B1455 – Additional Vehicle Excise Duty (Repeal) Bill 2019

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
B1455 – Additional Vehicle Excise Duty (Repeal) Bill 2019, TSR Libertarian Party

Additional Vehicle Excise Duty (Repeal) Bill 2019

An Act to repeal additional vehicle exercise duty from the finance bill 2018

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1. Repeals
(1) Section 3 of B1440 is hereby repealed.

2 .Short title, Commencement, Extent
(1) This act may be cited as the Additional Vehicle Exercise Duty (Repeal) Act 2019
(2) This act comes into force upon Royal Assent
(3) This act extends to the UK


Notes
Increase in VED for multi-car households is simply an abomination and an assault on working families finances. One must remember that most households have multiple adults.

Most multi-car households are not millionaires who own multiple cars, they are teenagers owning their first car when living at home or adults living at home. The tax is a tax on jobs, not excessive car use. Teenagers and adult children living at home will be forced to pay extortionate taxes which will reduce their car ownership, restrict their mobility, and ultimately make it harder for them to work. According to the Chancellor's source, 40% of people require a car for work and 37% stated this as the main reason for having more than one car in the household.

The policy targets hard working people the most. The Chancellor dismissing these concerns by claiming it affects a small proportion of car-owning households is an insult to the hardworking young adults.

Furthermore, the ved changes has many loopholes that can be worked around. Example, It's currently acceptable to put your address down as anything. So what's to stop someone from registering their car with a different address? So take the wealthy who own more than one house can easily register their second car in a different address and avoid paying the tax.

Costs
(£0.9bn)

Repeals
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=5704614
Last edited by Saracen's Fez; 1 year ago
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Aye, the changes amount to a severe hit to the working poor, amounting to a tax on women working.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Aye - I will never vote against a tax cut for the poor who absolutely need that money.
0
Saunders16
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
I criticised this policy at the time and I look forward to joining the Libertarians in the division lobby. This was an ill-advised attack on the working class.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Even from an environmental standpoint it's a bad policy as given the choice between getting rid of the big car needed for longer journeys or journeys which require larger carry capacities, and getting rid of the smaller car for short journeys the small car will go almost every time meaning more miles on bigger engines pulling more weight.
0
Dafios9128
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
Aye. A family having multiple cars does not mean they aren't poor
1
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Nay.

This was a budget which raised the tax threshold for the working poor, which ensured a strong Defense budget, significant increases to the infrastructure budgets and made several other key spending choices. That meant that some difficult choices had to be made.

I will oppose this uncosted and unfunded bung to disproportionately wealthier families and condemn the leader of the ‘labour’ Party for backing this.
0
Saunders16
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Rakas21)
Nay.

This was a budget which raised the tax threshold for the working poor, which ensured a strong Defense budget, significant increases to the infrastructure budgets and made several other key spending choices. That meant that some difficult choices had to be made.

I will oppose this uncosted and unfunded bung to disproportionately wealthier families and condemn the leader of the ‘labour’ Party for backing this.
For merely £900 million, your government made it more difficult for ordinary people. My party is environmentalist but this is not the way to go about it.
1
username3973192
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Good to see opposition to that ridiculous idea
Last edited by username3973192; 1 year ago
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by thestudent33)
Another strategy to rinse the poor out of their hard-earned cash/cars :nope:
Have you read the bill? This abolishes the tax introduced by the Tories that does exactly that it is a REPEAL bill.
Last edited by Connor27; 1 year ago
0
username3973192
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Connor27)
Have you read the bill? This abolished the tax introduced by the Tories that does exactly that it is a REPEAL bill.
Ik I was commenting on the Tories plan not the repeal :nah: I should've worded the comment better
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
When this was first introduced to the house my initial reaction was to agree with it. After all, I know plenty of people who struggle to pay bills, but who own multiple cars. This is not because they are 'disproportionately wealthy' as Rakas put it, but because of both adults in the house needing to be employed, and the car being their best and cheapest way to do that. In fact, a study last year showed that commuting was the biggest reason for people to get a second car.

The people I know however made up a small sample size though, so I turned to the Ofice for National statistics, and made this graph:

tmp.png
Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/datasets/percentageofhouseholdswithcarsby incomegrouptenureandhouseholdcom positionuktablea47

As we see, of the lowest 10% of households by income only 2% have more than one car. Far from an attack on the working class, taxing the second car is a progressive tax policy.

Next, I looked at data on how a second car is used, and regardless of the reasons why a second car is purchased, this second car is much more likely to be used for short trips, which would otherwise not use a vehicle. 24% of people have stated that a second car has led to them driving more, so a relatively small financial deterrent on a second car is a good policy environmentally.

The section that this Bill proposes removing is not how I would go about redistributing wealth or deterring people from driving as much, but without replacing it with a better way of doing one or the other this seems like a poor way to waste almost a billion pounds, so unless someone can convince me I will vote against this attempt to remove it.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Rakas21)
Nay.

This was a budget which raised the tax threshold for the working poor, which ensured a strong Defense budget, significant increases to the infrastructure budgets and made several other key spending choices. That meant that some difficult choices had to be made.

I will oppose this uncosted and unfunded bung to disproportionately wealthier families and condemn the leader of the ‘labour’ Party for backing this.
Increased the tax threshold by a meagre amount to increase spending on defence that the SoS opposes and which many in the government refuse to protect purely because of who wishes to protect it, and to fund an infrastructure plan promised 3 months ago and yet still nowhere to be seen.

What you are doing is supporting a tax imposed on women who do not wish to be stuck at home on the basis of it being unfunded, despite the majority of your own budget being unfunded.

Why are you so determined to keep a tax on women that disproportionately harms the working poor that you claim to care so much about?
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 1 year ago
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by DayneD89)
When this was first introduced to the house my initial reaction was to agree with it. After all, I know plenty of people who struggle to pay bills, but who own multiple cars. This is not because they are 'disproportionately wealthy' as Rakas put it, but because of both adults in the house needing to be employed, and the car being their best and cheapest way to do that. In fact, a study last year showed that commuting was the biggest reason for people to get a second car.

The people I know however made up a small sample size though, so I turned to the Ofice for National statistics, and made this graph:

tmp.png
Source: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/expenditure/datasets/percentageofhouseholdswithcarsby incomegrouptenureandhouseholdcom positionuktablea47

As we see, of the lowest 10% of households by income only 2% have more than one car. Far from an attack on the working class, taxing the second car is a progressive tax policy.

Next, I looked at data on how a second car is used, and regardless of the reasons why a second car is purchased, this second car is much more likely to be used for short trips, which would otherwise not use a vehicle. 24% of people have stated that a second car has led to them driving more, so a relatively small financial deterrent on a second car is a good policy environmentally.

The section that this Bill proposes removing is not how I would go about redistributing wealth or deterring people from driving as much, but without replacing it with a better way of doing one or the other this seems like a poor way to waste almost a billion pounds, so unless someone can convince me I will vote against this attempt to remove it.
The lowest 10% aren't even in work for the most part and the working class extends well beyond that 10%
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The lowest 10% aren't even in work for the most part and the working class extends well beyond that 10%
Plenty of the poorest 10% are in work. They may be underemployed, but many of them do work. Going beyond the lowest 10% it isn't until the 50th percentile that owning more than one car goes over 25%, and it isn't until it goes over the 70th percentile that owning more than one car goes over 50%. These percentiles represent an income of £23,200 and £32,300 respectively.

Of course, as a socialist, I think most people are working class as I don't believe that the middle class is anything more than an invention to make some workers feel superior to other workers, but I was using the normal use of the word. Unless you think as I do, that people earning over the national income can be considered working class, most of the working class would be unaffected by this Bill, it will be the more privileged households that see their income increase if this passes.
0
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
Piss-poor justification when you find that actually the vast majority of the poorest don’t own more than one car. Also not surprised to see better alternatives that will actually work. Nay.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by DayneD89)
Plenty of the poorest 10% are in work. They may be underemployed, but many of them do work. Going beyond the lowest 10% it isn't until the 50th percentile that owning more than one car goes over 25%, and it isn't until it goes over the 70th percentile that owning more than one car goes over 50%. These percentiles represent an income of £23,200 and £32,300 respectively.

Of course, as a socialist, I think most people are working class as I don't believe that the middle class is anything more than an invention to make some workers feel superior to other workers, but I was using the normal use of the word. Unless you think as I do, that people earning over the national income can be considered working class, most of the working class would be unaffected by this Bill, it will be the more privileged households that see their income increase if this passes.
What the graph given fails to take into account is two things:
1) urban vs rural, in an urban setting cars are mostly not needed meaning lower ownership, this is clearly shown in the ownership stats where in urban conurbations non ownership of a car or van is 33% whereas in rural areas it's only 6%
2) Composition of the dwelling, a household with only one occupant will only have 1 car, at most, until very high income, one with multiple adult occupants you would expect to have more.

The second of these is shown nicely in the bit of your source you didn't use:
Households with 2 non-retired adults and no children: 49% have 2 or more cars
2 adults with one child: 47%
2 adults 2 children: 55%
2 adults 3 children: 45%
2 adults, >3 children, 46%
3 adults: 65%
3 adults with at least one child: 65%
All other households without children: 67%
All other households with: 75%

The overall figures are somewhat skewed by the 8,680,000 households with only one adult, i.e. only one person who needs to drive. The average for households with at least two adults who are not retired: 53.49% have two or more cars.
Three or more adults: 65%, i.e. it penalises young adults for living at home as well as women

The 1 vs 2 vs 3 or more adults also distorts the household income percentile because they are not equivalised incomes or per capita, a household with just one individual with an income could be in the lowest decile, whereas if they have a spouse and child all on that same income they could easily be in one of the higher deciles. The low income households are also heavily skewed by pensioners, a group that dominates the bottom deciles , a group among which multiple car ownership is incredibly rare but we also find nearly a quarter of households have at least one retired individual.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 1 year ago
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
I have a slight problem with this bill...

Image

Image
0
ns_2
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
Nay; whilst many are arguing whether this is an assault on the incomes of 'working class' families, which I naturally disagree with - one must also consider the environmental aspects of additional VED.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
Piss-poor justification when you find that actually the vast majority of the poorest don’t own more than one car. Also not surprised to see better alternatives that will actually work. Nay.
Poor justification? Did you read the notes? Majority of households have multiple adults living in them not just one. So this affects the working class as well the middle class and any hard working family. This is a tax on jobs not a tax on excessive car use.This is a poor way of reducing environmental pollution. All this is doing is making it harder for young people to work as they now have to pay extra tax.

(Original post by ns_2)
Nay; whilst many are arguing whether this is an assault on the incomes of 'working class' families, which I naturally disagree with - one must also consider the environmental aspects of additional VED.
Read the notes it does not mention working class families, it's says "working families finances". That bill affects everyone whether working class or middle class. Majority of households will have multiple adults living in them. This is a unnecessary cost for them and makes it difficult for people to commute to work.

It's a poor way of reducing environmental impact as well and is nothing more than a regressive tax. The right honourable Jammy Duel makes a good point. Most families have a small car for work while a bigger car for the family. If given the option to get rid of one they will get rid of the smaller car that produces lower emissions and instead drive the one that is more harmful to the environment.

Secondly, there are obvious loopholes to the ved as well, it estimates it will raise £900m. Reality is it will actually be lower as people many people will simply place the 2nd car under a different address and avoid paying the tax. That bill is nothing more than a greedy attempt by the government to make extra money from the hard working people of this country!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (652)
33.61%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (823)
42.42%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (378)
19.48%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (87)
4.48%

Watched Threads

View All