My main point is that I don't think it a good idea to collect one tax that is NEVER going to be abolished and that is cheap to collect, then supplement it with a tax that is very expensive to collect that is approximately equivalent in incentive terms.
A tax on inefficiency and therefore on carbon dioxide can be handled by taxing fuel purchased, and road tax appears to me as a way to employ more civil servants for little or no good purpose. The more complex the tax rules, the more bureaucrats in all likelihood.
I can't agree with your idea of charging a very high road tax on all but the most economical cars for many reasons. The most obvious is that scrapping and making cars has an environmental impact, and it is pointless to make an incentive for a low mileage driver to scrap a working car and buy a new one to save tax. That won't help the environment.
A tax on fuel does give an incentive to burn less, however you achieve that end. Only a small proportion of the tax collected is needed to pay for the collection, and the cost does not change if the exact rate alters.
As for the concept of giving people a refund if they can show they need the less efficient vehicle - that would be a bureaucratic nightmare at best and another corrupt system more probably. Oh yes, and it would waste a lot of the extra tax collected. [sigh] To my mind a tax on actual fuel purchased, not the amount that would theoretically used if you drove an average mileage at a specified speed in specified road conditions etc, is about as fair as you can get in the real world, and simple enough not to cost too much to run.
no subject
A tax on inefficiency and therefore on carbon dioxide can be handled by taxing fuel purchased, and road tax appears to me as a way to employ more civil servants for little or no good purpose. The more complex the tax rules, the more bureaucrats in all likelihood.
I can't agree with your idea of charging a very high road tax on all but the most economical cars for many reasons. The most obvious is that scrapping and making cars has an environmental impact, and it is pointless to make an incentive for a low mileage driver to scrap a working car and buy a new one to save tax. That won't help the environment.
A tax on fuel does give an incentive to burn less, however you achieve that end. Only a small proportion of the tax collected is needed to pay for the collection, and the cost does not change if the exact rate alters.
As for the concept of giving people a refund if they can show they need the less efficient vehicle - that would be a bureaucratic nightmare at best and another corrupt system more probably. Oh yes, and it would waste a lot of the extra tax collected. [sigh] To my mind a tax on actual fuel purchased, not the amount that would theoretically used if you drove an average mileage at a specified speed in specified road conditions etc, is about as fair as you can get in the real world, and simple enough not to cost too much to run.