Yesterday, I followed a tweet from @citycyclists to thisannouncement, about a “vignette” system for foreign HGVs in the UK. Henceforth, just as British HGVs generally
have to pay to use roads on the continent, European HGVs will have to pay a
charge for using British roads.
Apparently it would be discrimination forbidden by EU treaty
for the same charge not to be applied to UK HGVs, so it will be, but they will
get it rebated on their vehicle excise duty.
The announcement from the Cabinet Office opines that VED
levels for HGVs are “intended to
reflect the different levels of damage caused to the road by the vehicle”.
Well, not
really. As I commented here, damage to
roads is proportional to the square of a vehicle’s axle weight. So, a 44 tonne 5-axle artic will on average impose
an axle weight 15 times that of a family car.
That produces about 200 times the damage effect. The top rate of VED for such behemoths is
perhaps 10 times that of a small family car, so proportionately the HGV is
paying only 5% as much as that car – and that is before you consider the vastly
higher mileages of the big rigs.
Now I am onto
a subject which is close to my heart – or my paycheck at any rate – taxation. Commercial haulage vehicles pay about 30%
less road fuel tax, per litre, than private cars. Why? Because
they don’t pay VAT.
“Of course
they do”, you cry. Actually, they don’t. VAT is an end-user tax. Businesses, of any type or size, merely act
as tax collectors on behalf of the government. When you or I fill our supermarket trolley, we
pay 20% VAT on items like chocolate, cakes, alcoholic drinks. That is charged by the retailer, who hands
over to HMRC the excess between what he collects from the customer and what he
has paid to suppliers, transport companies etc, in a long chain which goes
right back to the original raw materials suppliers. So, they collect the tax from you, they don’t
pay it themselves.
If you also
put items like fresh meat and vegetables, newspapers etc, into your trolley,
you pay no VAT on those because they are “zero-rated” – which means that the supply
chain has in effect over-collected VAT and so is entitled to claim it back as a
cash refund. (You might like to consider
that injury is added to insult, that your frozen horsemeat lasagne carries 20%
VAT as a prepared ready-meal, while fresh lamb or beef does not.)
Anyway, I
digress. What I wanted to say was that
HM Treasury invited suggestions from any quarter, whether professional or
personal, on ideas for improving the tax system, and – in my personal capacity –
I responded. (I tweeted the link, by the
way, so I hope others picked it up but I’m afraid the consultation is now
closed).
My suggestion
was that the taxation of motor vehicles and their fuel could be rebalanced, so
that less tax fell on ownership of the vehicle, and more fell on use. Whether or not I believe that the level of
taxation of motor vehicles is high enough is irrelevant here – I was making a
technical submission so I proposed it on a zero-sum basis. In any
case, if you are going to raise car taxes you need to address the issue of
people who can’t really afford a car but nonetheless are compelled to have one
in order to hold down a rural job or have mobility as a disabled person etc.
According to
AA statistics, around 25-30% of the annual cost of owning a car and using it an
average amount is spent on fuel, the rest of course being depreciation, finance
charges, maintenance and insurance etc. While
this sounds a lot, it nevertheless remains true that once you have stiffed
yourself for the cost of buying and insuring etc a car, the marginal cost of
actually using it, per mile travelled, is ridiculously low, even now with fuel prices rising. It makes the choice of car over bus or train,
or indeed foot or bike, too easy to make.
If static taxes
– those which don’t relate to mileage – were significantly cut, for example by
reducing VAT to the minimum level permitted by EU law for purchase, maintenance
and safety related spares such as tyres etc, and cutting VED to an admin charge
level, if it is actually needed at all, the loss could then be made up by
significantly increasing the rates of duty and perhaps VAT on fuel and other
use-related charges such as parking. Of course, a far more rational way of charging for road use would be road-pricing itself, as proposed in this study by the Institute of Fiscal Studies for the RAC Foundation (believe it nor not!) but I suspect that the political will for that is some way off yet.
You might
need to provide for duty rebates for commercial vehicles – assuming of course
that you think that they pay enough motoring tax already, or are making a
purely technical submission – because, as I say, they don’t actually pay VAT so
the duty increases would far outweigh the savings on static taxes.
Anyway, the
thinking is that we should be doing everything we can to reduce car use. As VoleOSpeed says in his latest post, we
might as well accept that the private car is here to stay, and indeed I have to
admit I find mine jolly useful at times, like for longer journeys or heavier
loads, but we could use them less and use alternatives more. We all know that around a half of all car
journeys in cities are less than 5km – half less than 5 miles outside urban
centres – and these are eminently feasible distances to cycle, if conditions permitted.
This, in
effect, is what the Dutch, and the Danes, and the Germans, already do. VoleOSpeed mentions the 20% modal share in
the Netherlands compared to the paltry 2% (if that) here, but curiously this does
not mean that the Dutch own fewer cars than we do – according to this table
Brits, Dutch and Danes have similar ownership levels and Germans are way above
us in the “league” table.
They just know
when it is appropriate to leave them at home, and we don’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment