Talk:Vehicle Excise Duty

Annual tax revenue levels article?

Could we have a section on annual tax revenue levels--Russhayley (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean the outrageous, way beyond inflation increases in VED since 2005? Such a section would clearly be considered POV ;)1812ahill (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Added External Link

I've added a link to a calculator for UK VED. I'd better declare an interest and say I wrote the calculator, so feel free to remove the link if I've broken any rules on self-promotion. Adancy (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

'Road tax'

I have reinstated content removed by these edits. I have retained the suggested change that the word 'incorrectly' should not be used in relation to the term 'road tax' as in Vehicle Excise Duty is commonly but incorrectly known as road tax as I agree that it is debatable if it is incorrect given that it is in the OED. I have reverted the rest of the edits on-mass given they were very extensive and to my mind removed some very notable and reliable information without justification. In particular:

• Dropping the fact that the president of the AA has indeed given public support to iPayRoadTax. There is a reliable source and it is relevant.
• Removing all links to iPayRoadTax and incorrectly presenting the campaign (ie adding spaces). The organisation is a reliable reference for its own existence and for certain other claims and they should be retained.
• Removing the fact that the BBC changed a report after a complaint by iPayRoadTax but leaving in the fact that Which? did not is upsetting the balance of the section.
• Keeping in the Which? claim but dropping the reference to support it.
• Removing the examples of organisations using the term road tax. The examples are relevant to the section and the use of screen shots of the official sites is convincing as a reference.

I suggest that we discuss any further changes on the talk page here.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the list of organisatons purported to be using the term "Road Tax" as it is in no way notable that an organisation uses a normal and common English term for a tax. Even if it was, the cited source does not appear to be reliable as per WP:RS. -- de Facto (talk). 16:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I will accept that the list of organisations using a common term may not be appropriate. I have added some references as requested. I have reinstated the reference [1] for the Churchill quote as you have not explained why it is not sufficient. I have reinstated the early structure while we sort out the references as I find it hard to track what else you have changed and why when you make so many changes in one go. PeterEastern (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Although the Plowden reference does support the naked Churchill quote, it does not support the assertion that it is used for; that "some" present-day organisations have draw attention to that quote. A reliable secondary source is required to support that link. -- de Facto (talk). 19:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You are being very pedantic! As it happens, one of my references is for the Campaign for Better Transport which is a present-day organisation and it is drawing attention to the quote. Do you need more? I could add them very easily but I don't think it is necessary. I would prefer to work on other more obvious deficiencies in this article and others. PeterEastern (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source is required to link Churchill's quote to particular campaigns. You doing it, and then citing the websites of those campaigning is original research. You need a cite from a reliable source (BBC, The Times, etc.) stating that certain organisations are drawing attention to Churchill's remark. If you can provide one, please do, otherwise that sentence should be deleted. The CBT website is not a reliable secondary source; it is a self-published campaign website (see wp:sps). -- de Facto (talk). 20:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• If you applied that rule across Wikipedia you would blow most of it to the wind. My reference demonstrates directly that a campaign is using the Churchill quote. However... to avoid a fight I will adjust the wording and hopefully we can then get on with more productive work PeterEastern (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I refer people to User_talk:DeFacto#Splitting_hairs for further discussion of the above. PeterEastern (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you took it there, when it belongs here. -- de Facto (talk). 21:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel this is now a personal issue as we are disagreeing, again, about Wikipedia policies. Also because it refers to Campaign for Better Transport (United Kingdom) which is a subject we have discussed earlier on your talk page as well as on the article's talk page. I was contributing as PeterIto then btw. PeterEastern (talk)

I wasn't referring to CBT - you raised them. I propose to move the discussion about this article to here. -- de Facto (talk). 22:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I only mentioned CBT here because it was organisation I cited to support the claim that the Churchill quote was being used by organisations. PeterEastern (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Splitting hairs

Context... This thread was created out of an issue raised in the 'road tax' thread and was moved here from the User talk:DeFacto#Splitting hairs by DeFacto.

The discussion focuses on the following phrase and if it is compliant with Wikipedia rules. I User:PeterEastern put it on DeFacto's talk page for two reasons. a) I had reverted the challenged text to DeFacto's preferred version so there is no issue to my knowledge in this article. b) this appeared to have more about the edit's interpretation of policy than Vehicle Excise Duty, and as such was more appropriate on his talk page, especially are I wished to draw attention to edits in other articles where the same arguement had been used by the editor, normally when removing 'anti-motoring' content. This is a continuation of a long conversation!PeterEastern (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC) The text at issue - which has now been removed from the article - is as follows:

They - Some organisations, including cycling organisations - have drawn attention a prediction made by Winston Churchill that "It will be only a step from this for them to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created".

DeFacto had removed the book reference and replaced it with a fact tag and the comment '... requested cite and replaced the Plowden cite with a request for a cite because it doesn't support the claim about drawing attention to Churchill's remark'. I replaced the book reference and added one for the claim that organisations were 'drawing attention to it'. I also resolved some other issues. I then started the thread which now follows:

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterEastern (talk • contribs) 2010-10-17T06:02:35

You forgot to mention that I also tagged the weasel words (see WP:Weasel) and the uncited assertion that some organisations object to the term - hence the mention of those actions in my edit comments. -- de Facto (talk). 11:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I have now removed the irrelevant part of the edit comment from the above text. PeterEastern (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

--- Start of question originally put on the DeFacto talk page.

You seem to be picking very small holes in a single article (Vehicle Excise Duty) today. Could I very politely suggest that there are far better things for us to spend our time on? Please go and sort out Association of British Drivers if you want a challenge - it is had disputed and reference tags on it for over 2 years! PeterEastern (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiki has policies for a reason - to help provide good quality articles for the readers. If you disagree with that please go to the appropriate forum to discuss it. Please don't criticise me for trying to improve the quality of the Vehicle Excise Duty article by attempting to eliminate some of the POV-pushing original research in it. -- de Facto (talk). 21:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I dispute that it is original research. The guidelines say 'A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source'. Is that not what I had done? PeterEastern (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you used questionable sources, which cannot be used as primary sources. -- de Facto (talk). 21:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. CBT is a limited company of 40 years standing and are experts in their field and are frequently quoted in the press. Its boss even has an obe for 'services to transport'. To quote the guidelines: 'Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications'. Questionable sources are defined as 'those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion'. I again refer you to Association of British Drivers which I believe urgently need your attention. PeterEastern (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That was a source you added after several of my changes. The ones of more concern today were: IPayRoadTax and BikeBiz, and then MKWeb, ActiveBradford and CamCycle. -- de Facto (talk). 22:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The CBT source was the one I added in response to your earlier complaint - see previous section. I have not changed it and it was that source which lead to this thread being created. PeterEastern (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please can we use this section to discuss the 'hair' which I believe you have 'split'. We may in the process resolve other issues - ie MKWeb, ActiveBradford and CamCycle - but let's not get distracted from the current issue. The disputed text - which has already been adjusted in the article - is quoted above. This issue at hand is whether the references support the text. In the earlier talk page section on the issue you said that the CBT reference was unacceptable because it was not a secondary source and because it was self-published. You now suggested that it was wp:or and wp:POV-pushing. I responded to the your concerns by saying that the use of a primary source was fine in the context. You then said it was a questionable source. I responded saying that I didn't think it was. You then changed the subject. If you agreed with me that CBT is a suitable primary source for the context then I suggest we are done with this section and can discuss any other issues you may have separately. PeterEastern (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The current, reduced, Churchill quote sentence is OK as the Powden reference supports that. The Plowden reference did not support the sentence as it was when I originally challengerd it. -- de Facto (talk). 11:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine. However.... my issue with you in this 'splitting hairs' section is not with the current text, it is to nail down what was wrong with the original text as shown in the quote box. You have told me that the references failed on all sorts of guidelines including not being a secondary source, being a questionable source, being original research and finally (and rather insultingly) Point of view pushing. I believe I have argued successfully that CBT is a reliable source and that a primary source is acceptable, that it is not original research and I think my contributions to this article do not constitute 'POV pushing'. I note that the POVPUSH is defined as aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe views. While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them. Do you still think that you were justified in making these allegations? If not, a if you feel that you were presenting the rules a little too strongly then possibly an apology would be appropriate ;) PeterEastern (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, you assert on my talk page that there in an outstanding issue in this topic, can you point out the particular edit or edit which you still have an issue with - I can't figure out from the tangle above where the problem lies. -- de Facto (talk). 15:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought that my last comments made it abundantly clear that I don't have an issues with the current text. I am challenging you on the policies that you have used to justify your earlier edits. See this section and the previous one for details. PeterEastern (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I can't see the wood for the trees up there! Can you please be more specific, and list each of the edits that you think still need further explanation or justification here - one line with the link for each will do. Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 15:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

'incorrect'

We are currently debating if the BBC was 'incorrect' in saying that 'road tax as such does not exist'. The word is in bold in this quote:

The BBC broadcast a second piece which clarified the fact that roads are paid for out of general taxation and reported the incorrect assertion that 'road tax as such does not exist'.

The claim that the BBC was 'incorrect' is currently supported by two references, one to the the BBC the other to the Guardian. These demonstrate the term 'road tax' being used in place of VED. However, I don't thing the BBC was implying that the term 'road tax' did not exist, more that there is no specific tax that pays for the roads, not since 1937 anyway. As such any number of references to VED being called 'road tax' won't swing the argument. I suggest we avoid the term altogether and that it is removed from this sentence. Whatever the outcome I suggest that the references to support the use of the word are removed as being off topic.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement "road tax as such does not exist" is factually incorrect. The term "road tax" does not, and never has, meant a tax which pays for the roads - it has always meant a tax payable to use the roads. Is alcohol tax a tax to pay for alcohol? No, it's a tax on the use of alcohol. Is fuel tax a tax to pay for fuel? No, it a tax on the use of fuel. It is the same with "road tax" - it is a tax on road use - the Oxford English Dictionary definition confirms this. Don't confuse the Road Fund, which stopped being fed directly by road tax in 1937, with road tax itself. -- de Facto (talk). 13:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Pedestians, cyclists, wheelchairs users, the Queen and users of Band A cars and tractors and many others who use the roads don't pay 'road tax'. I think that is what the BBC was referring to. I suggest you send a complaint to the BBC and publish their response if you are successful, until then I suggest we rework the sentence. PeterEastern (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that because some road users don't have to pay it, that road tax doesn't exist? Would you apply the same logic to "council tax" - because there are many council service users who do not have to pay it? I suggest that you first go to the council tax article and add a section to it making that point clear there, then come back here and report how well it was accepted. -- de Facto (talk). 15:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to explain that the BBC might not have meant what you think they meant. Your think your Council Tax argument is spurious because it is the official name of the tax.[2] Please can we find some neat way to resolve this rather petty disagreement so that we can get now with more useful work! Any suggestions? PeterEastern (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Substitute "council tax" with "fuel tax" then (that's officially called something like "Hydrocarbon Oil Duty"). Some users of fuel do not pay fuel tax. If the BBC didn't mean what they literally said, then it was still incorrect. We could accept that "road tax", as in common usage does exist and that those who try to claim otherwise are mistaken. Try to make the POV more balanced by working in the fact that they are misrepresenting what happened in 1937, and that it was the hypothecation of the road tax to the road fund that was officially abolished (it had been unofficially ignored for years before), and not the tax itself. -- de Facto (talk). 16:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems Motor-car centric

May I make the observation that although this article has the title 'Vehicle Excise Duty', most details provided in the content of the article (e.g. 'Charges', 'Rates since April 2005') seem to only relate to Motor-Car excise duty sub-classifications and strategy. ? Some of the other main vehicle classification types that aren't exempt ones would perhaps be worth a mention. AlphaMikeFoxtrot (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. PeterEastern (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Road Tax

(Moved this discussion here from my talkpage) -- de Facto (talk). 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't revert without proving there is a tax called "road tax". There isn't as the name was abolished under Churchill, there is VED and a few others but none are actually called "road tax". Oh yes yes yes Jenova20 15:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Road tax was not abolished by Churchill, that is a myth. Read the article and you'll see that what happened in 1936/37 was that the road tax ceased to be credited directly into the so-called Road Fund. The tax continued to exist, even its official name remained unchanged, and it still exists today. Check the definition of "road tax" in the OED. The tax (in the form of a duty known as Vehicle Excise Duty) is only payable for certain classes of motor vehicle, and only if they are to be used or kept on public roads - it is a motor vehicle public road tax, and "road tax" is a term in wide and common usage for referring to this tax. It may be true that there are still some people who believe that the tax is used to pay exclusively for the roads, indeed there are still some people who call what is now known as a vehicle licence a road fund licence, but they are wrong. However, that is not a valid reason for denying the existence of the tax. -- de Facto (talk). 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake on the year.

"Road tax doesn't exist. It's car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937. The ironically-named iPayRoadTax.com helps spread this message on cycle jerseys. Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police officers, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0. Most cyclists are also car-owners, too, so pay VED."

This i 100% believe to be true, the government does not have a road tax, they have a vehicle tax and an emission tax, NOT a road tax.

Oxford dictionary is not a reliable source for this.

Jenova20 08:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You assert that it isn't a "road tax". Let's examine each of your supporting arguments separately. Let's start with this one:

It's [a] car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them.

Yes, it is also a "car tax", or more generically a "motor vehicle tax". However, it is only applicable for certain categories of motor vehicle - not all of them. For even the categories that it does apply to, it is only payable if the vehicle is used or kept on the public road, so in that sense, for those vehicles, it is indeed a "road tax" - they wouldn't be liable if they weren't used on the road. The tax does not apply to any car or other vehicle that isn't used on the public road. -- de Facto (talk). 08:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your next argument:

Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation.

That is accurate, but irrelevant to the discussion. The name used to refer to a tax doesn't necessarily imply what its proceeds are spent on. In fact frequently its name reflects more what it is charged on. "Income tax" is not specifically to pay for income. "Window tax" was not to pay for windows. "Alcohol tax" doesn't pay for alcohol. Have you argued on the hydrocarbon oil duty page that the article shouldn't mention "fuel tax" being a common name for that tax because the tax doesn't pay for people's fuel? -- de Facto (talk). 09:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The next one:

Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937.

No he didn't, and no it wasn't. The only change that occurred was that the proceeds of the road tax, which itself wasn't changed in any way, ceased to passed directly into the road fund account. Read the relevant articles and their references if you are still unconvinced about that. Even before the official change, the road fund was raided for other uses, so it was just to regularise what was already happening. The road tax continued as it was, and as it still is. -- de Facto (talk). 09:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And the next one:

The ironically-named iPayRoadTax.com helps spread this message on cycle jerseys.

That message is factually incorrect, as we've now seen proven, and is inflammatory. Many well-informed cyclists are critical of that campaign. -- de Facto (talk). 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And another:

Car tax is based on amount of CO2 emitted so, if a fee had to be paid, cyclists would pay the same as 'tax-dodgers' such as disabled drivers, police officers, the Royal family, and band A motorists, ie £0.

Car tax isn't based on amount of CO2 emitted, that's a common misunderstanding of it - read the article for the details. Why are you introducing cyclists or the exemptions as part of the point about whether the term should be mentioned in the article? Would you argue that there is no such thing as "income tax" because not all income is taxed? -- de Facto (talk). 09:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And another:

Most cyclists are also car-owners, too, so pay VED.

So what - even if it were true? In what way does the fact that some cyclists may pay some taxes prove that there is no such thing as road tax? Many sportscar drivers also have a family car that they pay road tax on - is that relevant? -- de Facto (talk). 09:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And another:

This i 100% believe to be true, the government does not have a road tax, they have a vehicle tax and an emission tax, NOT a road tax.

Have you changed your mind now after examining the evidence? Misconceptions such as these seem to be quite widespread in some communities, perhaps it's because of the spin that the government have put on various "green" policies? -- de Facto (talk). 09:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And finally:

Oxford dictionary is not a reliable source for this.

For what, the definition of English language usage? -- de Facto (talk). 09:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As you say, Churchill did change how the money was used, and he also heavily discouraged the name "road tax".

Both the AA and the government refuse to use that name and instead use "vehicle tax" or "VED" since road tax is incorrect and not all vehicles on the road are actually taxed.

Let's sort this before more reverting is done.

Jenova20 12:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a reliably sourced attribution for that Churchill assertion, then we could add it to the article. The same for the assertions about the AA and the government. Although a quick Google of UK government websites gives 127,00 hits for the phrase "road tax" so there's plenty of evidence that even they recognise it ("car tax"=64,200, "vehicle tax"=22,500, "vehicle excise duty"=80,100). And even if they managed to censor out all usage of the phrase on their own websites, it's still in common usage elsewhere: a Google of .uk sites gives 11,300,000 hits, so it'll be many a year before it ceases to exist and is expunged from the language. In fact, there'd be a strong argument, on common usage grounds, to rename this article to "Road tax"! -- de Facto (talk). 13:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary or not, the UK government refuses to use the term "road tax" because there isn't a tax that exists under that name.

Jenova20 12:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

They may be moving away from using it in spin-vetted official communications, but there's a long way to go before they could be said to have stopped using it, and even then, that wouldn't change the fact that it is, as it alwys has been, a "road tax", no matter what the currently preferred PC term for it is. -- de Facto (talk). 13:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can call it "road tax" as much as you like but the fact of the matter is that there's not one in existence and hasn't been for well over 50 years.

Technically it's not even a road tax, it's an emissions tax. Not every vehicle pays this tax and the fuel efficient ones won't pay for the first few years.

If it was "road tax" it would surely be from vehicle size and nothing to do with emissions, mileage, etc.

The fact that the government even call it by it's proper name should tell you that "road tax" is what a lot of ignorant people call it and not what it actually is.

Think safety/speed cameras, same argument.

Some claim they improve safety, others claim they bring in cash, both arguments are documented and well supported.

Thanks Jenova20 14:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The new wording is nice and reasonable that you see we have to talk this out rather than reach 3 reverts and/or argue.

You can see my argument that there is only a Vehicle tax and not a road tax right?

Churchill did state himself that it was to be renamed to stop car owners thinking they owned the road and it is "VED", not "road tax", despite what some people still call it.

It is a vehicle tax and not a road tax, and it taxes you for owning a car on the public roads, not to use the public roads.

Thanks Jenova20 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Roads are paid for via general and local taxation." (and most adult cyclists pay "road" tax).

1) Neither general nor local taxes are hypothecated to the roads.

2) Very little of a local authority's budget is raised locally, most comes from the government.

3) Schoolchildren, impecunious students, car disliking lecturers and car hating cyclist fanatics certainly don't pay road tax.

4) Even if they did, the fact that I pay "road tax" doesn't mean I can ride my light, narrow, short, two-wheeled moped on the roads tax-free, so why should a slightly lighter and smaller cycle be exempt?

5) Motorists pay nearly £50 BILLION in Road RELATED Tax ON TOP of their ORDINARY citizens "general and local taxation" EACH and EVERY year.

6) This effectively pays for ALL road "related" expenditure (road "improvements" such as cycle paths and bus lanes, bus stop build outs, chicanes, pavement widenings, lane narrowings, advance cycle stop boxes, zoo-fulls of pedestrian crossings with ever longer green man and solid amber phases, traffic "calming", "safety" cameras, lowered limits, and even complete road closures!). All of rail "investment". All of the 50% subsidy on public transport. And STILL leaves a fortune to top up the treasury's "general and local taxation" coffers.

7) Anyone disputing that motorists pay for the roads with their Road RELATED Taxes has only to ask themselves this simple question:

If they succeeded in driving motorists out of their cars and onto buses or bikes, and so lost the near £50 BILLION pa in Road RELATED Taxes, would ANY government continue spending ANY money on the Roads (and Cycle Paths, and Bus Lanes, and Rail Roads):

And cut £50 BILLION pa off the NHS budget?!

Or would they scrap roadbuilding and "improvements", cut the Road maintenance budget, and try to maintain the NHS budget as best they could?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.215.3.144 (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

VED

(Moved this discussion here from my talk page) -- de Facto (talk). 12:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

All i did was expand on the opening paragraphs a little, did you not like the new wording? Thanks Jenova20 12:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There are at least three issues with what was added:

1. By inserting new text between the original text and the reference that supported it (new text that isn't supported by the original reference) you have obscured the link between that original text and its reference.
2. There is an implicaton that the old reference supports the new text - which it doesn't.
3. The new reference doesn't appear to be a reliable source (see WP:RS) - so probably shouldn't be used.

-- de Facto (talk). 16:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I read through again and don't see how it could be an unreliable source.

Care to expand on that at all?

Fair enough on the first two points but i moved it all around and that's the reason your source appeared next to mine.

Thanks Jenova20 13:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather anthropomorphic...

"A registered vehicle that is not being used on the road, and which has been taxed since 31 January 1998, must complete a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN)." I didn't realize artificial intelligence had reached such a standard! 109.149.142.188 (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the disappointing progress made in AI recently I have reworked to lead and believe that it now makes more sense! PeterEastern (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

VED exemption date change

The article edit that included the info about the VED exemption change mentions (quite rightly) a "Finance 2014 Bill". Are there any other sources aside from the 2013 Budget that refer such a bill? The paragraph in the Budget document sounds more like a veiled "Vote for us and we promise to do XXXX next time" teaser to me. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's perhaps a little to early to speculate? Mongoosander (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

POV

The section titled "Other terms in common use" is still a clear and obvious case of POV-pushing. 176.249.26.217 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the section text or section title? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is all out of date

We no longer have "tax discs" issued in the UK! 92.40.249.174 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a recent change, and this is an article on WIkipedia, written by volunteers. Give it chance to get up to date, or be BOLD and take a swing at it yourself. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tax refund when selling cars?

As a German, I've always found it a bit confusing when they talk about used car prices on TV shows like top gear "taxed & tested". Over here, when selling your car, you get a partial refund of your VED when you de-register it, and the buyer has to pay the VED for the remainder of the year. Don't you get such a refund in Britain, or didn't you use to get one say in 2004 when they did the famous 100-Pound car challenge on Top Gear? Did you really actually have to square it all with the buyer of your car? I'd be glad if somebody could clear that up.--Cancun (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You've been misled into thinking that Top Gear is a factual programme! The system changed a couple of years ago - now you apply to get a refund when you sell the car, but previously you sold the unused months of the tax with the car - so it did count for something on the value of an old banger --FDent (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This information should be added to the article. Currently there is an omission. FreeFlow99 (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Error in the example of Car VED figures for Range Rover Autobiography?

The article currently says £280 in first year then £620 for each subsequent year; I believe these figures are the wrong way around as can be seen from the table above. The errors seems to be carried through to the 10-year totals calculated in the next sentence; the current system would result in £3,140 rather than £5,860. And under the new system, wouldn't the normal Year-1 rate (£1,200) also be increased by the £310 to £1,510, giving a 10-yr total of £4,010? In addition, it might be worth mentioning in the example that this vehicle falls above the £40k limit in case any reader is not familiar with Range Rover prices [I didn't go ahead and make the changes myself as a) I wasn't sure about how the £40k supplement works and didn't have time to check it, and b) this is my first ever Wikipedia edit so thought I'd practice on a Talk page. Apologies if I've missed anything.] JA 1961 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vehicle Excise Duty/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Class== Start class because it contains a lot of material on UK. Needs to be globalized with more material on the US and Spain, at least since they are referred to in the introduction.EECavazos 04:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Vehicles

I added "internal combustion vehicles" to separate out the fact that bicycles (which are vehicles under law) and electric vehicles, don't pay VED. Sanbear (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

As this was reverted, I changed to "vehicles which emit carbon dioxide" with the appropriate citation. I think that "internal combustion vehicles" is more succinct, but @DeFacto: had reverted. If they read this, I'd like to know (seriously, I would!) like to know what other vehicles other than internal combustion are liable for VED. Sanbear (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sanbear: it's not as simple as that. Many "vehicles which emit carbon dioxide" pay zero tax, including those powered by internal combustion engines and built before 1980, those used by disabled people, those that generate co2 to raise steam to power them and vehicles used for agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Similarly, many vehicles which do not emit any carbon dioxide are required to pay the tax, including vehicles parked on public roads and electric vehicles which have an on-board battery charging capability. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, I see you've been pushing the whole 'it's a road tax' thing for going on ten years now. The talk page is very ambivalent about it. My edit was properly sourced though from the BBC, which is a quality source. Road tax is not a proper term for VED. If you can find a source that shows that VED is still legally known as Road Tax, that would be great (and every black cab driver in London would buy you a pint). Sanbear (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, that BBC article is an opinion piece. It is not a factual piece or reliable source to assert that the definition of a standard English term has changed. Did you read the history of the tax? Did you find anything about the abolition of road tax there? No, because it was not abolished, its revenue was merely redeployed. Now stop this edit-warring that POV trumps fact, and wait for a consensus before removing this long-standing fact from the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, perhaps you could develop the argument in the article that there is a community of road users who disagree with the terminology used to describe this tax and that they think it is misused by another community of road users to attack them. You could also mention the success, or otherwise, of their lobbying to have the disliked term expunged from official documents and official websites.

That, I think, would be more constructive than trying to argue that the long-used term, which is literally correct and still in common use, is in fact incorrect usage, and misrepresenting the well documented history of the tax. I would support you in that task as I think it would improve the usefulness of the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, you asked for a source that it 'is not an error to call it "road tax"'. How about the OED? It defines "road tax"[3] as "A periodic tax payable on motor vehicles using public roads." Will that do, or do you think the principal authority on the English language is providing an erroneous definition? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto forgive the late response. I see you are very invested in this. The fact remains though, that the DVLA bills for Vehicle Excise Duty, not 'road tax'. In the same manner that we are billed Council Tax, not 'property' tax, though you pay it when you reside in a property. The BBC is generally recognised as a reliable source. You've also been pushing against users for ten years, using the OED. The OED also spells colour with a u, while the article in wikipedia is without a u. The fact that many people incorrectly refer to VED as 'Road Tax' is a huge problem in the UK, making it hard to get proper traffic infrastructure for non-motorists. We can start by clarifying facts right here in this article. Road tax per se doesn't exist. It's a vehicle excise duty. Sanbear (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite so - it's been discussed at length before and as far as I can see, all editors consider the term "road tax" to be problematic, except for one editor, who always changes the article back to his preferred way. I appreciate that the recent addition of the word "erroneously" to the lead para might be considered by some to be a POV term. A reasonable solution would be to add to the intro that it is colloquially referred to as "road tax". Technically it is not a tax, but we can all accept that it is referred to as such in common parlance. Cnbrb (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cnbrb, it's problematic, yes, but it's also correct. See my reply to Sanbear below. Think about adding a paragraph or section to discuss the controversy, rather than defending the inclusion of an untruth in the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, the two terms are synonymous in the UK, as reflected in the Oxford Dictionary of Law that I added as a ref. For that reason, it is wrong to assert in Wikipedia's voice that one of the terms is 'erroneous'.

Wikipedia doesn't exclude the inclusion of what we might call 'unoffical' terminology either, you only have to look at the name of the article covering the Community Charge to see that. You mentioned Council Tax, and that is described in that article as a mix of a property tax and a personal tax. Would you deny that Hydrocarbon Oil Duty is a fuel tax? Its article describes it as Hydrocarbon Oil Duty (also fuel duty and fuel tax) is a fuel tax. Commonly used terms are not "erroneous", especially when they are literal synonyms.

Wikipedia also differentiates between "fact" and "opinion", and whilst the BBC article is a reliable source for that journalist's opinion, that opinion cannot be asserted as if it is an incontrovertible fact.

I know road tax politics has a long and rich history, and I know the term "road tax" has been misunderstood in some situations. But the fact remains, that because an excise duty is a tax, then an excise duty applied to the use of a vehicle on a road is both a "road tax" and a "vehicle tax" in equal measure.

As I said above, I suggest you add a paragraph about the use of the term "road tax" as you feel strongly about it, and you can describe the facts, myths, opinions and misunderstandings over it, and present the opinions of cyclist and motorist advocates and journalists and then summarise it in the lead if it seems significant enough.

But please do not confuse fact with opinion and don't break the NPOV policy by calling your less favoured term "erroneous". -- DeFacto (talk). 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I would support a section that discusses the perspectives as you suggest above, but will it then be deleted? Will be interesting to see how that progresses. Cnbrb (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Cnbrb, there would be no excuse to delete it if it complied with the normal Wiki policies and guidelines - WP:VER, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes absolutely, and WP:RS. Unless of course you personally disagree with it, which is how it has worked up 'til now. Cnbrb (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, it does not matter how many polemics you add as references, that is still a false statement. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As I sit here, in my flat, in Britain, with my British Passport, my pictures of the Queen, and my British Drivers license I take umbrage at the fact that {u|DeFacto} states that 'Road Tax' and 'Vehicle Excise Duty' are the synonymous. They are not. One is the correct term, and one is incorrect. The OED is similarly cited as being correct for this. The OED also states that the weight of the OED is 62.6kg . This is of course, erroneous, as kg can not be a measure of weight (that would be Newtons in SI). We all understand what they mean, but should we change the wikipedia article on the kilogram to say that it's a measure of weight, not mass?

I left the term 'Road tax' in the lede, people do know it as that, but it should be noted that it's incorrect. It's not a correct term for Vehicle Excise Duty. Changing it to 'colloquially' would give the impression that term is correct, it's a tax to use the road. It's not a tax to use the road, it's a tax on vehicle pollution on public land. Sanbear (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, sorry, but there's no easier way to say it - they are synonymous! And as you admit, people know it as that - which says something too. The English language is clear and The Oxford Dictionary of Law, which I cited and you removed, is clear, and the history books are clear. What did you make of the Poll Tax article, is that "incorrect" too? Will you be up for helping with a section on the misunderstanding of the term to try to stabilise the article again? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto. I'm not debating that people don't call Vehicle Excise Duty 'road tax'. I'm saying, they are wrong, thus, they are saying it "erroneously". This isn't my opinion. It's a well referenced fact that road tax doesn't exist, and that to call Vehicle Excise Duty 'road tax' is a misnomer. Sanbear (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, how do you reconcile that opinion with the definition given in The Oxford Dictionary of Law? Or with the Poll Tax article? And are you going to help write a section about the politics and myths concerning the understanding of the term? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've started a new topic below to discuss adding a section to cover the use of the term. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Shall we restore the old 'road tax' terminology section?

Further to the discussion in #Vehicles section above, and as I thought, the discussion over the use of the term 'road tax' used to be covered in a section in the article. Trawling back through the history I found that it was deleted on 4 February 2016. Given that the confusion over the use of this term is still an occasional catalyst for disruption to the article, I wondered if it is time to restore that section, with updates as necessary. I'll reproduce the old section here in a collapsed box for reference.

The section from the article prior to 4 February 2016

The term "road tax" in common use The term "road tax", which appears in the Oxford English Dictionary, is commonly used when referring to "Vehicle Excise Duty". Despite its common usage though, this use is controversial, particularly among cycling activists. Such activists argue that, because many motorists wrongly believe that the proceeds from VED are used to fund the roads and even that the roads are funded solely from this tax, that technically there is no such thing as road tax. Peter Walker, a journalist at The Guardian gives this opinion of it "I've always felt the road tax argument supports a more general feeling of entitlement among too many drivers. Those who trot it out often seem to genuinely treat cyclists like we're interlopers who should be pushed aside". In an opinion piece on the BBC Magazine website, a journalist explored this argument in 2013, suggesting how the term "road tax" is used by some drivers as a badge of entitlement to hog the road and drive badly, even intentionally hitting cyclists to argue their point. The Cyclists' Touring Club explain that all tax payers, not just motorists, pay proportionately for the roads, and that cyclists impose minimal wear and tear on them. A single issue campaign, 'I pay road tax', was started by a cycling journalist in 2009 to challenge the use of the term 'road tax'. The campaign has received support from Edmund King, President of The AA. In a BBC report on Look East in May 2010 about a cyclist who was knocked off his bike by a car the presenter read out a series of emails from viewers expressing the view that 'cyclists should pay road tax' if they wish to use the roads. After receiving a 'huge number' of complaints from viewers following publicity created by iPayRoadTax, the BBC broadcast a second piece which clarified the fact that roads are paid for out of general taxation. The term "road tax" is often incorrectly used when referring to "vehicle excise duty" in the UK media. When challenged by iPayRoadTax, Which?, the British consumer magazine, defended its continued use of the term on the basis that "road tax" was more commonly used than Vehicle Excise Duty. A spokesman also said that while they would not stop using the terms 'car tax' and 'road tax' online that they would endeavour to also make appropriate reference to the full name of the tax. One organisation that appears to be content with the current use of 'road tax' as the vernacular for VED is the Advertising Standards Authority. Complaints that advertisements using the term are incorrect are rejected with what appears to be a templated letter stating "although we acknowledge that the correct term is 'Vehicle Excise Duty', more commonly used phrases such as 'Road Tax' are often used by advertisers to convey a message in a way that will be understood by the widest audience." References

Pinging Sanbear and Cnbrb as contributors to the discussion on this since that section was removed. Any thoughts about re-adding that, or something similar? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That section doesn't read very neutral point of view, the tone of the section sounds a bit biased. I'm also hesitant to give credence to the "VED==Road Tax" argument, as it's false. The phrase 'road tax' doesn't exist in actual British Law (conscious of DeFacto's repeated example of using the Oxford Dictionary, which has been also discussed at length). I wonder if the London_congestion_charge or Ultra Low Emission Zone are considered taxes as well by DeFacto as they are more similar to VED. Sanbear (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, we could add it and then work on the POV or we could discuss the POV here and agree a wording before adding it. Thoughts? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Pending any progress here, I've restored the long-term status quo in the article per WP:BRD. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi DeFacto I reverted your change, as VED still isn't road tax, and to call it as such is incorrect. You're right, it would be great to have a section on this, but I don't have the time to do that right now. Gotta start small, which is correcting the mistake. I will be happy to contribute to the conversation a bit more when I have more time. I honestly don't have hours to spend disagreeing on wikipedia, it's a sunny day! Sanbear (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, have you read WP:BRD? How do you justify forcing your POV into the article without a consensus? Wikipedia does not allow the assertion of a viewpoint in it's voice, even that viewpoint is presented, in three different sources, as fact.

And using a polemic piece to support any fact would probably fall short of the WP:RS policy anyway. Let's stick to the well known historical facts, and where an opinion is more that fringe we should only add it with duly sourced attribution. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been sourced, and it's not a POV, it's a fact. BRD doesn't really apply to edits that clarify something. Why do you think that it should be incorrectly regarded as 'road tax' when the government itself says it is Vehicle Excise Duty? If it is called Vehicle Excise Duty, and has nothing to do with roads, then it would be incorrectly regarded as a 'road tax'. Sanbear (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear it's been sourced to polemical articles. They challenge the notion of a "road tax" because the money raised from it isn't ring-fenced to provide roads. That's a bit like saying tobacco tax is a misnomer because the revenue doesn't provide tobacco. They could well have been inspired by the cyclist lobby group i Pay Road Tax who campaign to suppress the use of the term, and promulgate myths and misinformation, such as the claim that road tax was abolished in 1937, on their website.

The road/vehicle tax has existed as an excise duty since Victorian times, when it applied to horse-drawn vehicles too. In its early days the revenue from it was ring-fenced for road provision and the pot for it was called the "Road Fund". This pot however, kept being raided by the chancellor to spend on stuff other than roads. This became a political issue, so in 1937 the direct link to the road fund was broken, and the revenue was paid into the general exchequer, along with the receipts from other taxes.

The Road Fund itself wasn't abolished though (it continued until the 1950s), it was still kept for road provision, but the appropriate ministry had to compete with all the other ministries each year for funds from the chancellor to keep it topped up. The road/vehicle tax did not change in nature though, it continued to be an excise duty, and neither did its name change, and continues today as an excise duty, like fuel tax, tobacco tax and alcohol tax are.

Like other duties, its name isn't based on what it's revenue is spent on, it is based on the commodity it is targeting to raise the revenue from. In the case of road/vehicle tax, the tax is raised for the use of certain vehicle types on the public highway. And it's not a straightforward vehicle tax because it is not charged if the qualifying vehicle isn't used on a public road, and it's not a straightforward road tax because it is not charged for all vehicle types using a public road (think push bikes, electric vehicles, etc.).

The fact remains though, it is commonly known as both a "road tax" and a "vehicle tax" regardless of its "formal" name, and that long-standing common use it why the OED list it as "road tax / NOUN / British / A periodic tax payable on motor vehicles using public roads.",[4] and why The Oxford Dictionary of Law use it in preference to "vehicle excise duty", with their definition starting: "road tax / A tax (formally called vehicle excise duty) that must be paid in respect of any mechanically propelled vehicle used, parked, or kept on a public road.".[5]

If you are still unconvinced, I'll try and find some more sources covering the history of the tax, and we can discuss it further. For now I'd hope that you'd follow the WP:BRD guidance and self-revert while we do not have a consensus on this. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Disputed use of adverb "erroneously"

I dispute the description of the use of term "road tax" as being "erroneous". So, to continue on from the discussion in #Vehicles and #Shall we restore the old 'road tax' terminology section? sections above...

Sanbear, in Hansard I just found where the chancellor explains the 1937 change that is often misrepresented as being the abolition of road tax. On 20 April 1937, Chamberlain says in his financial statement to the commons:[6] ... the decision last year to abolish the system of earmarking Motor Vehicle Duties to the Road Fund... Thus confirming the continuity of what he referred to as "Motor Vehicle Duties", with the only change being that the revenues would no longer be earmarked for the Road Fund. The best we can say is that from 1937 the term "Road Fund Licence" became a misnomer as the duty paid for the licence from that date was no longer credited directly into the Road Fund. No duty/tax was abolished. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

DeFacto, This is still in the Magna Carta: "Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing." It's obviously not still valid. Just because something was a law previously, or was or wasn't mentioned in the Hansard in 1937 doesn't make it true now. Here's a statement from the official DVLA account regarding VED: https://twitter.com/DVLAgovuk/status/1012311112103194624 . The statement is : " I can confirm that it is vehicle tax and not road tax. The revenue from individual taxes is not generally devoted to specific items of expenditure. There has been no direct relationship between motoring taxation and road expenditure since 1937.". It's very hard to argue with your belief, when the facts are, that VED is erroneously called road tax, since you don't have to pay it to operate on the road. You only have to pay it if you take a polluting vehicle on a public highway, hence Vehicle Excise Duty. Notably, bicycles, which are legally considered vehicles, don't have to even register for VED. Similarly, electric cars, while they have to register for VED are not liable for VED and pay no VED to use public highways. Also, highly pollution cars don't have to pay VED if they are only used off of public highways/roads Sanbear (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, you are incorrectly assuming that the name of a tax reflects what its proceeds are spent on. Excise duties are generally named after the commodity that they are applied to and not after the use to which they are put. Think about alcohol tax, fuel tax and tobacco tax. Or do you think the revenue from alcohol tax is used to buy alcohol? VED is a duty applied to some classes of vehicles for the use of public roads, so it is both a vehicle tax and a road tax in equal measures. This is normal English usage and is not erroneous as it has been that way since its inception in the 19th century and did not change when it ceased to be used to fund road building in the 1930s.

Here's an article from yesterday's The Scotsman describing this year's changes to it, using the terms "road tax", "vehicle tax" and "VED" synonymously and interchangeably. And here's a similar article from March by U-Switch using the term similarly. "Road tax" and "vehicle tax" are terms which are still in common usage because the tax is still levied for the use of certain vehicles on public roads. If the tax ever ceases to be applied for the use of public roads, then, perhaps, the term "road tax" could be considered to be erroneous. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted because there was no consensus to remove either. It is in fact not a 'road tax.' Many vehicles that use the road legally do not have to pay it. It's a tax on emissions. This needs to be clarified. 2A02:C7F:F042:B400:4D36:1E06:C0DA:724B (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Defacto, it is not officially called "Road Tax". The Scotsman, as is often done, erroneously called it "Road Tax". It's not "Road Tax" it's VED. The government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland refers to it as "VED." Tax disc is also of course anachronistic and erroneous, as there is no such thing as a tax disc either anymore. It is incorrect to refer to VED as a "Road Tax" as it's not a tax to be on the road, it's a tax to put a polluting vehicle on a public highway. If "Road Tax" existed, then all road users would be required to pay it, including pedestrians and horse riders. Sanbear (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sanbear, yes it is officially called "Vehicle Excise Duty", but so what? That does not make all other terms for it erroneous, especially those in common use in reliable sources and defined as such in dictionaries and legal text books. It is explicitly a tax to use the road; that is part of the legal definition of it. Cars, even those emitting the most foul gases and particles, do not require this tax to be paid unless they are used on public roads, so it's not simply a pollution tax either.

As we already know too, it is only payable for certain classes of vehicle, so not all vehicles, but nevertheless it is a road tax for those vehicles that it does apply to, as well as a vehicle tax and a tax on the potential to pollute too.

Would you also argue that there is no such thing as "income tax" because there are many people with incomes that are not liable to pay it? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I would refer to income tax as income tax, as that is it's official name. I would refer to alcohol tax as alcohol tax, as it's a tax on alcohol. VED is a tax on vehicles that pollute while on public highways, and is not officially called road tax. If the term "road tax" is used, it is used inappropriately; according to many government agencies, including the DVLA and various police departments; but again, importantly, the DVLA who of course, collects VED. 13:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

To further the point that it's not a 'road tax' the actual law is: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/22/section/6 . You can see in the law that all money goes to the consolidated fund (i.e. not just for roads) and it's a tax on emissions of the vehicle. So it's a Vehicle Emissions tax, that doesn't fund roads, so not really a 'road tax'. Sanbear (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Sanbear, that doesn't further that point at all, that information is already in the article in the 'History' section where it says: "Hypothecation came to an end in 1937 under the 1936 Finance Act, and the proceeds of the vehicle road taxes were paid directly into the Exchequer".

Further, as we've seen above, taxes aren't generally named after what they are spent on, but on what they are raised on. Remember: "alcohol tax" is raised on alcohol but isn't spent on it, "fuel tax" is raised on fuel but isn't spent on it, etc. Hence it is not a revelation or a defining factor that a "road tax" is not spent exclusively on roads.

Did you notice too what the first sentence of the act you referenced says? It says 'A duty of excise (“vehicle excise duty”) shall be charged in respect of every mechanically propelled vehicle which is used, or kept, on a public road in the United Kingdom and shall be paid on a licence to be taken out by the person keeping the vehicle'. In other words: it is a road-use tax for mechanically propelled vehicles - i.e. both a "road tax" and a "[motor] vehicle tax", as is correctly noted in the article.

Yes, the amount of CO2 that the vehicle could potentially emit is currently taken into account to arrive at the amount of road/vehicle tax payable for a given motor vehicle, so you could argue that it is also, loosely, a CO2 tax, but regardless, the tax is only payable for the use of public roads.

Look at it this way... If you buy two identical motor vehicles, and keep/use one of them only on your private grounds and keep/use the other one on public roads, you only have to pay VED on the one you keep/use on public roads. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

"shall be paid on a licence to be taken out" - so it's a vehicle licensing tax.82.31.133.23 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverted given the lack of consensus to keep. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)