Taxation

Sir,

With regard to Mr GC Dix’s interesting: comments on the revision of taxation I cannot agree that it will be necessary to fix definite classes of swept volumes.

Surely the simplest method would be to adopt a flat rate of taxation per 100, or even 50 cc, thus avoiding the bugbear of over-classification.

However taxation may be applied, manufacturers will, for their own good, build models which have favourable tax ratings, even though in the long run the total running costs may outweigh the apparent advantages.

The alternative of a nominal registration fee, coupled with an additional fuel tax, giving an apparently attractive pay-as-you-drive scheme, should, in my opinion, be treated warily, as examination will show that the driver who covers a small annual mileage gets off very lightly, while the man who covers a large distance will pay heavily for his use of the roads.

The fallacy, to my mind, being that. while it is reasonable to expect the large mileage man to pay a greater annual tax, which he does, incidentally, under the present system through the fuel tax, it is not fair to charge him in direct proportion to the mileage covered.

Examination of the allocation of funds to the roads will show that a considerable proportion is devoted to the improvement and making safer of the highway, which is of benefit to all road users, as compared with the actual amount spent on their upkeep, required by their use, ie, wear and tear.

Cecil Clutton’s remarks concerning the Rover are very welcome, as this most creditable example of British design along orthodox lines, while not, of course, of sporting type, has not received the credit and interest due to it.

As an MG TA-type owner, your recent correspondents’ letters have been most refreshing. I have always had the impression that the TA is a little too high geared and I believe, though I am relying on memmory, that the TB type has a slightly lower final drive ratio.

I am, Yours, etc,

DG Bennett,  Emsworth, Hampshire.