This week has seen the announcment of plans to interfere with that which needs no interference.   Both are motoring related and extend beyond the concrete landscape of the urban wasteland, into the real world.

The first, by some bunny hugging save the planet eco weenies is a proposal to impose punitive taxes on the bigger polluting 4x4's in order to discourage their use.   I know the tax was upped by his Wasteship earlier this year, but even Dr. Millipede confirmed on Radio 4 yesterday that it was not really going to make a difference.   We all knew that, but then, as this is all to do with tax raising rather than behaviour altering, it came as no surprise.

This latest wheeze suggests annual licence fees be increased to... wait for it... £1,800 per vehicle.   That is a 650% increase.   So, in reality, those who need a 4x4 for their work with either pay up - or there will be an expensive to operate and police exemption scheme, wasting even more money - and those who don't need a 4x4 will pay because they can afford it.

Queue a complete failure to address global warming, but a nice little earner for No.11.

What these numpties need to do is recognise 2 things.   First, all vehicles pay a tax that efficiently and effectively (over)charges for both road use and relative efficiency: Excise Duty.   The rate is high, but it is clear:  run a Toyota Prius and get 50-60 mpg and put your rabbits in the back.   Run a Dodge SRT-10 and get 5 mpg, no bunnies and a fairly empty wallet.

Second, if any government is serious about wanting to effect an improvement in climate change and a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gasses, then it must adopt a carrot and stick approach.   For every £ it raises in tax it must return the same £ by way of incentive:  e.g., no road tax for lower polluting vehicles, a reduction in VAT on purchase, free end of life recycling, etc.   This way, there is no overall net increase to the tax burden as the two are self serving and with some careful fine tuning a sensible balance could be struck.

This latest proposal is simply more taxation, with absolutely no focus on reinforcing or encouraging positive behaviour - and it will not work.

Imposing taxes simply polarises an increasingly divided society, whilst raising money for a government largely unelected by those who pay for it.

The second proposal that has attracted my ire is that of road pricing.   Once again, it is proposed to reduce congestion and, once again it will not work, but it will raise yet more tax.   Congestion is self limiting:  people will only put up with so much queing before they decide to adopt an alternate route or means of transport.  

Suffice to say, I would proffer a similar argument to that above.   Miles + type of vehicle driven (and driving style, if we are being picky) is directly reflected in the amount of fuel consumed and hence tax paid.   This is fair and equitable to all and allows individuals freedom of choice.

Change will only happen as a consequence of investing properly in an efficient and comprehensive transport infrastructure, so people may be tempted out of their cars (if that is your wish) and onto the train.   Without an effective alternative - or incentive - they will not.

The message here is clear:  use the revenue from fuel taxes (65p in every £1.00 gallon of unleaded goes to the Chancellor) and the Car Tax to offer serious alternatives and incentives, rather than the one sided punitive approach, that penalises those least able to pay.