Open mouth, insert foot...
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
It's hardly surprising that hauliers encouraged to move to three-axle tractors before last week's Budget are up in arms about what should have been good news—the reduction in VED rates. Many will have sold their older two-axle tractors in order to run at the maximum weight of41 tonnes on six axles, only to find that they would now be better off if they'd held on to their 4X2S.
In some respects, of course, this is just the downside of an unexpected blessing. But, given that five-aided artics wear the road surface more than their six-axled counterparts running at the same weight, we are bound to question the sense of such a move.
The other big question is the effect of 44 tonnes for general haulage, which is due to arrive next January, with a VED rate of f2,95o. Anyone currently stumping up f2,500 VED for a 41-tonner on six axles is bound to be tempted, but those running at 40 tonnes on five axles may not be, despite the fi,000 VED saving—for the same reasons that they will not move to 41 tonnes now.
Buying patterns depend on total operating costs, and the chances of making extra money out of the extra tonnage. As we saw with the 40/4itonne limits, not everyone thinks extra weight means extra revenue.
So while any reduction in VED rates is good news, introducing a strong incentive to stay with five-axle combinations even as you announce new environmentally friendly sixaxle limits is a bit of an own-goal.
Ironically, had Brown left the fiveaxle 4o-tonne rate where it was, at L5,750, he'd have had a lot more takers for 44-tonners next January.
Open mouth please, Mr Brown, and insert foot.