Just thought I'd flag up this one, from leading tax barrister and blogger, Jolyon Maugham, QC.
Yesterday, alongside Chris Boardman and British Cycling, I launched three proposed tax reliefs, drafted at the invitation of the Department for Transport, to increase the numbers of people cycling to work.
You can read the press release here; and the tax reliefs, their design, purpose and illustrative costings here.
Please do pile in; let me know in the comments section below what you think of the proposals – their design, purpose, intention, costings.
Eminently sensible. A small offset to the enormous amount which cyclists already contribute to the costs of maintaining our roads through vehicle excise duty, congestion charges, parking charges etc. And I expect cyclists are on the whole a lot poorer than the rest of us, so the proposed tax relief would be a useful bit of redistribution.
Robin Orton wrote:Eminently sensible. A small offset to the enormous amount which cyclists already contribute to the costs of maintaining our roads through vehicle excise duty, congestion charges, parking charges etc. And I expect cyclists are on the whole a lot poorer than the rest of us, so the proposed tax relief would be a useful bit of redistribution.
In your facetiousness, I think you overlook the savings cyclists make to the NHS by being rather healthier than non cyclists. But you are right about them being poorer, which correlates in this age of intergenerational injustice with being younger.
It makes absolute sense .
I think having a greater proportion of the public on bikes reduces road deaths , improves health ( for people who breathe not just the cyclists themselves ) and promotes more social outdoor activity .
It also improves the effectiveness and productivity of people travelling for work .
Well worth a punt , inspite of flak from gas-guzzling pensioners - I didn't see Robin as a Top Gear-watching petrol-head ..
A very good evening
Tim Lund wrote:But you are right about them being poorer, which correlates in this age of intergenerational injustice with being younger.
Yes, perhaps my attempt at satire was, in this case, not so sharply focussed as I would have wished. It's just that I find the idea of young male professionals (the typical cyclers to work, I gather) being economically deprived a strange one. But that's me, as a gas-guzzling pensioner, showing my age, I guess
Robin Orton wrote:young male professionals (the typical cyclers to work, I gather) being economically deprived a strange one
Where to you gather that? They are probably the ones you see most, and while you might expect them to be well off, the age of the yuppie is past. Thanks to the failure of our generation to build enough houses, they will be spending something like 50% of their disposable income on housing - in our day it was more like 25%.
Cycling is not just a life-style choice, but for many still one imposed by economic circumstances.
Personally I think all cyclists should pay a charge to the government when they either
A) Buy a new bike
B) Have it serviced/Maintenance repairs.
The funds should go to the Treasury for repairing potholes or other road safety requirements which benefit us all.
If the Police stop cyclists for unsafe driving like jumping red signals, they are thus being treated equally in terms of road laws, but where they get massive benefits is via no road tax, yet hog the roads, slowing the economy in the Cities.
Who is paying for the cycle super highway - not the cyclists, but the real road contributors, i mean users, the Cars and HGVs.
In summary the Government has given too many tax and other concessions to the cyclists, and these should be repealed.
Cyclists do not need to pay Road Tax, because - like electric cars and similar - they emit no pollution, thus no tax. Buy yourself an electric car and you'll pay no tax either. Electric cars - being wider than cycles - will "hog the road" as you ignorantly put it even more than a cycle. Why are you not raging against these vehicles?
Besides, I like most cyclists own a car so pay for the upkeep of roads for their car.
Pot holes?? Crazy. Which vehicles cause pot holes? Certainly not cycles, just all the cars and motorised vehicles.
Who suffers most from potholes? Cyclists, as they can be thrown into the road by hitting a pothole which is why the Highway Code requires people overtaking cycles to give them as much space when overtaking them as when you're overtaking a car.
If you use the pavement, you don't pay to use it.
If you use the road, all users pay - but why not cyclists?
The law should be changed to reflect this because the cyclists do not ride on the roads causing no damage/delays/issues.
The last time I checked it is not car clubs which go through Sydenham and surrounding areas on a go slow ride - which negatively affects the traffic flow.
If the cyclists paid their fair share - then the hostility to cyclists would soon stop, and in doing so would pay for better protection for them if cycle lanes/superhighways were extended this direction of London.
The only way is to share all road users proportionate fees to use the roads.
And Mikej, I am afraid that you are wrong here.
I never said that they don't cause road surface damage.
I pointed out that they cause traffic flow damage- slowing city traffic circulation - which damages the economy.
Cyclists do not need to pay Road Tax, because - like electric cars and similar - they emit no pollution, thus no tax. .
True, but misleading. Vehicle excise duty is not a pollution tax, although it has latterly been used to encourage low emission vehicles. It originated in the 1920s (with predecessors as far back as the 1880s). Between 1920 and 1937 the duties were paid into a 'Road Fund', nominally for the construction and upkeep of roads. Since then, it has just been another tax, paid into general government funds. No reason why cyclists shouldn't be taxed if the Chancellor wanted to broaden the tax base.
I'd make home insulation tax free.
I'd make renovating homes tax free, like new builds.
I'd make solar panels/home energy generation tax free.
I'd make clean energy tax free, so if you have a 100% renewable tariff, it's zero tax. All other energy still taxed at 8%.
I'd remove tax on any Fairtrade products for 5 years to push it and publicize it.
I'd add a plastic tax to plastic bottles until it's recycling rates pass a certain amount. This would also act as a sugar tax. Profits to go into education and a fair labeling system similar to GDA on food, so you can see how green/ethical your purchases are.
I would also add :
Zero tax on organically produced food until it becomes a bigger part of the whole
Reduced tax for manufacturers that bring production back to uk - 300 % to Dyson for outsourcing to China
Reduced tax for consumers that DONT change energy suppliers every other day - similarly for suppliers that don't play games with changing tarrifs
Why anyone would not wish to reduce car use by incentivising is beyond me