Jump to content

Katie Hopkins backlash..


Manx Bean

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The expanded ULEZ area is simply the same as the existing LEZ area, which has been around since Johnson was Mayor.  So expansion was always going to happen.

The wiki you linked says they are not to be confused with each other. LEZ impacts commercial vehicles while ULEZ hits private motorists, so not inevitable that they must cover the same zones.

Substantiation remains elusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

Certainly tax the ICE fuel. Certainly charge per distance travelled and type of road. But also by weight of vehicle.

nice for those who can work from home. For the rest of us, including care workers going from home to home, who are already low paid and poorly compensated for vehicle use, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@woolley it is the Tory Government who have been pushing the ULEZ zone and similar schemes around the country. 

They then blame the local councils especially if they are Labour.  This has been happening in Greater Manchester where that scheme is now under review.

The second link below is the most compelling evidence given the Tory majority in Westminster. 

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/the-truth-about-londons-ultra-low-emission-zone/

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9816/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, John Wright said:

Certainly tax the ICE fuel. Certainly charge per distance travelled and type of road. But also by weight of vehicle.

If you are charging on fuel, then distance is charged for by default. The danger is that they price people off the road, then there is insufficient tax money to maintain the roads. So, you have to tax without discouraging. That is why lower road tax and higher fuel tax is the obvious answer. People can decide when they refuel their vehicles whether a certain trip is worth the money, or if they can afford it at that time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, HiVibes said:

Charge by weight of the driver, and reduce if they have passeners. Ban all old poeople off the roads they are only prattling about and have zero purpose being there other than filling time in before death.

As much as I agree old “poeople” should be banned, over 80s, perhaps. I think the age at which one can take their driving test should be raised to 18. Still allow provisionals and lessons from 16, but encourage some real, practical supervised experience before allowing children on the road. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Cambon said:

If you are charging on fuel, then distance is charged for by default. The danger is that they price people off the road, then there is insufficient tax money to maintain the roads. So, you have to tax without discouraging. That is why lower road tax and higher fuel tax is the obvious answer. People can decide when they refuel their vehicles whether a certain trip is worth the money, or if they can afford it at that time. 

There isn't duty etc on electricity for EV. 

I'm happy with a combination of a Road Tax based on weight ( that's what causes most damage and wear and tear, a mileage/time of day/usage charge based on what roads/where ( that will also cover congestion and LEZ but must be subject to essential user work allowances ). You're mistaken if you think VED is hypothecated for roads.

There has to be a taper so we cover the diminution of revenue from ICE fuels and the increase of EV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/15/2023 at 10:23 PM, Cambon said:

Also by weight, including EVs. All cars road tax by weight. 
The other thing that annoys me is EVs getting cheaper electricity for charging, and low VAT! Ludicrous! 

Are you aware that the electric heating tariff is cheaper than an EV tariff? 

Also VAT is added whenever you charge at a podpoint ( I.e you pay more for the electricity than when you charge at home ) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, John Wright said:

There isn't duty etc on electricity for EV. 

I'm happy with a combination of a Road Tax based on weight ( that's what causes most damage and wear and tear, a mileage/time of day/usage charge based on what roads/where ( that will also cover congestion and LEZ but must be subject to essential user work allowances ). You're mistaken if you think VED is hypothecated for roads.

There has to be a taper so we cover the diminution of revenue from ICE fuels and the increase of EV

Many people generate their own electricity using solar?..How are you planning to tax that ? 

And if the plan is to  add additional  tax based on smart meters connected to the car charging  points it won't work

All electric cars can be changed from a 3 pin plug if needed..

I have an EV and and ICE car. Curreht EV tech is still a work in progress and  doesn't work   for everyone. I  don't take it across for example..

But for island use its perfect .

Edited by mad_manx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mad_manx said:

Many people generate their own electricity using solar?..How are you planning to tax that ? 

And if the plan is to  add additional  tax based on smart meters connected to the car charging  points it won't work

All electric cars can be changed from a 3 pin plug if needed..

I have an EV and and ICE car. Curreht EV tech is still a work in progress and  doesn't work   for everyone. I  don't take it across for example..

But for island use its perfect .

which is why, going forward, its going to be a mix of weight and usage

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2023 at 12:10 PM, John Wright said:

There isn't duty etc on electricity for EV. 

I'm happy with a combination of a Road Tax based on weight ( that's what causes most damage and wear and tear, a mileage/time of day/usage charge based on what roads/where ( that will also cover congestion and LEZ but must be subject to essential user work allowances ). You're mistaken if you think VED is hypothecated for roads.

There has to be a taper so we cover the diminution of revenue from ICE fuels and the increase of EV

No, VED is not hypothecated for roads, but the amount spent on roads is directly proportional to the amount of use. If road usage halves, so must the budget. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...