Pay as you go road tax
The British government is planning on putting in place a pay as you go road tax which would replace existing fuel and road taxes.
This road tax would mean that people who used congested roads would pay more than people who lived in rural areas. The pay as you go tax would range from 2p per mile for rural roads to £1.34 on the M46 at rush hour.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this proposal and I'm broadly in favour of the idea of pay as you go road taxation - but I still signed the petition opposing the government's proposal. Inside, you'll find out why and get some perspectives from Catherine MacDonald-Keir, editor of Luxury Briefing magazine, Mark Willenbrock, an independent businessman and British expat who lives in Morocco and Jamie Young, an Internal Auditor with British Petroleum.
First, let's outline the proposal as put forward by the government:
1. Scrap the fuel tax. Fuel tax in Britain is astonishing, comprising nearly 70% of the price of fuel in the UK. At 90.9p per litre (the cost at my local garage), 29.01p is the cost of fuel. 61.89p is tax. If you want to know what the taxes are at other prices, use this calculator to check it.
What are the consequences of scrapping the fuel tax? Well, all other things being equal, it dramatically lowers the price of fuel. But fuel is a highly price inelastic good; people who already have a preference for driving won't drive more. People who currently use public transport, however, would think twice before getting on that train to London or flying to Bristol. A train ticket to London King's Cross station from Edinburgh is £112. With the price of fuel lowered to 29p a litre, the 400 miles to London would cost £17.40 in fuel (although the 6 and a half hours driving time will still put off a few).
2. Scrap the road tax. I know precious little about road tax, so if someone wants to explain it, please do in the comments.
3. Put a GPS receiver in every car, track all of your movements and, when you are on a congested road, charge you more per mile than when you are on a swiftly flowing road.
I think that this kind of charging is, in general, a good idea, in the sense that folks who use the roads more should have to pay more. In addition, people who are in the middle of congestion should have to pay for the congestion, since they are all to blame and congestion is definitely a public evil.
However, the problems with the specific scheme put forward by the government are as follows:
1. They put a GPS receiver in your car and track your movement. There have been no assurances from the government to explain how they would prevent that information from being used to, say, enforce the speed limit or be abused by the government. Either of these options are pretty unpleasant. The privacy problems alone are enough to get me to oppose the new road tax. But of course, there's something even worse.
2. The fact that congestion adds money to the coffers of government means that the government has a direct incentive to increase congestion. More congestion equals more money. In order for this scheme to work, it would have to replace all other traffic calming measures - greenways, bus lanes, one-way streets, closed off side streets, etc. Every impedence to traffic flow would have to be removed. In addition, the congestion charge would have to be waived for every instance of government-caused congestion - say if there is construction on the Forth Road Bridge or road works. But even this wouldn't be an ideal solution, because there would still be widespread under-investment in roads as the government embarked on a policy of strategic neglect in order to garner more 'pay as you go' revenue when congestion increased. Giving the government incentives for creating congestion is as stupid an idea as it sounds.
Cathering MacDonald-Keir says:
I'm fundamentally against it, as should it come into play it will heavily penalise people who live or work in rural areas who need their cars to get from A to B, transport their children or run their businesses. This applies to much of the UK. It will not reduce carbon emissions by stopping these people from using their cars as it is a necessity for them due to shocking public transport – it will just make life financially harder for them. Those living in urban centres often benefit most from the utilities that taxes are put towards anyway – schools, hospitals, recreation facilities, Millennium Domes, Olympic villages etc – so why should the rural population be charged more for no ostensible benefit. Or do you suggest that the horse and cart should make a return?It will also affect tourism, given that most overseas visitors already find British fuel prices crippling and will dissuade people from travelling within the UK. This is a concern given that tourism is already being badly affected by the strength of the pound against the dollar. The cost will also discourage people from taking car-based holidays within the UK, thus making them fly overseas and increasing carbon emissions from airline operators.
Beyond the rural argument, if I thought that we were going to see benefits from it directly passed on to the road user I might be less cynical but while the burden on all road users has increased noticeably over recent years, we still haven't seen vital improvements made in our infrastructure. Britain's motorways are laughable compared to those in much of continental Europe, we still have no motorways between Scotland and England/Scotland and ferry ports to Ireland, and the Forth Road Bridge – which people have known would eventually crumble since the 1960s – is now in a critical condition.
I feel that negatives counteract the positives on this one.
Mark Willenbrock says (Mark was responding to earlier statements that I had made supporting the road tax):
Obviously if it did make more money than Road Tax, it would only be because people were driving more, when they could use excellent, cheap public transport instead. Doubtless if the Department of Transport found they were making too much money, they could plants lots and lots of trees, with buebells and buttercups in the leafy glades beneath. Rabbits and foxes could live there, in happy harmony.Isn't it also nice that the speed cameras have been placed in accident blackspots, where they are saving lots of lives, rather than on the fastest stretches of straight motorways, where they might just rake in the cash.
And, the privatised parking wardens are doing an excellent job of keeping the traffic flowing and local residents smiling.
So I shouldn't worry about any privacy problems. We trust our government. Why would we ever think they might not tell the truth?
Jamie Young says:
I agree with both sets of points made by Nathan and Mark. I feel the obsession about parking, speeding, road traffic calming measures is nonsense and the product of mediocre minds. I take deep offence at being constantly monitored while driving and penalised hugely for any 'mistake' I make. The government and police agencies should be much more concerned about far more grave risks we face in society, not least of which is the rise of fundamentalist Islam. However, climate change in my view is the most serious of all problems faced by the world today in my opinion (and there are lots of good contenders up there to debate this against). The western worlds lethargy and lack of desire to engage in measures which will deliver a step change in carbon emissions reduction is one of the great travesties in justice of the modern age and a crime against future humanity who are not yet here to argue their case. I live in Richmond where the council have recently introduced a CO2 tax on 'Chelsea tractor' 4x4's. I agree with this bold move. This place is full of idiotic city boys with small penis's that need a 'hummer' to make them feel better about themselves.. ooh, poor them. If a person cannot act responsibly and care for the world around them as well as their immediate needs then they SHOULD be taxed into submission. Our lovely friend red Ken, when not giving bearded misogynistic Jew hating terrorists an open platform in London, has implemented important and brave steps to reduce carbon emissions. He is also very frank about his strategy and confronts other peoples hypocrisy... of which there is huge amounts, not least of which is by people that oppose everything yet contribute nothing. I don't know whether the governments latest plan is a ruse to generate more tax, its certainly suspicious. However there needs to be radical steps taken to curtail our addiction to hydrocarbons and this is a crude yet probably effective way of doing it. So, I probably disagree with the draconian strategy they will implement but agree with the objective and that big action needs to be taken... and now. There is another important aspect to this that is rarely discussed but is understood by the government.. our government (not the U.S): that to influence the developing world during its exponential rise in carbon energy consumption, we need to have developed proven techniques and technologies which can be transposed to those countries. We also need to take a leadership position and that's what the UK have done for the past ten years.. while other countries have done nothing and allowed their CO2 emissions to rise (our govt have less credibility in this area lately though). This will be a painful and difficult process but needs to happen. If you don't agree, then engage in the debate and get out there and help. I don't think a person that only ever criticises has credibility so each of us need's to be careful we don't fall into that camp.---
Do any of you reading have comments? We'd love to hear what you think.
Comments
I agree with you completely on the privacy issue. Especially given the Blair government's cavalier attitude towards personal privacy, I would be extremely skeptical of GPS tracking.
That said, I'm not sure I agree with your financial arguments. It really depends where the revenue from this tax will flow. If it's dedicated to transportation, rather than the general account, I don't see that there is an incentive to increase congestion at all. Those funds will have to go back to congestion-relieving measures in some fashion, whether increased public transportation, or more/improved highways.
It's worth thinking about the somewhat analogous situation of "sin taxes." Governments assess high tax rates on items such as alcohol and tobacco. Theoretically, they'd have an interest in promoting the use of these products in order to increase revenue. Their actual behavior, however, is just the opposite.
Posted by: FS | February 8, 2007 4:16 PM
The whole debate is, in my mind, a purely hypothetical excercise as I can't see any government having the guts to take such a bold step as it's a sure fire election loser. Such a move would rank alongside the abolition of the NHS (we don't prop up the biggest employer in Europe though altruism!), abolition of criminal jurys or decommisioning the British Fleet (although we seem to be doing that by the back door at anyway...) As a theoretical excercise I'll take some of your points on starting with Nathan.
1.1/1.2: The Road tax is quite simply a tax that was originally imposed on every motor vehicle in the country for the building (and now subsequently the maintenance) of the British road network. Needless to say this contributes rather a lot to the public purse every year- as does duty on fuel. I feel the need to question, in the event of both of these sources of income being abolished, where the excess funding will come from. It seems clear to me that the figures being bandied around fall well short of the existing revenue. Of course I suspect it may be possible to maintain the road network on less but vehicle duty has propped up many other government schemes over the years much in the same way annual cigarette tax outstrips the demand smokers put on the NHS per annum. Put another way smokers fund more of the NHS than they take out and as things stand British motorists will be forking out for a few fighter jets and nuclear subs here and there. I'm sure many motorists would find them very useful at rush hour but we don't get to see the direct benefits on a daily basis.
Furthermore such cheap fuel would be contrary to current "green" policies and the recent drive towards increased use of public transport as I fear very few would use the aforementioned public transport when they could save money driving. Of course cheaper fuel should in theory mean cheaper public transport also but since they are all heavily subsidised private companies I can't really see them playing ball on that front can you?
1.3: We already have a method of charging those who use our roads the most. It's called fuel duty. It's a staggeringly simple concept- fuel is expensive so you use less of it whenever possible.
2: I have severe worries about the liberty issues myself. That being said without concrete proposals it's all idle speculation. This being said I think the deliberate congestion scenario is somewhat cynical even for our lords and masters! If nothing else from my current reading of the proposal you will be charged for the distance you cover on the roads as opposed to the time spent there. Again this will doubtless be clarified at a later date.
Cat I am broadly in agreement with- I would add however that much of the cost to tourists driving will be derived from motoring on the motorways for the simple reason they don't wish to get lost.
Mark displays the joys of sarcasm beautifully and is spot on- those that think this is a good idea will also believe that guillable has been removed from the dictionary.
Jamie is clearly educationally sub-normal and the second he hears the word "vehicle" goes for a knee-jerk green lobby stance that has little to do with the main issue at hand. Which is all very sweet but I would refer him to Mark's bunny rabbits under the tree. This being said he has a valid point in regard to "mistakes" whilst driving. Very often people find themselves speeding when they're watching traffic around them and trying to avoid an accident by speeding up or slowing down in relation to those around them's driving behavior- personally I hold this to be safe and sensible practise but an inanimate object on your dashboard, much like our old friend the Gatso Gun, will take no pity on you in such an eventuality.
To conclude with a few points of my own:
1. I think that it's worth noting that to date any trials we have conducted in this country with "pay as you drive schemes" has shown the same result- empty motorways and vastly congested minor roads that cannot cope with the traffic. Thus it's a completely self defeating purpose.
2. Who is going to pay for the cost of the infrastructure here? Just can't quite see the government forking out for a box for every car in the county. Suspect there may even be a money making scam to be had transferring them between vehicles (if it's even possible) and I can see a whole Whitehall red ticker tape parade of "administative charges" that can be introduced.
3. Goods haulage in this country is a joke. The rail network isn't up to it and our ports so run down the cost of regeneration would outstrip the savings to be made and besides you still need to get half of the goods inland once they're at the port. How much would all of this add to a weekly grocery shop? A lot I would suggest. Oh and before it's suggested yes it IS a lovely idea to get all of your produce from a friendly local source but in reality many people are either too time poor or wealth poor to actually be able to live the Hampstead Farmers Market dream.
Finally I'd just like to point out it's interesting the the prevailing wind on this whole issue seems to be "what are the government up to?". We're all automatically (and quite rightly in my mind) assuming that somewhere down the line we'll be paying more for this new scheme but on the face of it we shouldn't be. I watch developments with interest but as I say there are too many lobbies to alienate and too many voters to lose for this one to have much life in it.
Posted by: Gus Macdonald | February 8, 2007 4:59 PM
As an aside I also think we should tax guns in America to the same level that we do cigarettes or booze in the UK. I’m sure the extra money added on will discourage people from buying guns and will in no way encourage them to go onto the black market. The money collected will certainly be used by the American Government to increase gun control and prevent people from buying them. I am sure the Government will put all their energy into eradicating the prolific use of their newest cash cow. And all Americans who can afford the newly priced guns will be law abiding and only use them to defend themselves against the knife wielding poor-folk who will be rampaging the countryside with no access to the luxurious guns. After all, only poor people are dangerous with guns.
Much in the same way as the poor people of GB should be forced to use public transport because it is only the poor who use their cars frivolously, pointlessly and greedily. Although, of course, the road tax is aimed at the rich and only the rich and is in no way another stealth tax designed to drain every last drop of money out of the working classes (ie everyone with a job) for the benefit of the fat cats. Did you know that before our benevolent Tony came to power the equivalent taxes swallowed our wages from Jan to the start of May. Now it is half way through July (this is including all taxes, VAT, income etc). So over half our income every year goes into Gordon’s pockets. And this I am sure is the latest in our benefit that in no way takes advantage of their total and unquenching thirst for our money.
Phew – rant over. Feel free to post on whichever websites.
Erica
Posted by: Erica Heatly | February 8, 2007 5:39 PM
It's not just poor people who are dangerous with guns, Erica. It's Dick Cheney.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney/
Posted by: Nathan Dornbrook | February 8, 2007 5:45 PM
Hey, Gus! Where have there been trials? Is there a web presence with the results?
FS, with sin taxes there's a disincentive to promote smoking in part because it's political suicide and in part because it's a burden on MediCare. Either way, there are powerful disincentives. In the case of congestion and the road tax, there are no disincentives. It might be political suicide, if it's ever discovered that the government is pursuing a strategic course of increasing congestion, but the incentives and actions could very well be local.
Finally, it has occurred to me that much of the congestion in Edinburgh is already caused by the Council, which has closed off every side street off of Queen Street - and closed both George and Princes Streets to cars. As a result, Queen Street is congested and George and Princes Streets are empty of through traffic (except buses).
Posted by: Nathan | February 8, 2007 6:35 PM
Isn't someone missing the point here?
The argument in favour of the new proposals is that it will help the environment. In addition, it will supposedly be fairer to the proverbial little old lady, who never uses her mini metro anyway, whilst clobbering the reckless eco-vandal in his Bentley (ahem).
So, Tony installs GPS trackers in all of our cars, and voila. We will be taxed according to how much our cars move, and on which roads. Congested roads, Nathan tells us, will be charged at a higher rate. Great.
We already have a tax that does this.
Amazingly, this tax can also differentiate between a hedge fund manager commuting to the city in a petrol 4x4, and a Liverpudlian grandmother going shoplifting in Lidl with her stolen Nissan Micra.
It increases when we are stuck in traffic jams.
It reduces when moving at sensible speeds.
It rewards economical, ecologically aware driving.
It’s called fuel tax.
Staggeringly, despite the percentage rates pointed out by Nathan, it still leaves public transport looking heinously expensive
What are these proposals for? To increase tax revenue.
Should we really want to start saving the environment, I would suggest we start looking harder at bio-fuels, solar energy, and wind power.
You also might consider the effect of your sleazyjet weekend break. Airline emissions are a real problem.
“UK householders and businesses would have to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to zero to account for the impact the airline industry is having on the environment, a recent study claims.
Aviation is regarded as especially polluting because of the large amount of fuel used at high altitude.”
So, Nathan, still flying home to the US…?
Posted by: Mark Willenbrock | February 8, 2007 11:13 PM
I think they should have a parliamentary debate tax. For every second a politician speaks he gets 4p taken off his salary. Thereby he/or she will be succinct and state only the necessary. Included will be a speaking above the others added tax. So when two or more polits begin to talk at the same time 15p addt'l. fee per second is added. I figure if this tax went into effect on a Monday, by Wednesday the politicians would owe us enough to run the country. I would call it the locution polution tax.
Posted by: Papa D | February 9, 2007 1:21 AM
No, Mark. Now I swim.
Posted by: Nathan | February 9, 2007 4:39 AM
Hey, Mark! The argument in favour of the road tax proposal isn't environmental impact - it's congestion reduction. At least, that's the argument the government makes.
I'm suspicious of bio-fuels, because I don't know where we'd grow the crops. In the U.K., I don't think we have enough arable land to do it.
Solar power, as in direct solar conversion, could have some limited effect. I think we'd be better off growing roof gardens.
You know, down at it's heart, I don't think I really buy that CO2 is the problem we think it is. Water vapour is a "worse" greenhouse gas (in the sense that it has an effect several times that of CO2) and there's a lot more of it in the air and it's increasing, too. Isn't water vapour a more serious problem? Also, it seems to me that if the temperature of the earth is increasing, maybe that's due to the 18 gigatons of stuff that we burn each year. That's a lot of heat to be adding to a system. Where does it go? It doesn't all just radiate away.
Posted by: Nathan | February 9, 2007 4:51 AM
It reminds me of the old "Yes Minister" sketch:
"Oh dear - something must be done!"
"Wait! This is something!"
"OK - Lets do that!"
I am a small government man myself. I don't think everything needs to be legislated and I hate it when the govt steps in to meddle with judges over sentencing, or what kind of ridiculous dog-hunting hobby people might feel like doing of a weekend.
Since he raided the pension funds, Gordon Brown has had a ridiculously large amount of money to play with in the UK. And I don't see much return on it.
An expensive war and a much higher employment rate - great. But if you look at who's actually got jobs now, they are all civil servants (with lovey state pensions) - which we pay for, bless em! You NEED private business and industry to generate wealth in a country and a proposal like the one we are talking about will just be another factor in them leaving.
It just seems crazy to me. I also think this is just another idea thats been floated around because it will appeal to the labour fanbase and show they've not forgotten their traditional values.
phew! That was only very marginally relevant, but made me feel much better.
Posted by: Ewan | February 9, 2007 12:21 PM
If congestion is the goal, just set up a "congestion tax" where people on congested roads get hit harder than others. Set up the taxes so that it goes to U.K.'s parks and tourism funds. That way, the incentive to increase congestion exists for parties who are more or less unable to have a major impact on congestion.
Personally, I agree with Nathan. Because gasoline is a relatively inelastic commodity, throw a little more tax on gas in rural areas and a lot more tax in Urban areas. If the tax change is gradual, we'll see fewer petrol stations going under (i.e. decreased demand will be distributed). Maybe this won't work in a country the size of the U.K.?
Posted by: Mendon | February 9, 2007 1:45 PM
Oh I do love a good political Ding-Donger so I'm going to have another quick point!
This is not an ecological issue. I dare say that if (and I maintain that's a huge if) that'll be tagged on as a selling point to the country but as it stands but I fail to see the direct correlation between this particular taxational change and the enviroment.
The equation I see as the root of the issue for the average motorist is:
pay as you go motoring
I don't want any criticism of my equation style- it's been a long time! The salient point here remains that the cost of motoring should in theory go down to the detriment of congestion and the enviroment. Personally wouldn't mind this but can't help but feel it's against current public policy and the Westminster Turkeys don't vote for Christmas... Thus I can only conclude that there is going to be whopping charges added on somewhere that means we pay more for motoring on congested roads with a greater enviromental impact. Brilliant- can't wait...
Clearly Sir Humphrey has not been consulted on this particular issue... That or he wants the Tories back in again!
Posted by: Gus Macdonald | February 9, 2007 3:52 PM
It's scrubbed my equation- damn you HTML!!! I'll try it in English:
Pay as you go motoring is equal or cheaper than road tax plus fuel duty which equals cheaper motoring which equals more traffic plus less use of public transport which equals increased congestion plus more pollution
Write it down if it doesn't make sense!
Posted by: Gus | February 9, 2007 3:58 PM
Hey, Ewan!
That's a really good point: what the Labour government is doing is more of a kind of anti-congestion / environmentalism theatre rather than real environmentalsim: the Labour government wants us to think they're doing something to help the environment, but really it's just "civil servants (with lovey state pensions" who have a "total and unquenching thirst for our money."
Posted by: Nathan Dornbrook | February 9, 2007 7:37 PM
Gus, I wrote it down and now I see what you're saying.
It did strike me that the ideal would be for Westminster to charge exactly the same fees, only distribute them more heavily to the folks who drive on congested roads.
Congestion itself is very interesting; you can model it as a pressure wave in a pipe. Congestion occurs when the flow becomes non-laminar. You can actually prove that congestion will occur under certain traffic densities at certain speeds - regardless of the actions taken by drivers. No matter how much room you leave or how quickly you accelerate and then brake, there will still be congestion.
The right solution is to fix the non-laminar flow problem in the same way you'd fix it in a pipe: fewer bends, lower feeds, greater egress, pressure venting, alternative routes and bigger pipes.
Posted by: Nathan Dornbrook | February 9, 2007 8:23 PM
Unable to agree with you on the congestion front. Think that there's ONLY a linnear pattern to it unless there's a weather wildcard or the ilk thrown into the equation. When people say that there are delays due to "weight of traffic" I just can't hold with it. It's bad driving habits: people driving at 70 and hogging the outer lane, HGVs overtaking (very slowly) and other such incidents. I also maintain that the Brits are the worst drivers in the world and are prone to such driving foibles (we need a more difficult driving test but that's a rant for another day!) Add a lump of congestion to this little connundrum and it does take a rocket scientist to work out that there's going to be delays... There are always roadworks and accidents that conspire against you but that's part and parcel.
Incidently this view was formulated at high volume as I sat for the best part of an hour outside Birmingham the other weekend... It was "weight of traffic" that caused it...
Posted by: Gus | February 10, 2007 12:02 PM
Hey nathan - thanks.
Having only recently joined the world of the employed, its amazing how my opinions on subjects like these have suddenly become very... erm... definite.
Posted by: Ewan | February 10, 2007 1:36 PM
Perhaps someone pointed this out, but a tax on gasoline IS sort of like "paying as you go." The more you drive, the more gas you use. The only people not paying their fair share for road repairs are those getting better gas mileage (motorcycles, horse and buggies, hybrids, etc). Plus it's easy to calculate and easy to implement. It's too good an idea to toss out in favor of something unnecessarily complicated.
BTW, has anyone else here heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Check out http://www.venganza.org
I've recently converted after being touched by His noodly appendage and have been spreading the word of the gospel.
RAmen
Posted by: Josh Kaminoff | February 13, 2007 1:13 AM
Recently there was a big to do in the news to demonstrate that local toll lanes were having actual (rather than fake you out) cameras to monitor and reprimand people who drive through without paying the toll. That explains why I never got a ticket three years ago during one of my 'I got lost and turned around' adventures I have so frequently in the DC area.
Posted by: R . T. Bean | February 14, 2007 3:32 AM