OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Unfair Taxation of Motor Coaches.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1908] Sir —At a general meeting of motor coach owners held at the offices of the M.T.A., 157, GreatPortland Street, W., a large and enthusiastic audience had the pleasure of listening to a capable and instructive lecture delivered by Col. A. Hacking, D.S.O. (general secretary of the Motor Legislation Conunittee), who dealt fully with the present and proposed new regulations affecting motor coachee. At;the close of his address he invited questions from hie audience, which were asked and ably
answered. Also, he listened to suggestions and grievances from several members. The present method of taxation, relating particularly to motor coaches was discussed, and the general feeling was that the tax on petrol would be a fairer method than the system now prevailing.
By far the greater number of motor coaches are laid up. during six months of the year, as it is impossible to pay the tax and realize a profit on the small amount of business available. In fact, you cannot ,earn enough to pay the tax. • I suggest all members of the M.T.A. should write a letter to the secretary protesting against the present .method of taxation, and at the same time suggesting a tax on petrol consumed. It is a ,speculation to take out a licence which most of us in the business cannot afford to risk, whereas, if we pay on petrol consumed, several jobs now turned down would be carried out, and this elass of business would be greatly developed.
If this method were adopted I feel sure the licensing authorities would gain. I strongly advise all motor coach owners to become members of the M.T.A. The subscription is very reasonable, the advantages too numerous to mention, and it is good to hear from time to time how the trade is progressing.—Yours faithfully,
Greenwich. W. G. Gins INS.
Courting Higher Taxation.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MoTOR
[1909] Sir,—Your columns are full of groans as regards taxation, but may I be pearnitted to observe that the owners of mechanically-propelled vehicles, especially lorries, have themselves to blame to a very large extent ; in fact, if they will quietly look into the position from other points of view, I think they will agree that they are lucky not to he taxed at even higher rates.
.The road bill of this country is going to be, apparently, some 240,000,000, to which mechanicallypropelled vehicles only contribute about 210,000,000; the balance, i.e., 75 per cent.' is borne by the local authorities, who extract it in the form of ratet from the inhabitants, the majority of whom do not even oWn any such vehicles, let alone make any profit out of the roads.
Of this total sum of money, a very large paoporMon must go on road maintenance and repair, and as the damage done is principally due to mechanically-propelled vehicles driven for profit, one wonders haw long the unfortunate inhabitants who do not Own such vehicles will stand being taxed in the ratio of 75 per cent. to 25 per cent. My attention has been drawn to-day to a whole-column article in one of the biggest daily papers, describing a run in England on a 2 ton lorry of a certain foreign make. The writer says that the catalogued speed of 36 m.p.h. with full load" was quite possible. I ask you, Sir, if this is going to do any good? 'If this speed is provided for presumably it will -sometimes be used, and what chance is there for the road and for reduced taxation? The provision of an engine capable of giving 36 m.p.h. with full load on a 2 ton lorry, even with pneumatic tyres, is worm) than short-sightedness.
In the first place, it implies that the engine is unnecessarily powerful, for the legal maximum speed is presumably 12. m.p.h., and, consequently, a much smaller and less costly engine, both in capital as well as running cost, would have been possible.
Secondly, it means that, to stand the strains set up by such an attainable catalogued speed a very much stronger, heavier, and more expensive chassis is necessary, to say nothing about tyres. Indeed, one may presume that, like most British-made lorries, the tare weight is greater than the load carried, which is fundamentallywrong. Lastly, it is the height of folly to ask for further taxation, which is already killing the trade, by rutting on the market a lorry with a "catalogued" lea.decl speed of 36 m.p.h. The damage done to roads even at 12 m.p.h. for total weight on the road (distributed over only four wheels) is bad enough already. If we see speeds of such dimensions as 36 m.p.h. then good-bye to any alleviation of taxation; indeed, it is very certain that heavier taxation will have to be imposed, and that will put the final nail into the coffin of the motor lorry business. What the business men can do to save the situation is to devote their attention to making the tare weight less than the load weight and to develop the Tie:Ai-wheel drive which you yourself have so ably advocated. The present type of lorry is out of date, and the sooner this fact is recognized the better. I shall probably be told if the 12 m.p.h. limit is adhered to (and the only real way to do so is to govern the engine), that much business will be lost through loss of time. My answer is: you cannot have it both ways, and, short of making roads of iron or glass (the latter is quite feasible), either we have got to submit to further taxation to make good the damage to roads or we must bring out a new type of lorry combining light tare weight compared with load, and multi-wheel drive.
The Ministry of Transport has already indicated that, if types of lorries are submitted which do not damage the roads to the same degree as existing types, they will be prepared to reduce the tax on such new types proportionately.—Yours faithfully, London. T. G. TULLOOH.'
A Coach Licence for October Needed.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR. [1910] Sir,--I was pry pleased to see your article in The Commercial Motor for February-14th on the question of the need for a monthly licence for a motor coach for the month of October. After the middle of October last year I did BC little business that I came to the conclusion that I was out of pocket over it. If I could have got a month's licence for 26 instead of paying 218 for the three months it would have made a difference to me. I got a few football parties later On, but it paid so little that I did not take out a licence on January 1st, If I license at the end of this month it will cost me 242 to the end of September and 260 to the end of the year. I could have got a year's licence for thelatter figure, but I should have had a couple oil men standing about doing nothing. What would suit me (for I am on the south coast would be an eight months' licence for 248.—Yours iathfully,
Sussax Owaara.