Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Transportation

UK To Tax Electric Cars by the Mile Starting 2028 (bbc.com) 195

The UK government will levy a pay-per-mile tax on electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles starting April 2028, UK's finance minister Rachel Reeves announced, a measure designed to offset some of the fuel duty revenue that will disappear as drivers shift away from petrol and diesel cars. Electric vehicles will be charged 3 pence per mile and plug-in hybrids 1.5 pence per mile, payable annually alongside car tax. An average driver covering 8,000 miles a year would pay around $320, roughly half what a petrol or diesel driver pays in fuel duty.

The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the tax to generate $1.45 billion in its first year and $2.51 billion by 2030-31, offsetting about a quarter of the revenue losses projected from the EV transition by 2050. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders warned the new charge would "suppress demand" and make sales targets harder to achieve. New Zealand and Iceland have already introduced road pricing for EVs; demand dropped in the former but held steady in the latter.

UK To Tax Electric Cars by the Mile Starting 2028

Comments Filter:
  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Thursday November 27, 2025 @01:14PM (#65821461)
    Pretty much every western government is having a really hard time balancing finances. Citizens love to vote in politicians that promise expensive benefits and absolutely hate the taxes needed to pay for them.

    Most roadwork gets paid for from fuel taxes. EVs dont use fuel. Classic free rider problem.
    • I would hope most every folk understand why such a tax is necessary and good but I guess I've never seen the logistical and privacy costs of tracking the miles driven worth the benefits over just flat rating the EV at registration, or making it based on vehicle weight or some other fact of the vehicle and driver. The best taxes tend to be the ones that are the simplest to comply with.

      • by shilly ( 142940 )

        What they’re proposing is fairly straightforward for the UK, where cars have to pay an annual tax to be on the road and have an annual test (“MOT”) to ensure roadworthiness annually. The plan is that drivers estimate the mileage for the year ahead and pay that as part of their annual tax, and then there’s a reconciliation when the car goes for its MOT.

        There’s a few complications to work through, but it’s relatively easy to implement.

        • I think it will more likely be done when the car tax is renewed. My car is zero-rated but I still need to do it each year.
          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            I guess that most drivers at least start out with the VED and MOT dates being roughly around the same — MOT first, then VED reasonably soon afterwards, so I suppose that works. Get your actual at MOT and then do the reconciliation and next year forecast at VED renewal. I guess this is some of the detail we’ll get in the future.

          • It doesn't even have to be linked to the car tax.

            NZ uses "Road User Charges" for diesel - it does not have the tax built in at the pump (petrol does), so all diesel cars have to buy blocks of kilometres as tax. The government get updated when your annual vehicle inspection is done, but between those inspections its up to you to make sure you have enough spare kilometres left for your trips. If you get stopped by police and they check, being too far out is considered to be tax evasion and a criminal offence

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          The easy way is to check the odometer reading every time you renew. If you decide to lie, well, it's easy to verify because eventually you'll either have to scrap the vehicle or you'll sell it to someone else and they'll have to report the new odometer reading. And it all catches up from there (because the new owner will likely not want to pay for the difference in taxes). And scrapping the car likely needs paperwork so they can cancel the title and deal with tax issues. Of course, if you find a scrapper wh

          • by shilly ( 142940 )

            In the UK, MOT inspectors already make an official recording of the vehicle mileage when they do their annual inspection

    • Great idea if you like the government up your butt.

      "Sir, you seem to be driving a lot, is there a legitimate reason for it?"
    • >"Annoying but actually reasonable"

      It is absolutely reasonable in concept. But it might not be in practice. I have zero problem with paying for my actual EV mileage in some tax. My State decided it was going to collect it annually during registration renewal. Also reasonable. But they either charge an "average" mileage of ALL EV drivers (however they determine that), or force me to put an always-on tracking device in my car. And neither is reasonable. And my vehicle manual actually says that such

    • Probably because those "benefits" don't tend to go towards the people paying the taxes. Workers pay taxes, non-workers suck down all the benefits. Some how, everyone gets the same vote, despite nearly half the population not contributing to the tax base.

  • by johnnys ( 592333 ) on Thursday November 27, 2025 @01:27PM (#65821479)
    I suspect that fossil fuel and non-plug-in hybrid drivers would LOVE to replace their fuel bills with a 3 cent per mile charge.
    • by ffkom ( 3519199 )
      How about taxing per distance and weight? After all, having tires pressing down on roads is what causes them to deteriorate, so both distance and vehicle weight play a big role in how much maintenance roads require. Plus more weight goes along with more micro-plastics being shed by tires into the environment.
      • Weight would be "fair". Taxes are never fair. They tend to let people that make poor/selfish decisions off the hook much more then your responsible person that's driving more efficient vehicles.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      I have a friend living in London, I have seen his charging bills, and petrol would have been cheaper.
      • Funny, because that's true in California as well. If you drive a hybrid in California, it's cheaper to buy gas then charge with electricity. This stays true up until around ~$7 a gallon. Of course, by the time gasoline goes to $7, the KwH cost will likely be a $1. It's already over $.50 now.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The more expensive public charging is about on a par with a decently efficient fossil car. When it can get expensive (aside from rip-offs) is when you also have to pay for parking, which is common in London.

        If you can charge at home then it is much cheaper, around 2p/mile, or free if you have solar.

    • Emissions and road use should be taxed separately.

    • by taustin ( 171655 )

      I suspect that fossil fuel and non-plug-in hybrid drivers would LOVE to replace their fuel bills with a 3 cent per mile charge.

      No doubt, but the grownups aren't talking about replacing the fuel bill with a per mil charge, we're talking about replacing the fuel tax>/em>. California has the highest gas tax in the US, at 61.2 cents per gallon. I drive about 10,000 miles a year. The gas tax comes out to a bit less than $250/year at 25 mpg. 3 cents per mile would be $300/year, or higher (though not a lot higher).

      In the rest of the country - by definition, our gas tax being the highest - the difference will be more.

      Note that the ga

  • Make All Cars Pay (Score:4, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Thursday November 27, 2025 @01:47PM (#65821527) Homepage Journal

    As a friend once said, "You don't penalize people for doing the right thing." But it's a legitimate concern that the system of funding roads from fuel taxes is going to collapse due to EVs. So the solution is to apply the new fees to all vehicles. This will encourage the transition instead of slow it. Also, they can start with the fee being much lower, so the estimated revenue matches the estimated loss due to reduced fuel sales, and they can phase it in over time as fuel sales continue to drop.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sarren1901 ( 5415506 )

      Government always punishes people for being more efficient. Government cares about it's precious revenue streams. Doing the "right thing" doesn't matter at all. Regardless of what they say.

  • by usedtobestine ( 7476084 ) on Thursday November 27, 2025 @01:47PM (#65821529)

    The UK collected £24.83 billion in fuel taxes in 2023 and budgeted £4.8 billion on road maintenance including resurfacing.
    It seems to me that the EV tax should be 1/5 of the current fuel tax, and that the actual fuel tax should also be 1/5 of its current rate.

    • by Computershack ( 1143409 ) on Thursday November 27, 2025 @02:51PM (#65821679)
      It also goes towards funding the NHS, funding the cost of treatment of people who have been in road traffic accidents as well as those suffering ill health due to pollution from traffic fumes.
    • Fuel tax has never been earmarked for road maintenance.
    • by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      National budgets simply do not, and cannot, work that way. Taxes go into a central pot, and then get assigned out according to the priorities of the state as interpreted by the government that currently controls the national purse strings, ideally without having to borrow any additional money although that seldom happens and is deeply unpopular when it does (see "Austerity" - governments typicallydo not live within their means, yet usually expect their publics to do just that). For the whole system to wor
      • Oh, but they can, but if the UK lowered their fuel tax rate by 75% to only cover the cost of road maintenance, it would mean that a new, NHS specific tax would have to be collected to cover (in 2023) £239B, and I'm pretty sure you'd never say "We have free public healthcare." ever again, because you don't.

    • by shilly ( 142940 )

      The UK does not have a hypothecated road tax, no matter how much people think it does or think it ought to. And the costs to the public purse of vehicles are much more extensive than just roads maintenance. There’s NHS costs (respiratory damage, cardiovascular damage, accidents, etc etc), policing, productivity hits from congestion, etc.

    • Road maintenance isn't the only cost. Automobiles have a lot of externalized costs that are bared by the government besides just building roads. You need to constantly be building out new cities with new infrastructure in order to make room for cars and a car centric society.

      You could tax the car companies themselves to pay for it but good luck with that. Realistically if you have the political power to do something like that you probably wouldn't have a car centric society that shifts billions of dolla
  • The gasoline tax was introduced to encourage the adoption of pollution free alternatives by building out the infrastructure that was required to charge these vehicles.

    It has now transformed into a road building initiative and a possible tax loss. Before the gasoline tax, roads were built with the funds accumulated from income tax. Is this going to be refunded or are we going to continue funding projects that continue to have budget overruns?

  • It is a plan ... that requires consultation, new laws and a method of enforcing it that people can't simply bypass ....

  • EV's are still horrifically cheaper to run than an ICE vehicle by very large margins

    NB Vans and commercial vehicles are exempt ...

    • >"EV's are still horrifically cheaper to run than an ICE vehicle by very large margins"

      That depends on the gas price, electricity price, and efficiency of the vehicle. ICE will usually lose by a lot. But there are plenty of places where that gap is not "horrific", if the ICE vehicle is very efficient, gas prices are low, and electricity is not.

  • Instead of encouraging clean long-distance driving from the UK, to, let's say Marbella and back +- 5000km, it nudges people to take a plane (with higher emissions) and rent a car abroad where the UK can’t tax the miles.

    Environmental economics professors would roll their eyes so hard they’d see their own brainstem.

    • Bad idea, over longer distances, flying is cleaner than driving. In some cases flying is cleaner than taking the train (e.g. high speed trains powered by coal-fired plants). Take-off and landing burns a crapload of fuel, but airplanes are surprisingly economical when cruising.
    • by shilly ( 142940 )

      The numbers of people who drive that kind of distance from the UK are absolutely miniscule. I doubt it’s even 1 in 1000 Brits who arrive in Marbella in their car rather than a plane. Somewhat different for France, but still, the alternative there is the train, not the plane, for many.

  • ... without saying you don't care about climate change.
  • by Pinky's Brain ( 1158667 ) on Thursday November 27, 2025 @03:21PM (#65821767)

    Having a million separate taxes is a legacy from a distributed type of governance which has long stopped existing. All layers of government should get the vast majority from property, capital gains and estate taxes.

    Some disencentivization taxes can be appropriate, but road transport in general is not something to disencentivize in my opinion, only a small part is luxury spending.

  • The point of the per mile tax is to replace the tax which is levied on gasoline, when gasoline is no longer used by EVs.

    The gas tax does not fund road building and maintenance, its yield is many times greater than the spend on roads, and its anyway not hypothecated.

    What you have to pay attention to in this tax is how policy in the UK Labour Party evolves, bu the end goal remains the same. The basic idea is to tax transport. The old way fails, so a new way of taxing transport is introduced. Whether its su

    • You're ascribing an awful lot of thought and direction to a party which has shown very few signs of either of those.

      Seriously your claiming Starmer believes all that shit? Prove it for the love of god please because no one else had figured out what that guy actually believes in.

    • by shilly ( 142940 )

      The UK private school sector has stayed stable at between 6 and 7% of pupils for literal decades, through endless policy changes. In London, it has become very expensive, but then London attracts a lot of extraordinary wealth, and schools charge what the market will bear. I say this with some knowledge as I had one kid at one expensive North London private school, and other has just switched from a GDST that was a bit cheaper to a different one for sixth form that is eye-watering.

      Fees aren’t driven by

  • Hey here is a simple idea... Why not do a toll? You know something simple that they do with trucks. For what I hate about this tax is what happens when you are outside of the country?

Optimization hinders evolution.

Working...