Direction of travel

[Phil xxkr]

I have used the much loved wokey left phrase to act as my topic title. Why you might ask? Well because of this extraordinary article - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-26/charging-your-ev-from-flat-to-full-can-cost-240-or-nothing

For those people in the South East without home chargers it looks like this will add to their "cost of living crisis" no end 😱

[First_Lexus]

1 hour ago, Phil xxkr said:

I have used the much loved wokey left phrase to act as my topic title. Why you might ask? Well because of this extraordinary article - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-26/charging-your-ev-from-flat-to-full-can-cost-240-or-nothing

For those people in the South East without home chargers it looks like this will add to their "cost of living crisis" no end 😱

Good grief. I suppose I ought to be surprised…

As has been said before, EV batteries will get more efficient over time with longer ranges possible (hopefully driven by Battery evolution rather than simply bigger batteries!)

The issue is - and I’m afraid will remain - the infrastructure. Government needs to act centrally to stop madness like this. They won’t of course. I call for a (series of) five-year plans, Comrade!

🤔

[Linas.P]

Yeah doesn't surprise me either. As I said few times before - I am not against EVs as long as they are not showed into my mouth by force (and that is exactly what's seems to be happening). I even considered getting PHEV myself, before pandemic it would have suited my drive quite well ~16 miles one way to work, with range of between 24-32Miles on Battery I could easily drive on electricity alone if I could charge at work... even if not then I would still be able to drive like 80% on electricity and then used discounted parking for EV. And then it being PHEV - I could drive it like petrol car when I want to go for a longer drive. Win-win.

Problem comes when it comes to charging - funny enough it would be most beneficial in the cities, but at the same time city dwellers are worst equipped to own EV. And if we going in the way of banning car ownership in the cities and forcing people into smelly and unreliable public transport... then what is even the point of EVs? They are not usable for longer inter-city drivers anyway.

All that said I really annoyed when people say there is no issue with infrastructure, just because they don't have one. Majority of population does and this transition is not about individual circumstances. If we want it to work, then we need to ensure that vast majority of population does have access to charging, then excepting or subsidising the remaining few %.

Final point - I think those "proactive" councils which currently provide "free" charge will be perfect examples of "bait and switch", at the moment it is free, but as soon as most people switch over and have no way back... I am sure the policy will be changed. 

[Malc]

37 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

but as soon as most people switch over and have no way back... I am sure the policy will be changed. 

as will Road Tax VED and cost of filling her up with EV stuff .......... special meters no doubt ..  somehow ...  but the Govts simply got to recoup all that lost Petroleum Revenue Tax somehow from other road users .....  now then ...  what about a £500 a year VED on all cyclists too 😈

Malc

[Linas.P]

And if not that, then they simply going to hike some other tax - VAT, income tax or something else. 

Obviously in ideal world there is another scenario - spending tax fairly and transparently, removing corruption and then everyone will be happy to contribute. But we don't live in ideal world and because everyone knows about corruption and the fact that large proportion of taxes are embezzled and otherwise wasted to enrich elites, nobody wants to contribute. 

Money has to be collected and to make people to contribute some way or another goverment uses very simple yet effective tactic - divide and rule. Collecting it via VED is just easier because it is easier to divide society like that, smear motorists (or any other group of society), create false narrative of moral high-ground for opposing group - let the two groups fight together, whilst they are forgetting that everyone loses and corrupt goverment wins.

[Malc]

1 minute ago, Linas.P said:

whilst they are forgetting that everyone loses and corrupt goverment wins.

well well well ............  even a straight and honest, upstanding NON-corrupt Government wins ....  especially if it's run by the Party one wants it to be run by ...........  hey, just thought, the name of the Party ( having the Party )  could be Labour or Conservative or LibDems ( is it ) or Green Green Grass of Home ..  whatever it is they all deserve to have a Party at some time, to celebrate the beating down and out of this Covid disease ...  good on 'em and the NHS especially for nearly getting there cleansing the nation of covid stuff etc 

Malc

[The-Acre]

I also wonder what will happen when EV's get to be 15 years old + and can be bought for very little by those on lower incomes, it's not the same as buying a 15 year old Clio and doing DIY repairs, there could be burnt fingers, literally!

[Guest]

what about a £500 a year VED on all cyclists too 😈

i cycle a lot, always have done, most of my work commuting was on 2 wheels. Now I also appreciate my Lexus proving  that cyclists can also be motorists (and visa versa). When I am on my bike my car is on the drive so if I am to be charged for riding a bike I might as well use the car thereby creating more congestion which no doubt will give people like you something else to complain about😂

[ALAW]

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

And if not that, then they simply going to hike some other tax - VAT, income tax or something else. 

Obviously in ideal world there is another scenario - spending tax fairly and transparently, removing corruption and then everyone will be happy to contribute. But we don't live in ideal world and because everyone knows about corruption and the fact that large proportion of taxes are embezzled and otherwise wasted to enrich elites, nobody wants to contribute. 

Money has to be collected and to make people to contribute some way or another goverment uses very simple yet effective tactic - divide and rule. Collecting it via VED is just easier because it is easier to divide society like that, smear motorists (or any other group of society), create false narrative of moral high-ground for opposing group - let the two groups fight together, whilst they are forgetting that everyone loses and corrupt goverment wins.

 then they simply going to hike some other tax - VAT, income tax or something else. I think roadpricing tolls etc whatever you want to call it will come in sooner than later.

[First_Lexus]

7 hours ago, ALAW said:

 then they simply going to hike some other tax - VAT, income tax or something else. I think roadpricing tolls etc whatever you want to call it will come in sooner than later.

Exactly. Somewhere in HM Treasury, somebody will have a tracker showing the likely uptake of EVs by year. They’ll have estimated how much more those still driving petrol or diesel cars can stand without switching and then at the cross over point the tax advantages of an EV will have to end in order to fund Government (unless some alternative income stream is found, which I doubt).

Let’s be honest. EV tax advantages are only there to encourage motorists to switch. They’ll end soon enough, and road tolls are likely to be the answer for most Governments.  

[Phil xxkr]

13 hours ago, Derant said:

what about a £500 a year VED on all cyclists too 😈

i cycle a lot, always have done, most of my work commuting was on 2 wheels. Now I also appreciate my Lexus proving  that cyclists can also be motorists (and visa versa). When I am on my bike my car is on the drive so if I am to be charged for riding a bike I might as well use the car thereby creating more congestion which no doubt will give people like you something else to complain about😂

I have use of two cars Anthony yet I am obliged to tax and insurance both yet I can only drive one at a time.! 

[wharfhouse]

I assume the local councils take any profit over and above the electricity cost (and installation of chargers although I believe at the moment he government has provided money for that) so like car parking charges it will become a nice money earner for local councils to fill their coffers so once enough people are using council charging points expect the rates to rise significantly. 

[Phil xxkr]

15 hours ago, Linas.P said:

And if not that, then they simply going to hike some other tax - VAT, income tax or something else. 

Obviously in ideal world there is another scenario - spending tax fairly and transparently, removing corruption and then everyone will be happy to contribute. But we don't live in ideal world and because everyone knows about corruption and the fact that large proportion of taxes are embezzled and otherwise wasted to enrich elites, nobody wants to contribute. 

Money has to be collected and to make people to contribute some way or another goverment uses very simple yet effective tactic - divide and rule. Collecting it via VED is just easier because it is easier to divide society like that, smear motorists (or any other group of society), create false narrative of moral high-ground for opposing group - let the two groups fight together, whilst they are forgetting that everyone loses and corrupt goverment wins.

That's a pretty jaundiced view of the West Linas! Although you probably know that my starting point is all taxation is theft 😱 I recall that in the UK some years ago the same technique was used to persuade people to stop smoking saying it would save the NHS a small fortune. Outcome = lost tobacco revenues made up by increasing other taxes and despite the millions who stopped smoking the NHS still gets huge increases. 

[Phil xxkr]

2 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

Exactly. Somewhere in HM Treasury, somebody will have a tracker showing the likely uptake of EVs by year. They’ll have estimated how much more those still driving petrol or diesel cars can stand without switching and then at the cross over point the tax advantages of an EV will have to end in order to fund Government (unless some alternative income stream is found, which I doubt).

Let’s be honest. EV tax advantages are only there to encourage motorists to switch. They’ll end soon enough, and road tolls are likely to be the answer for most Governments.  

Think I read somewhere that with EV's it will be easier to implement a tax per mile travelled system as it can be calculated from a combination of inputs. This of course means clever hackers will already be designing work-arounds 😊

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Phil xxkr said:

I have use of two cars Anthony yet I am obliged to tax and insurance both yet I can only drive one at a time.! 

As do I

[Malc]

15 hours ago, Derant said:

creating more congestion which no doubt will give people like you something else to complain about😂

I so so rarely complain ....  I just feel that cyclists as Road Users should be paying some sort of Govt Road Tax for using the road too ...  after all, when I have two cars and only use one at a time I still expect and happy to pay VED Road Tax on both cars ..  and one of them, the Honda Legend ( 2006 car ) is £600 a year too 

I'm not complaining at all .....  I realise that the Govt has to raise all sorts of taxes to pay for society to enjoy simple things  .........like the NHS  .... 1.5 million employees I understand ..  what a great institution it is .............  what a wonderful use of our taxes .  and I'm being absolutely serious here guys

AND if it means taxing cyclists to help pay more towards the NHS then I'm all for it ..............  a minimum of £500 a year for cyclists over the age of 16 !

AND if they can't be seen to have paid the tax then confiscate the bike and crush it ....  like they do with untaxed cars !

Malc

[Phil xxkr]

4 minutes ago, Malc said:

I so so rarely complain ....  I just feel that cyclists as Road Users should be paying some sort of Govt Road Tax for using the road too ...  after all, when I have two cars and only use one at a time I still expect and happy to pay VED Road Tax on both cars ..  and one of them, the Honda Legend ( 2006 car ) is £600 a year too 

I'm not complaining at all .....  I realise that the Govt has to raise all sorts of taxes to pay for society to enjoy simple things  .........like the NHS  .... 1.5 million employees I understand ..  what a great institution it is .............  what a wonderful use of our taxes .  and I'm being absolutely serious here guys

AND if it means taxing cyclists to help pay more towards the NHS then I'm all for it ..............  a minimum of £500 a year for cyclists over the age of 16 !

AND if they can't be seen to have paid the tax then confiscate the bike and crush it ....  like they do with untaxed cars !

Malc

That's a hornets nest 🤣

[Moleman]

20 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

That's a hornets nest 🤣

Why would that be Phillip? It is just as much a valid opinion and view, as "When I am on my bike my car is on the drive so if I am to be charged for riding a bike I might as well use the car thereby creating more congestion which no doubt will give people like you something else to complain about😂".

[Phil xxkr]

34 minutes ago, Moleman said:

Why would that be Phillip? It is just as much a valid opinion and view, as "When I am on my bike my car is on the drive so if I am to be charged for riding a bike I might as well use the car thereby creating more congestion which no doubt will give people like you something else to complain about😂".

Why? Because of the very nature of the opinions offered by Malc namely, in no particular order of precedence, 1-being happy to pay tax on additional vehicles despite only driving one at a time. 2- the NHS is a great institution, despite employing the second highest public sector number of employees in the democratic world, still has six year waiting lists. 3- that cyclists should pay more in tax than I do for either my RX450H or Jaguar XKR 4 - I will agree to the principle of crushing when it also applies to caravans owned by certain sections of society 

[Malc]

10 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

still has six year waiting lists.

it's been there for me at the  " point of need "  instantaneous.........  with my cancer radiotherapy and operation .......... the 1.5 million employees all do a tremendous job for sure .......  my nephew is a heart surgeon Consultant and works his bollocks off saving peoples lives every day ........ employ more and the peripheral waiting lists might come down for sure .........  " point of need "  is catered for well within the capacity of the NHS  ............... NHS 1.75 million employees and all will be dealt with instantaneously I'm sure ..  the waiting list will vanish  .........  let's all pay a little more to achieve that eh ! 

So VED for cyclists might help ease the NHS waiting lists then 

Most other countries the " point of need " passes and one just dies without the personal wealth to jump the Qs😵

Malc

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

That's a pretty jaundiced view of the West Linas! Although you probably know that my starting point is all taxation is theft 😱 I recall that in the UK some years ago the same technique was used to persuade people to stop smoking saying it would save the NHS a small fortune. Outcome = lost tobacco revenues made up by increasing other taxes and despite the millions who stopped smoking the NHS still gets huge increases. 

Yes - I must admit this is still best system we have ever had in human history, but it does not mean it is perfect or even acceptable. 

Any money paid or taken against ones will could be considered theft, hence my argument - in ideal world we would all agree that taxation is fair and used for the things it meant to be used. I don't think anyone in their right mind would say that they don't want public services like NHS to exist, but at the same time when NHS spends 700million on some medicine or equipment that equipment is worth the money which was paid. Or when government pays 30 billion for track and trace system ... it actually works... or if it doesn't, then somebody goes to jail. Sadly I can't say that either of those things are the case. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Malc said:

I so so rarely complain ....  I just feel that cyclists as Road Users should be paying some sort of Govt Road Tax for using the road too ...  after all, when I have two cars and only use one at a time I still expect and happy to pay VED Road Tax on both cars ..  and one of them, the Honda Legend ( 2006 car ) is £600 a year too 

I'm not complaining at all .....  I realise that the Govt has to raise all sorts of taxes to pay for society to enjoy simple things  .........like the NHS  .... 1.5 million employees I understand ..  what a great institution it is .............  what a wonderful use of our taxes .  and I'm being absolutely serious here guys

AND if it means taxing cyclists to help pay more towards the NHS then I'm all for it ..............  a minimum of £500 a year for cyclists over the age of 16 !

AND if they can't be seen to have paid the tax then confiscate the bike and crush it ....  like they do with untaxed cars !

Malc

Ok so tax cycles then, I have 3 at the moment and none of them will see the road again if I am taxed, I will simply use my car more and if that were to be replicated by other cyclists creating the extra congestion, not to mention the health benefits that would be lost through less cycling which could result in more pressure on the NHS!!

would your tax also apply to under 16 year olds who cycle?

[Linas.P]

53 minutes ago, Derant said:

Ok so tax cycles then, I have 3 at the moment and none of them will see the road again if I am taxed, I will simply use my car more and if that were to be replicated by other cyclists creating the extra congestion, not to mention the health benefits that would be lost through less cycling which could result in more pressure on the NHS!!

would your tax also apply to under 16 year olds who cycle?

It doesn't really matter - the VED is arbitrary tax. And when it comes to such taxes all that matters is justification for it, as long as goverment can find excuse, divide and rule, pit separate parts of society against each other and get away with it - they will do it. Because let's face it - motorists are taxed 3 or even 4 times for same thing... and all that is because goverment overtime created such "public opinion" that it is somehow "fair". We pay VAT on the car, then VAT on the fuel (which both are fair in my opinion), then we pay duty on the fuel... which is kind of borderline fair, but it isn't clear why VAT doesn't already cover that. But then we as well pay VED on top of all the other taxes as well - what is the exact justification again? And let's not forget insurance which is basically tax, because it is not optional and then on top of that you pay "insurance premium tax", the tax which is then taxed itself.

Well... the common argument is that - "yeah, but what about that all expensive infrastructure". Well that infrastructure is public infrastructure and benefits everyone, regardless if they drive or not. amazon deliveries, food supplies, police, ambulances and even the plumber or electrician you call out still has to use this infrastructure... so not only drivers benefits from it. Perhaps it could be argued that, beyond baseline - if we want to have extremely smooth and even roads, less congestion, state of the art traffic management solutions, secure and plentiful parking... overall thing which are outside of strictly being public infrastructure, only then it would be fair to charge drivers more for this additional level of service, but then lock that VED for only the roads.

Now realistically we won't see tax on bicycles... part is the reason you mentioned - bicycles are just so low value, as soon as you try taxing them nobody would cycle. As well it would be very hard to find good excuse for it or somehow paint cyclists in such light that public would start hating them. This would be something which would be very obvious and people would get enraged. But let's be clear as well - hate for motorists is not justified either, it is made-up and made-up deliberately. 

As for NHS - it is great, but it is not perfect. Whenever we have VED or not have VED, the NHS would exist and could even be better. NHS problems are not linked to lack of taxation, or even lack of funding... the truth is - NHS is inefficient. Analogy would be - you have a fire place to heat your home, would it be better to find good quality and density fuel for fire place and buy it, or would it be better to just burn money instead. The way NHS is run now is basically equivalent to burning money instead of wood. And I am not saying it should not exist, or that individual people (especially staff on front line) doesn't do exceptional job... I am just saying the way it is run, managed, supplied and funded is inefficient and wasteful. And even ignoring this - we still collect more than enough tax to fund it, if only that tax would reach it. 

[Moleman]

2 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

Why? Because of the very nature of the opinions offered by Malc namely, in no particular order of precedence, 1-being happy to pay tax on additional vehicles despite only driving one at a time. 2- the NHS is a great institution, despite employing the second highest public sector number of employees in the democratic world, still has six year waiting lists. 3- that cyclists should pay more in tax than I do for either my RX450H or Jaguar XKR 4 - I will agree to the principle of crushing when it also applies to caravans owned by certain sections of society 

Fair enough.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

It doesn't really matter - the VED is arbitrary tax. And when it comes to such taxes all that matters is justification for it, as long as goverment can find excuse, divide and rule, pit separate parts of society against each other and get away with it - they will do it. Because let's face it - motorists are taxed 3 or even 4 times for same thing... and all that is because goverment overtime created such "public opinion" that it is somehow "fair". We pay VAT on the car, then VAT on the fuel (which both are fair in my opinion), then we pay duty on the fuel... which is kind of borderline fair, but it isn't clear why VAT doesn't already cover that. But then we as well pay VED on top of all the other taxes as well - what is the exact justification again? And let's not forget insurance which is basically tax, because it is not optional and then on top of that you pay "insurance premium tax", the tax which is then taxed itself.

Well... the common argument is that - "yeah, but what about that all expensive infrastructure". Well that infrastructure is public infrastructure and benefits everyone, regardless if they drive or not. Amazon deliveries, food supplies, police, ambulances and even the plumber or electrician you call out still has to use this infrastructure... so not only drivers benefits from it. Perhaps it could be argued that, beyond baseline - if we want to have extremely smooth and even roads, less congestion, state of the art traffic management solutions, secure and plentiful parking... overall thing which are outside of strictly being public infrastructure, only then it would be fair to charge drivers more for this additional level of service, but then lock that VED for only the roads.

Now realistically we won't see tax on bicycles... part is the reason you mentioned - bicycles are just so low value, as soon as you try taxing them nobody would cycle. As well it would be very hard to find good excuse for it or somehow paint cyclists in such light that public would start hating them. This would be something which would be very obvious and people would get enraged. But let's be clear as well - hate for motorists is not justified either, it is made-up and made-up deliberately. 

As for NHS - it is great, but it is not perfect. Whenever we have VED or not have VED, the NHS would exist and could even be better. NHS problems are not linked to lack of taxation, or even lack of funding... the truth is - NHS is inefficient. Analogy would be - you have a fire place to heat your home, would it be better to find good quality and density fuel for fire place and buy it, or would it be better to just burn money instead. The way NHS is run now is basically equivalent to burning money instead of wood. And I am not saying it should not exist, or that individual people (especially staff on front line) doesn't do exceptional job... I am just saying the way it is run, managed, supplied and funded is inefficient and wasteful. And even ignoring this - we still collect more than enough tax to fund it, if only that tax would reach it. 

I agree with almost everything you say there……..I am going for a lie down!!!