Reducing carbon emissions

[Jimaroid]

If it is what you're suggesting, then I think it's politically impossible, even if in principle it sort of makes sense.

It is but how is it politically impossible? Not that we're allowed to discuss that but. Consumers and businesses already pay duties across the range of liquid fuels, gas and electricity. It's already a scalable taxation with a mechanism of incentivising the uptake of cleaner fuels without a loss to the treasury.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Fuel duty is already an energy tax.

What don’t you understand? There is no conceptual difference between the taxation of liquid fuel and electric fuel.

As Clive posted. He was asked to look into it what 20 years ago? So I'm sure it's coming... They will have forward plans for these situations

You could see tax rise from 5 to 10% maybe on energy but I doubt u will see the levels that are laid on fuel duty for cars ..

But anyways agree to disagree because we clearly won't agree on this ever.

 

[Jimaroid]

Sorry, minor thread hijack.
If you had a south facing pitch roof on your house which gets sun for most of the day, would you consider solar panels as a must?

For this house I came to the conclusion of no, I couldn't look past the poor return on investment. I was looking at going fully electric but the house isn't insulated well enough to go that route and would require a significant rebuild. Longer term I've been considering building our own eco house anyway so the money is better invested until that becomes viable.

 

[Hobbit]

We have a couple of solar panels and a large hot water tank. No problem heating the water most of the year, and it’s backed up with an immersion heater for the odd few grey days. We’re saving a decent amount on gas bills.

 

[GreiginFife]

We have a couple of solar panels and a large hot water tank. No problem heating the water most of the year, and it’s backed up with an immersion heater for the odd few grey days. We’re saving a decent amount on gas bills.

We’d need some reverse strategy here though Brian, one for the odd few sunny days ?

 

[cliveb]

It is but how is it politically impossible? Not that we're allowed to discuss that but. Consumers and businesses already pay duties across the range of liquid fuels, gas and electricity. It's already a scalable taxation with a mechanism of incentivising the uptake of cleaner fuels without a loss to the treasury.

The revenue from petrol and diesel duty is vast. Any government attempting to replace it by taxing domestic heating and lighting will be accused of gouging people who don't drive.

I can understand why in principle it's fair - fuel duty is just another revenue stream and one could argue that placing the burden exclusively on road users is itself unfair. But theoretical principles don't count for much in politics. The community charge (aka poll tax) was correct in principle but it was politically impossible to implement.

 

[GreiginFife]

Isn't one of the challenges that drivers would effectively be being taxed twice though? Once when they pay for the charging and then again for driving a mile (yes I know we pay for fuel and VED but I really can't see VED becoming a thing of the past and I see the flat rate (with the £40k tier) staying in place for all vehicles) - so possibly triple taxed.

Rural people would also be disproportionally affected, even basic amenities can be miles away. Personally, I'm not sure there is a simple, fair solution other than electric increases in price.

It could be a condition of having a home charger installed is that you need to be on a "car charging" tariff (similar to PJ87 talks about) which charges you more based on that usage. You will undoubtedly have to pay for charging away from home so that takes care of those without home charging or those that top-up. Lamp-post charging could be "app controlled" and charged per usage.

There needs to be a way that EV charging is separated from "normal" usage so that it doesn't hit the non-user population. Although if we all go leccy then there's not going to be many non-users...

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Isn't one of the challenges that drivers would effectively be being taxed twice though? Once when they pay for the charging and then again for driving a mile (yes I know we pay for fuel and VED but I really can't see VED becoming a thing of the past and I see the flat rate (with the £40k tier) staying in place for all vehicles) - so possibly triple taxed.

Rural people would also be disproportionally affected, even basic amenities can be miles away. Personally, I'm not sure there is a simple, fair solution other than electric increases in price.

It could be a condition of having a home charger installed is that you need to be on a "car charging" tariff (similar to PJ87 talks about) which charges you more based on that usage. You will undoubtedly have to pay for charging away from home so that takes care of those without home charging or those that top-up. Lamp-post charging could be "app controlled" and charged per usage.

There needs to be a way that EV charging is separated from "normal" usage so that it doesn't hit the non-user population. Although if we all go leccy then there's not going to be many non-users...

My podpoint tells me exactly how much electric goes from it to the car, so whilst the smart metre says I use X amount a day (more when I'm doing the car ofc) podpoint will say today you added for example 22.5 kw

I don't see why the charging systems wont just feed that to the tax office and that will be our tax bill .. another easy solution I guess

I've added 74kw this month for example for the car .. used a lot more than that for the house

No doubt they could feed it even just to the energy provider and you get 5% on your house usage and more on your car

It would however also tax those who store on a battery via solar and charge the car ...... But that would then become a road tax? As they would use the road aswell

Who knows

 

[GreiginFife]

My podpoint tells me exactly how much electric goes from it to the car, so whilst the smart metre says I use X amount a day (more when I'm doing the car ofc) podpoint will say today you added for example 22.5 kw

I don't see why the charging systems wont just feed that to the tax office and that will be our tax bill .. another easy solution I guess

I've added 74kw this month for example for the car .. used a lot more than that for the house

No doubt they could feed it even just to the energy provider and you get 5% on your house usage and more on your car

It would however also tax those who store on a battery via solar and charge the car ...... But that would then become a road tax? As they would use the road aswell

Who knows

I think the added complexity there is that utility companies charge by what goes through the meter, your pod point will be connected after the meter so it could be that rather than the tax office that gets the specific info it's the leccy company. The govt would then just need to wrangle fuel duty with the leccy company then they would get their cut like they do with petrol products. You still then have the challenge of not charging at home but not charging at a "provider station" like lamp-post charging. I think some sort of app control (like how Ringo works for example) where a post has a specific code, you set your time and it charges for the time you select and pay for?

The only thing I know here is I've clearly thought more about this than I have the work I'm actually supposed to be doing!

 

[Jimaroid]

The revenue from petrol and diesel duty is vast. Any government attempting to replace it by taxing domestic heating and lighting will be accused of gouging people who don't drive.

I can understand why in principle it's fair - fuel duty is just another revenue stream and one could argue that placing the burden exclusively on road users is itself unfair. But theoretical principles don't count for much in politics. The community charge (aka poll tax) was correct in principle but it was politically impossible to implement.

I also understand and agree with that which is why I'd expect a banding will also be required as part of the transition and scaling of how electrical energy is taxed in entirety. The problem of energy consumption and carbon reduction is not just about cars, fuel duty revenues will decline and will need to be replaced by a range of electrical energy duties based on end use. I see no functional difference between taxing a pump and taxing a socket.

I do agree that an interim solution limited to EVs is feasible but I think it's a distraction to a dead end. If we're going implement a tax on EVs, rather than distance it should be based on lifetime charge, i.e., how many kW have been consumed. Distance isn't energy.

edit: fixed my mangled penultimate sentence

 

[cliveb]

I see no functional difference between taxing a pump and taxing a socket.

The difference is fundamentally one of tradition. Everyone has grown up understanding that car drivers get gouged so to continue to do so wouldn't be a big shock. But to start taxing general electricity bills to the extent required would be seen as an attack on something that everyone depends on. It's not like you can choose not to use electricity at home.

Taxing road use has another benefit: that of discouraging unnecessary travel. People move around too much, which isn't good for the planet. (Back in the "Good Old Days" people tended to live and work in the same town, and went to work by walking or cycling. The very act of improving the transport infrastucture has created a society that spends a great deal of its time moving around, consuming lots of energy as it does so. Of course it's not possible to go back to how things used to be, but we should try to avoid making it worse)

 

[Bunkermagnet]

The difference is fundamentally one of tradition. Everyone has grown up understanding that car drivers get gouged so to continue to do so wouldn't be a big shock. But to start taxing general electricity bills to the extent required would be seen as an attack on something that everyone depends on. It's not like you can choose not to use electricity at home.

It not just electric cars that use the road, there’s mopeds, scooters, bikes, and a few other items. Since some of these don’t even have a speedo, let alone other connected technology how else are they to pay their share for using the roads if the Govt don’t bring in extra charging for the leccy we take out the wall socket?
They brought in a levy to cover the costs of everyone getting a “free” smart meter, very few complained and most just accepted it.
If we accept our World is changing and our transport systems are changing then so must how we pay for it.

 

[Foxholer]

...There needs to be a way that EV charging is separated from "normal" usage so that it doesn't hit the non-user population. Although if we all go leccy then there's not going to be many non-users...

The obvious place to place a 'meter' to determine how much 'leccy has been passed from whatever source to EV batteries is to place the meter on/in the vehicle. 'Traditional' fill-up sites (tax-gatherers) could use tokens that 'credit' usage - or maybe secure bypass devices/mechanisms - and it would also solve the issue of 'home power production' (eg Solar) avoiding the tax.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

I also understand and agree with that which is why I'd expect a banding will also be required as part of the transition and scaling of how electrical energy is taxed in entirety. The problem of energy consumption and carbon reduction is not just about cars, fuel duty revenues will decline and will need to be replaced by a range of electrical energy duties based on end use. I see no functional difference between taxing a pump and taxing a socket.

I do agree that an interim solution limited to EVs is feasible but I think it's a distraction to a dead end. If we're going implement a tax on EVs, rather than distance it should be based on lifetime charge, i.e., how many kW have been consumed. Distance isn't energy.

edit: fixed my mangled penultimate sentence

Let's say you don't have a car at all , but have a heat pump and an induction hob

(I believe you are from Scotland? So heating on more, for this example let's say it is correct)

So I use 2700kw electric for my car (12,000 miles) a year

In this situation your not driving your using a bus, taxi etc

Do you think it's fair that we are taxed the same on energy? When you could use over 3000 to feed and heat yourself

Whilst im using less gas because I'm down south so little warmer etc

Is that fair?

 

[Jimaroid]

Let's say ...

Do you think it's fair that we are taxed the same on energy? When you could use over 3000 to feed and heat yourself

I have no idea, you've posed a non-equivalent comparison in the form of a question that can't be answered. Can you eat your car?

Do you think it's fair we're taxed the same on diesel?

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Let's say you don't have a car at all , but have a heat pump and an induction hob

(I believe you are from Scotland? So heating on more, for this example let's say it is correct)

So I use 2700kw electric for my car (12,000 miles) a year

In this situation your not driving your using a bus, taxi etc

Do you think it's fair that we are taxed the same on energy? When you could use over 3000 to feed and heat yourself

Whilst im using less gas because I'm down south so little warmer etc

Is that fair?

I don't have an EV, but have heat pump dryer and induction hob (because the hob is more efficient and cleaner than gas, not for any other reason.
I have a diesel van, and petrol car.
I expect everybody who puts powered wheels on the roads to pay road fund license.
I fully expect leccy to go up in price as more people have EV's and/or switch to all electric within their home. It's just the way it always is and always will be.
Is life fair, no it isn't but we have to roll with it.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

I have no idea, you've posed a non-equivalent comparison in the form of a question that can't be answered. Can you eat your car?

Do you think it's fair we're taxed the same on diesel?

Well as diesel costs slightly more we pay slightly more in Vat ..

What has eating the car got to do with anything.

If I'm using a gas hob and your using electric is it fair for you to pay say 20% tax on that electric same as me on the car?

Where as a by mile usage fee that would be fair no?

 

[Jimaroid]

What has eating the car got to do with anything.

You tell me! It was your attempt to compare driving your car to feeding and heating.

If I'm using a gas hob and your using electric is it fair for you to pay say 20% tax on that electric same as me on the car?

Once more from post 477 "A banded system would scale across every type of consumer."

Banded = a system of cost bands. Scale = proportional dimensions applied across a range of populations and geographies.

Where as a by mile usage fee that would be fair no?

For the love of mod edit. DISTANCE IS NOT A UNIT OF ENERGY.

I'm taking an infraction for this in the hope it sticks this time.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

You tell me! It was your attempt to compare driving your car to feeding and heating.



Once more from post 477 "A banded system would scale across every type of consumer."

Banded = a system of cost bands. Scale = proportional dimensions applied across a range of populations and geographies.



For the l(Mod Edit). DISTANCE IS NOT A UNIT OF ENERGY.

I'm taking an infraction for this in the hope it sticks this time.

More distance I travel more energy I use ..

I'm comparing them because if you have more electric items to heat home etc then you use MORE energy on that than I do on my car

So you are being taxed to heat and eat and I'm being taxed to travel

What don't you understand? Sorry but you really have missed the entire point and swearing just makes you look like a child.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I have no idea, you've posed a non-equivalent comparison in the form of a question that can't be answered. Can you eat your car?

Do you think it's fair we're taxed the same on diesel?

Can you eat your car?

I think he does something far more personal with it, he loves the damn thing so much