|
the PROPOSED pay per
kilometre/mile in the UK: and the FUTURE PLANS.
The new Galileo satellite
GPS system really has more to it than the UK politicians are publicising.
One of the big problems that the UK tax collectors have been facing for some
years is that as fuel is very highly taxed there compared with many other EU
States, heavy duty vehicles (HGVs), that is that many large commercial
vehicles with a Maximum Authorised Mass or MAM (all up legally loaded
weight) of many tonnes and large passenger vehicles such as long-distance
tour coaches are able to deliver goods to and from the
UK without having to buy diesel in the UK. HGVs and many of these vehicles
have large tanks that allow some of the vehicles to travel up to 3.000 km
without refilling, so even the trucks based in the UK that travel on the
Continent can fill up there and not in the UK thus saving a considerable
amount of costs each year. For information in the UK Treasury paper on
the subject, go to:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/D41/0A/lorryria240305.pdf.
Many long-distance HGVs are reported to carry as much as 1,200 litres of
fuel which allows the vehicles to be refuelled on the Continent, driven in
the UK before returning on anther trip. Also, as many Continental
heavy vehicles use Britains' roads without contributing to the upkeep with
fuel and other taxes.
In many Continental
countries, the collection of the different taxes for HGVs etc. is eased by
having extensive toll roads, but as we know here in Spain, many of the HGVs
use the non-toll roads thus increasing the traffic congestion and risk of
serious accidents, especially on the Costa Del Sol N340 which is not an
autovia, (and these trucks are often seen travelling well over the 80 kph
maximum for vehicles 3.500 kg plus MAM) so a satellite system makes sense
for heavy vehicles that routinely avoid paying tolls in this way.
The losses
in taxes for the UK is reported to be in the £Billions EACH YEAR.
Now we know that many of these
trucks fill up at the same gasolineras, or fuel stations as we do, so
pay the same costs at the pump, but what happens is that the owners claim
back a portion of the tax costs called a rebate so they pay the
effective legal commercial rate. The result is that even with this rebate,
the savings are far higher when they buy on the Continent so a very high percentage
of the big commercial vehicles using the UK roads are not paying the high
UK diesel fuel taxes and at this time, there is nothing the UK
government can do about it. It is costing the
UK billions in lost taxes. But hark! The back room boys in Brussels are
working out a solution that will solve the problem and make sure that taxes
are once again paid in the UK.
What the blazes has this got
to do with Spain, you may ask? Well, the proposal states that the answer
is to change the tax rates to level the playing fields. But as the UK
taxes on commercial diesel fuel after rebates, for example, are 236%
more than those of Spain in 2006 (yes, 2, 36 times those of the Spain) the
rest of Europe is not going to allow their fuel taxes to be increased by
anywhere near that figure, so the answer is for the taxes in the UK to be
reduced to an agreed EU level by 2012.
So expect the tax to go up
slightly in Spain for road fuels from probably 2010 as part of the
"levelling plan" for all EU States.
Wonderful we all cry, but
a
proposal also then states that the differences can be made up in the UK by
charging vehicles, commercial in this case, for the mileage travelled.
Aha! We are getting the picture now. Well I hope you are because the
document on the subject needed reading two or three times because of the way
it is written for me to get the picture. So if the UK has to have a
satellite vehicle tracking system, it is a simple matter (they think) to
also add all the vehicles in the UK to it to generate more income to cover
the enormous cost of setting up and running the tracking system.
And the
Labour government can use “global warming” as an excuse.
Ah! But we are living in
Spain so it will not affect us, you may think. Governments are always
looking for ways to govern, and many now seem to forget that they are the
servants of the people and justify new laws in many ways. A lot of the new
laws are excellent where they work well to save us from ourselves with bad
driving whether it is speeding at 200 kph plus or driving with alcohol in places
there should be mostly blood, etc. And the current campaigns about global
warming, which, as I am allowed to have an opinion and with the impositions of new
laws that may affect motoring in Spain/Europe, I am quite openly on the side of
those who are very sceptical about the causes. Not because the news says
that it is going to get warmer, but because of the alleged causes of this
“carbon smokescreen”. But that is a subject for another day.
The proposal contains the
recommendation that the minimum levels of the tax be raised so that by 2014,
the levels will be pretty equal. So, as the commercial vehicles will have
to be fitted with transponder devices (black boxes) that send out a signal
to those satellites used for tracking, it will be simple (if we allow it)
to insist on all vehicles to be fitted with one, at the motorist’s expense
and with extra ongoing administration costs so that eventually just about
everywhere in the EU it will be possible to be tracked and charged in one
way or another. Even the UK licensed vehicles such as the heavy commercials. And based on current a example, the London Congestion Tax
had to soon be increased to £8 because the administration costs were not
covered by the £5 tax, and that is plus 60%. It is interesting to note
that Ken Livingstone insists on calling this tax a "charge" not a tax, but
the foreign Embassies based in the area are not fooled and refuse to pay it
as they are exempt by international laws from paying any taxes in a host
country.
Now there is a reasonable
justification for the "harmonisation" of fuel taxes. Because of the
differences shown below between the taxes for different EU states, those
with higher taxes are losing billions each year due to vehicles filling up
in the less costly EU States, which is a logical thing to do and even family
motorists who live close to a border can do this. But a major problem
also is the extra estimated costs (and pollution) of the fuel that is used
by the heavy goods vehicles, etc, driving even 50 km to fill up their tanks,
thus using more fuel overall than if the fuel cost as the same everywhere.
Just think, with the "black
boxes" fitted to each vehicle annual distances
will be checked and this could be used to also decide the cost of insurance as
well as any other easy to change and collect taxes, and this is already
being offered by Norwich Union in the UK as a trial with participating
drivers. The initial reports on this are that those who do not use their
cars very often are paying less, but those who have to use the car for work
and the annual and weekend getaways, will pay more. As many of us will realise, this will mean that all of those eventually affected will have to
budget their motoring for insurance and pay per mile then as well as for
fuel, etc. Except for those who do not pay any taxes or
insurances (or have a driving licence) at all and only occasionally seem to
get caught. One effect, as is intended, is for people not to use their
cars so much, but the trend for some years has been for "supermarket
shopping" where a car must be used to carry the large batch of groceries
unless a trip is made every day on a bus. Of course with the Internet,
it will be easier for home deliveries but I can see great moans about
especially, for example, vegetables not being fresh as if selected by the
buyer.
Some of us who have been
living under the thought that the pay per mile will be accompanied by the
elimination of fuel taxes and the annual road fund tax will note that to date,
no
UK government spokesman has even intimated this thought.
TABLE showing the different tax rates for commercial diesel in the
EU at this time. The comparative rates for petrol are not shown as
they are generally not sold at normal (for private use) and commercial (for
transport use).
Tax in Euros per 1.000
litres of commercial diesel in the EU. The tax in the UK is 69,3
cents/litre and in Spain 29,4.
|
Austria |
325 |
Cyprus |
250 |
Denmark |
404 |
|
Finland |
319 |
Hungary |
339 |
Lithuania |
245 |
|
Malta |
332 |
Portugal |
339 |
Slovenia |
303 |
|
Belgium |
305 |
Czech Republic |
336 |
Estonia |
245 |
|
France |
392 |
Ireland |
368 |
Luxembourg |
278 |
|
Netherlands |
365 |
Romania |
260 |
Slovakia |
373 |
|
Bulgaria |
220 |
Germany |
470 |
Spain |
294 |
|
Greece |
260 |
Italy |
403 |
Latvia |
236 |
|
Poland |
303 |
Sweden |
394 |
United Kingdom |
693 |
Readers will note that the tax cost in the UK is 2,36 times that in
Spain, and the table below gives the differences in cost between commercial
and private tax rates in four countries according to the EU report.
The differences are minimal. But the UK tax as a proportion shown in
the table would be, using Spain's tax, €712 or €19 more per 1.000 litres.
No wonder fuel is so expensive in the UK.
|
|
Commercial diesel |
Non-commercial diesel |
|
Belgium |
305 € |
327 € |
|
France |
392 € |
417 € |
|
Italy |
403 € |
413 € |
|
Spain |
294 € |
302 € |
The EU page is at: (Cut and paste address) http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/99&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
Be safe and TRUST NOBODY.
UPDATE ON GALILEO June 2007
Return to Motoring main page |