or 31st of the month, intrigued to see what would happen in court if you did purchase in the middle of the month and not tax it until the 1st of the next month as technically the duty for those remaining 2 weeks had been paid by the previous keeper just not refunded!

The DVLA enforcement team are spending a fortune on trying to recoup losses incurred by over 50% of drivers not understanding the new system that was apparently meant to save the DVLA money.

Evasion be it intentional or not has jumped incredibly since the new system started.

Guarantee they will look at this again soon.

wackyracer · Powermonger!!

put the road tax on fuel and save all the expense and everyone pays, but this too simple smile

chrisoncbr · Expert

Totally agree Mr Wack.

devondan · Champion

Really? So that way bikes and cars will pay the same amount of tax, what you pay will depend only on use and mpg, do you really want that? I certainly dont.

pug · Clubman B

Have a old bike free road tax an if it's real old no Mot even better if wanting the best of old and new build a new motor into a old pre 60 frame give's you a nice warm fuzzy feeling clicking Historic button on the DVLA site far better than the feeling you just been bent over a five bar gate an reamed like you get with most things these days.

Pug

Tribey · Expert

I don't want to pay any road tax to use my chain saw!

OTT · Clubman B

2 smokes should pay more as they splutter around polluting the environment!

devondan · Champion

Or the lawn mower!

chrisoncbr · Expert

I still think it would be fairer and more efficient than the present system. There would probably have to be special rules for HGVs etc but this seems to work well in France.

devondan · Champion

How is it fairer?! What impact would it have on rural communities who have to travel to work, what impact would it have on the couriers, the plumber etc and anyone who makes a living on the road. it's been rejected many times for those reasons!

Jocko AKA Simmo · Clubman B

If fuel was free would people still resent paying road tax?

-- Edited by Jocko AKA Simmo on Wednesday 2nd of December 2015 11:00:35 PM

chrisoncbr · Expert

Does it not make sense that those who use the roads more pay a higher proportion of tax than those who don't? That would then be reflected in how much fuel they use. Just my take on it but I am open to persuasion that I'm talking sh1t as usual. smile

TTR · Powermonger!!

Totally agree with Chris. Tax according to use biggrin

RichT4 · Champion

+1

It's stupid to have to pay loads of vehicle tax for a 2nd vehicle (or a main one if you don't commute in it) that sits on drive most of year... yet if you buy an eco car you can rack up tens of thousands of miles a year (burning loads of fuel still) and pay nothing... crazy!
Even with insurance you can declare low mileage and receive a discount, this should be the same with vehicle tax.

It's suppose to be a vehicle emission tax but it blatantly isn't, or it's a very poorly applied one.

Tax on fuel makes far more sense if they really want to encourage reduced use of vehicles.
Businesses could be given a tax claim back so they are not hit so hard, the average man using 1 gallon a year in his lawnmower - not worth worrying about.

The reason they don't change the system is because it pays very well thank you very much... and we are powerless to change it.

pug · Clubman B

Tax on fuel makes far more sense this has been around the bush many times bottom line is if it's put on fuel it will cost everyone more you will not save if you don't use much fuel as the cost of everything will go up to cover the rise in distribution costs it will be a couple penny's on this and a couple on that an hay nanny nanny you will end up paying more in the end. I did see it worked out somewhere two or three years back i think it was around £8 more on each £100 spent plus 3p a lt on top of the tax at the pump for getting the fuel there.

Pug

Nige · Expert

I thought we were taxed on both. Which is sort of fair as the road is always on standby waiting for you to use it if you wish to.
However if they do change anything most people will probably pay more.

The overlap on tax is it such a big thing. I think of it as an administrative costs for the v5, after all what's the cost of amending your insurance policy these days.

Albert · Clubman A

I think governments like to have as many taxes as possible, it helps blind people to just how much of your hard work is for their benefit, it is clearly as far from a fair and efficient system as they could get it, i doubt that's by accident

Is VED not another way of cracking down on uninsured drivers? i.e. you need everything else in place (mot, insurance) to get VED which is easier to check than the other two?

RichT4 · Champion

pug wrote:
bottom line is if it's put on fuel it will cost everyone more you will not save if you don't use much fuel as the cost of everything will go up to cover the rise in distribution costs it

Not necessarily... as I said, take comercial use out of the equation, fixed amount per vehicle via tax rebate on the extra paid.

Company car use can be handled similarly but as that also incorporates personal use maybe not so generous.

It's private vehicle usage that needs to be charged on a prorata basis. There'd also be reduced congestion if actual useage fully tracked cost of use, even more incentive not to use the car.

devondan · Champion

Remember we already pay tax on fuel, most of the cost is tax, a rebate system on fuel would be expensive to administer and easy to abuse. How do you or the tax man, distinguish between domestic and business use?

Despite the high cost of the HGV "tax disc" the annual road fund licence represents a huge cross-subsidy to the haulage industry from the ordinary motorist. Many years ago, the Transport Research Laboratory demonstrated that the damage to our roads caused by vehicles is proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. As the road tax is raised (sic) to fund the building and repair of roads, this would mean that, if the cost was shared equitably, for every £100 paid by the motorist, the owner of a heavy lorry would have to pay at least £1m - and that figure does not take into account the higher annual mileage of the lorry. In the short term, making road hauliers pay their full "track" costs would boost inflation. - borrowed from the guardian

So I have had a change of heart, but just put it on diesel!

RichT4 · Champion

devondan wrote:
Remember we already pay tax on fuel, most of the cost is tax, a rebate system on fuel would be expensive to administer and easy to abuse. How do you or the tax man, distinguish between domestic and business use?

The same way they do presently with VAT. Claim it back quarterly and have receipts on file for the audit, easy peasey.

Most domestic users will not have a business to claim against. Company cars are paid for by the businesses so same as above. Privately owned (but business use) company cars would get a higher pence per mile claim rate to compensate for the additional tax.

It really is that easy, and could be done fairly... if they actually wanted to do it.

Higher milers would pay more, owners of less efficient vehicles would pay more. Low users would pay less. People who have multiple vehicles would pay less.

Nothing could be fairer than a pay as you use system, and as we all know.., the tax has nothing at all to do with road maintenance.

devondan · Champion

VED is being ring fenced for roads, www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/motoring-issues/2015/budget-2015-how-it-affects-uk-motorists/. It hasn't been changed because the maths doesn't add up, believe me!

wackyracer · Powermonger!!

Freight should go by rail at a highly reduced rate to help free up the roads

Trouble is we don't have a good rail system

Schoe000 · Expert

wackyracer wrote:
Freight should go by rail at a highly reduced rate to help free up the roads
Trouble is we don't have a good rail system

I blame Jt

devondan · Champion

wackyracer wrote:
Freight should go by rail at a highly reduced rate to help free up the roads
Trouble is we don't have a good rail system

You'd have to increase the amount of rail freight by 7 times to match what is carried on the roads, rail is good for heavy raw commodities, not so good for a supermarket delivery!

Tribey · Expert

chrisoncbr wrote:
Does it not make sense that those who use the roads more pay a higher proportion of tax than those who don't? That would then be reflected in how much fuel they use.

But I'm not using the roads on my bike that they're maintaining, so why should I pay?

Heavier vehicles cause more road damage, so maybe they should tax all vehicles like LGVs, according to vehicle weigh.

CO2 production has nothing to do with road surface damage or maintenance.

jt · Powermonger!!

Schoe000 wrote:
wackyracer wrote:
Freight should go by rail at a highly reduced rate to help free up the roads
Trouble is we don't have a good rail system
I blame Jt

Crack on - your not alone......

I agree 100% with wacky - Beeching made an epic mistake.

Jocko AKA Simmo · Clubman B

Tribey wrote:
chrisoncbr wrote:
Does it not make sense that those who use the roads more pay a higher proportion of tax than those who don't? That would then be reflected in how much fuel they use.
But I'm not using the roads on my bike that they're maintaining, so why should I pay?
Heavier vehicles cause more road damage, so maybe they should tax all vehicles like LGVs, according to vehicle weigh.
CO2 production has nothing to do with road surface damage or maintenance.

LGV weights are very variable. I'm sure real time weight sensors on vehicles linked to a central government computer system, for which they have a very good track record, would not be hard to implement throughout Europe for every vehicle. Shouldn't cost more than a couple quid.

RichT4 · Champion

devondan wrote:
It hasn't been changed because the maths doesn't add up, believe me!

I'm calling BS on that one!

Now I'm sure the officially released figures support what you are saying but that is only because "they" don't want to do it. "They" can set what ever rates they want so the rates can be set (or adjusted) to a level that is cost neutral overall... but they'd rather not do that as they prefer the certainty that comes with the simple calculation of,

Number of vehicles x VED rate = how much in expenses & how many wars can we get involved in this year... biggrin

wink