I’d be happy with a road pricing scheme if the ‘road tax/vehicle emissions tax’ was abolished. But only if, and it’s a big IF, the charge per mile was very small, so that the average motorist would end up paying roughly the same as they do now.
I’ve always though it was an unfair system, charging motorists exactly the same, no matter how much or how little, they use their car. Plenty of old people who hardly use their cars at all paying the same as people who uses their cars every day doesn’t make sense.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but I suspect it’ll be the norm around the world in ten years or so.
I definately think a road pricing system is the way ahead once the technology is there. If sophisticated enough charges would vary depending on congestion of the road, emissions and the weight of the vehicle (SUVs damage road sufaces way more than superminis)
But electric vehicles are way heavier than the equivalent ICE vehicle. For example, the Folgore version of the Maserati GranTurismo is 305kg heavier than the petrol version.
Depressing really.
The Americans would never stand for such a system. I know the infrastructure levels are completely different but it is depressing how the concept of road pricing is entirely plausible in the UK.
I’d be happy with a road pricing scheme if the ‘road tax/vehicle emissions tax’ was abolished. But only if, and it’s a big IF, the charge per mile was very small, so that the average motorist would end up paying roughly the same as they do now.
I’ve always though it was an unfair system, charging motorists exactly the same, no matter how much or how little, they use their car. Plenty of old people who hardly use their cars at all paying the same as people who uses their cars every day doesn’t make sense.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but I suspect it’ll be the norm around the world in ten years or so.
I definately think a road pricing system is the way ahead once the technology is there. If sophisticated enough charges would vary depending on congestion of the road, emissions and the weight of the vehicle (SUVs damage road sufaces way more than superminis)
But electric vehicles are way heavier than the equivalent ICE vehicle. For example, the Folgore version of the Maserati GranTurismo is 305kg heavier than the petrol version.
Depressing really.
The Americans would never stand for such a system. I know the infrastructure levels are completely different but it is depressing how the concept of road pricing is entirely plausible in the UK.
Why is it depressing? I just don't understand the problem if it can be implemented relatively cheaply?
I’d be happy with a road pricing scheme if the ‘road tax/vehicle emissions tax’ was abolished. But only if, and it’s a big IF, the charge per mile was very small, so that the average motorist would end up paying roughly the same as they do now.
I’ve always though it was an unfair system, charging motorists exactly the same, no matter how much or how little, they use their car. Plenty of old people who hardly use their cars at all paying the same as people who uses their cars every day doesn’t make sense.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but I suspect it’ll be the norm around the world in ten years or so.
I definately think a road pricing system is the way ahead once the technology is there. If sophisticated enough charges would vary depending on congestion of the road, emissions and the weight of the vehicle (SUVs damage road sufaces way more than superminis)
But electric vehicles are way heavier than the equivalent ICE vehicle. For example, the Folgore version of the Maserati GranTurismo is 305kg heavier than the petrol version.
Depressing really.
The Americans would never stand for such a system. I know the infrastructure levels are completely different but it is depressing how the concept of road pricing is entirely plausible in the UK.
There are plenty of toll roads in the US. About 35 states have them as well as tolls on bridges and express lanes. This is on top of the annual registration fees that all states charge. They also have a tax on buying cars, including used, typically 5.75%.
Admittedly they pay less tax on the fuel itself, but that seems to be where we are heading anyway as we move on from petrol/diesel.
Out of interest - how long is it taking the authorities to replace ULEZ cameras?
Have the ones outside the Swan & Mitre been replaced?
They reckon 90% of cameras have been damaged in the south east.
That sort of seems potentially self-defeating. Presumably those with vehicles that are ULEZ compliant won’t give a shit about the cameras, as will probably be the case with those that don’t own a vehicle in the first place. So that just leaves those with non-compliant vehicles who could quite easily be targeted with an increase on the £12.50 charge in order to cover the cost of replacing the vandalised cameras in those areas. .
Out of interest - how long is it taking the authorities to replace ULEZ cameras?
Have the ones outside the Swan & Mitre been replaced?
They reckon 90% of cameras have been damaged in the south east.
That sort of seems potentially self-defeating. Presumably those with vehicles that are ULEZ compliant won’t give a shit about the cameras, as will probably be the case with those that don’t own a vehicle in the first place. So that just leaves those with non-compliant vehicles who could quite easily be targeted with an increase on the £12.50 charge in order to cover the cost of replacing the vandalised cameras in those areas. .
My vehicle is ULEZ compliant - by about a year or so if going by age of vehicle but I can assure you anyone with a vehicle from 2006/07 onwards for 2-3 years will likely be just as concerned as anyone who's own vehicle isn't ULEZ compliant, it's only a matter of time until income slows down that the goal posts will move and the definition of ULEZ compliance will probably change until some day way in the future only electric vehicles will be exempt from the charge.
Out of interest - how long is it taking the authorities to replace ULEZ cameras?
Have the ones outside the Swan & Mitre been replaced?
They reckon 90% of cameras have been damaged in the south east.
That sort of seems potentially self-defeating. Presumably those with vehicles that are ULEZ compliant won’t give a shit about the cameras, as will probably be the case with those that don’t own a vehicle in the first place. So that just leaves those with non-compliant vehicles who could quite easily be targeted with an increase on the £12.50 charge in order to cover the cost of replacing the vandalised cameras in those areas. .
My vehicle is ULEZ compliant - by about a year or so if going by age of vehicle but I can assure you anyone with a vehicle from 2006/07 onwards for 2-3 years will likely be just as concerned as anyone who's own vehicle isn't ULEZ compliant, it's only a matter of time until income slows down that the goal posts will move and the definition of ULEZ compliance will probably change until some day way in the future only electric vehicles will be exempt from the charge.
One day in the future, no vehicle will be exempt, electric or otherwise.
this is a revenue stream - if all cars are electric, electric cars get charged.
They should put signs up to warn that you're going to be entering the Ulez zone but i agree that there has been no support for the people who live outside the london boroughs who travel and commute into the zone. Not like the scrappage scheme is particularly good.
They should put signs up to warn that you're going to be entering the Ulez zone but i agree that there has been no support for the people who live outside the london boroughs who travel and commute into the zone. Not like the scrappage scheme is particularly good.
It's crazy that adjacent Councils are refusing to put up warning signs, they need to accept that the zone is there and allow warnings to be given to people entering the zone.
They should put signs up to warn that you're going to be entering the Ulez zone but i agree that there has been no support for the people who live outside the london boroughs who travel and commute into the zone. Not like the scrappage scheme is particularly good.
It's crazy that adjacent Councils are refusing to put up warning signs, they need to accept that the zone is there and allow warnings to be given to people entering the zone.
Out of interest - how long is it taking the authorities to replace ULEZ cameras?
Have the ones outside the Swan & Mitre been replaced?
They reckon 90% of cameras have been damaged in the south east.
That sort of seems potentially self-defeating. Presumably those with vehicles that are ULEZ compliant won’t give a shit about the cameras, as will probably be the case with those that don’t own a vehicle in the first place. So that just leaves those with non-compliant vehicles who could quite easily be targeted with an increase on the £12.50 charge in order to cover the cost of replacing the vandalised cameras in those areas. .
My vehicle is ULEZ compliant - by about a year or so if going by age of vehicle but I can assure you anyone with a vehicle from 2006/07 onwards for 2-3 years will likely be just as concerned as anyone who's own vehicle isn't ULEZ compliant, it's only a matter of time until income slows down that the goal posts will move and the definition of ULEZ compliance will probably change until some day way in the future only electric vehicles will be exempt from the charge.
One day in the future, no vehicle will be exempt, electric or otherwise.
this is a revenue stream - if all cars are electric, electric cars get charged.
There will always be a charge, unless you think road building should come out of general taxation? How would that be fair on those who don't drive?
Out of interest - how long is it taking the authorities to replace ULEZ cameras?
Have the ones outside the Swan & Mitre been replaced?
They reckon 90% of cameras have been damaged in the south east.
That sort of seems potentially self-defeating. Presumably those with vehicles that are ULEZ compliant won’t give a shit about the cameras, as will probably be the case with those that don’t own a vehicle in the first place. So that just leaves those with non-compliant vehicles who could quite easily be targeted with an increase on the £12.50 charge in order to cover the cost of replacing the vandalised cameras in those areas. .
My vehicle is ULEZ compliant - by about a year or so if going by age of vehicle but I can assure you anyone with a vehicle from 2006/07 onwards for 2-3 years will likely be just as concerned as anyone who's own vehicle isn't ULEZ compliant, it's only a matter of time until income slows down that the goal posts will move and the definition of ULEZ compliance will probably change until some day way in the future only electric vehicles will be exempt from the charge.
One day in the future, no vehicle will be exempt, electric or otherwise.
this is a revenue stream - if all cars are electric, electric cars get charged.
There will always be a charge, unless you think road building should come out of general taxation? How would that be fair on those who don't drive?
Out of interest - how long is it taking the authorities to replace ULEZ cameras?
Have the ones outside the Swan & Mitre been replaced?
They reckon 90% of cameras have been damaged in the south east.
That sort of seems potentially self-defeating. Presumably those with vehicles that are ULEZ compliant won’t give a shit about the cameras, as will probably be the case with those that don’t own a vehicle in the first place. So that just leaves those with non-compliant vehicles who could quite easily be targeted with an increase on the £12.50 charge in order to cover the cost of replacing the vandalised cameras in those areas. .
My vehicle is ULEZ compliant - by about a year or so if going by age of vehicle but I can assure you anyone with a vehicle from 2006/07 onwards for 2-3 years will likely be just as concerned as anyone who's own vehicle isn't ULEZ compliant, it's only a matter of time until income slows down that the goal posts will move and the definition of ULEZ compliance will probably change until some day way in the future only electric vehicles will be exempt from the charge.
One day in the future, no vehicle will be exempt, electric or otherwise.
this is a revenue stream - if all cars are electric, electric cars get charged.
There will always be a charge, unless you think road building should come out of general taxation? How would that be fair on those who don't drive?
Thats what I said. There will always be a charge - when all cars are electric it will need to be based on something other than emissions. This is now a revenue stream that won’t be lost.
Out of interest - how long is it taking the authorities to replace ULEZ cameras?
Have the ones outside the Swan & Mitre been replaced?
They reckon 90% of cameras have been damaged in the south east.
That sort of seems potentially self-defeating. Presumably those with vehicles that are ULEZ compliant won’t give a shit about the cameras, as will probably be the case with those that don’t own a vehicle in the first place. So that just leaves those with non-compliant vehicles who could quite easily be targeted with an increase on the £12.50 charge in order to cover the cost of replacing the vandalised cameras in those areas. .
My vehicle is ULEZ compliant - by about a year or so if going by age of vehicle but I can assure you anyone with a vehicle from 2006/07 onwards for 2-3 years will likely be just as concerned as anyone who's own vehicle isn't ULEZ compliant, it's only a matter of time until income slows down that the goal posts will move and the definition of ULEZ compliance will probably change until some day way in the future only electric vehicles will be exempt from the charge.
this - I guarantee my car fails in the next round - 65 plate 2.3L Diesel
Just walked past a big protest on Whitehall. Included a Duchatelet style funeral procession, which I’m going to go out on a limb and say was slightly dramatic
Young Ella died from the air pollution according to the experts. That was ten years ago. If the present ULEZ expansion saves the life of one more child over the next ten years will it have been worth it?
Young Ella died from the air pollution according to the experts. That was ten years ago. If the present ULEZ expansion saves the life of one more child over the next ten years will it have been worth it?
If it truly was about cleaning up the air then non compliant vehicles would be banned outright with owners receiving a compliant vehicle in exchange free of charge.
But of course for £12.50 a day you can continue using your non compliant vehicle topping up the TFL coffers which shows what the scheme's all about.
This article is hugely misleading, there is virtually no story here at all. No trader or business operative filing Self Assessment tax returns should have any doubts about the deductibility of ULEZ charges. They are no different from parking fees or tolls on bridges, roads or tunnels.
The test for deductibility for income/corporation taxes is "wholly and necessarily incurred for the purpose of the trade" "wholly and exclusively...etc" is the test for deductibility of incurred VAT. Duality of purpose falls foul of the VAT rules but not income or corporation tax. Obviously there's no VAT in the ULEZ charge.
Young Ella died from the air pollution according to the experts. That was ten years ago. If the present ULEZ expansion saves the life of one more child over the next ten years will it have been worth it?
If we get rid of cars altogether that will save nearly 1700 people a year
Out of interest - how long is it taking the authorities to replace ULEZ cameras?
Have the ones outside the Swan & Mitre been replaced?
They reckon 90% of cameras have been damaged in the south east.
That sort of seems potentially self-defeating. Presumably those with vehicles that are ULEZ compliant won’t give a shit about the cameras, as will probably be the case with those that don’t own a vehicle in the first place. So that just leaves those with non-compliant vehicles who could quite easily be targeted with an increase on the £12.50 charge in order to cover the cost of replacing the vandalised cameras in those areas. .
My vehicle is ULEZ compliant - by about a year or so if going by age of vehicle but I can assure you anyone with a vehicle from 2006/07 onwards for 2-3 years will likely be just as concerned as anyone who's own vehicle isn't ULEZ compliant, it's only a matter of time until income slows down that the goal posts will move and the definition of ULEZ compliance will probably change until some day way in the future only electric vehicles will be exempt from the charge.
this - I guarantee my car fails in the next round - 65 plate 2.3L Diesel
And some are criticising the scheme that it is not being rolled out in phases, surely this proves they are by not forcing all cars to be compliant now but rolling it out over time so we reduce the next set of most offending polluters and then the next and so on.
Out of interest - how long is it taking the authorities to replace ULEZ cameras?
Have the ones outside the Swan & Mitre been replaced?
They reckon 90% of cameras have been damaged in the south east.
would love to hear how this is a disgrace from those that throw a shitfit about "damage to property" during protests on how this is reprehensible. But i doubt it.
Comments
The Americans would never stand for such a system. I know the infrastructure levels are completely different but it is depressing how the concept of road pricing is entirely plausible in the UK.
Have the ones outside the Swan & Mitre been replaced?
.
this is a revenue stream - if all cars are electric, electric cars get charged.
They should put signs up to warn that you're going to be entering the Ulez zone but i agree that there has been no support for the people who live outside the london boroughs who travel and commute into the zone. Not like the scrappage scheme is particularly good.
Ulez: Drivers can reclaim charge in tax return - HMRC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66645379https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66607651
If the present ULEZ expansion saves the life of one more child over the next ten years will it have been worth it?
But of course for £12.50 a day you can continue using your non compliant vehicle topping up the TFL coffers which shows what the scheme's all about.
No trader or business operative filing Self Assessment tax returns should have any doubts about the deductibility of ULEZ charges.
They are no different from parking fees or tolls on bridges, roads or tunnels.
The test for deductibility for income/corporation taxes is "wholly and necessarily incurred for the purpose of the trade"
"wholly and exclusively...etc" is the test for deductibility of incurred VAT. Duality of purpose falls foul of the VAT rules but not income or corporation tax.
Obviously there's no VAT in the ULEZ charge.