THE C.M.U.A. AND TAXATION A QUERY.
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By " Vectis:
IT IS WITH some hesitation that I venture to ask the hospitality of the columns o'f The Commercial Motor for a comment which, I fear, cannot be acceptable to an association which has from the first worked • with the paper on very friendly terms and has received from it and members of its staff most invaluable support. There is, however, no question of an alliance so close as to render The Commercial Motor liable to close its columns against critics of the C.M.U.A., and I feel that, at. the present juncture, a criticism, which I hope will not be regarded as unfriendly, is fully justified.
The C.M.U...k. is, without a doubt the principal organization among those which go to form the Standing Joint Committee of Mechanical Transport Associations. -Very near to it and, I believe, overlapping in respect of membership is the representative organization of the London omnibus companies. For the rest, the components of the Standing Joint Committee consist of bodies which are, in. the main, interested in the operation of steam-driven vehicles. These latter cannot legitimately be concerned in the question of the basis of taxation of petrol vehicles, provided that the petrol vehicleS, in the lump, pay
their proper share and the steam vehicles pay an , amount which is agreed by their proprietors as being reasonable.
Among the components of the Standing Joint Committee are also a certain number of people interested in electric vehicles, to whom the same argument applies. There is, also, a body concerned with motorcycle fuel. I can hardly imagine that this last has endorsed the policy of the Standing Joint Committee with regard to taxation, since there seems to be no question about the preference of motorcycle users and manufacturers for the petrol tax as against the new system. Thus, out of about ten bodies, there appear to be only two which are at all likely to have taken a deep interest in the question of the taxation of petrol vehicles, namely, the C.M.U.A. and the London omnibus proprietors. ..
Is the Bus being Proportionately Taxed ?
Now, it seems to be generally recognized that, despite the somewhat substantial amount of the licence duty which the Government intends to impose on London buses, i this duty represents a smaller percentage increase n their cape than in the case of any other class of motor user. The point is, of course, that the mileage of the London bus is exCeptionally high and the burden of the petrol tax was proportionate to mileage. It may be, of course, that . the London bus companies are peculiarly
• altruistic. They see that, if anyone is in a position to use alternative fuels—as, for example, alcoholbenzole mixtures—and so to evade taxation, they will be the first in a position to do so. Their maintenance organization is so complete that they can quite well • use fuels which, for the present, would not be practical from the point of view of smaller motor proprietors. One can imagine the directors, in meeting, agreeing unanimously that it would be most unfair for them to advocate a system of taxation which might allow them to escape lightly and throw all the bar-den upon others.
This is a beautiful thought, but a general study of human nature shakes one's confidence in the theory. Consequently, one begins to imagine these same directors. lookingat the question from exactly the opposite point of view and considering how the companies with which they are concerned can get off most lightly. It is an established fact that the London bus people want the Government scheme to go through, and, to my mind, this means that they have no early expectation of evading the petrol tax if it were continued„ but feel that, in that case, the tax would be so_ eminently practicable that it Would secure more money from them than the new proposals. This is a plain business point of view, and take it that we are. discussing business men and their probable attitude. It seems to me that the mere fact that the London bus companies svar.b the petrol tax discontinued is conclusive evidence that there is very little in the theory that that tax can be easily evaded.
The Attitude of the C.M.U.A. towards the Tax.
Now, what of the C.M.U.A. 1 The Association has taken up its position alongside of the bus proprietors, the membership of the two bodies overlapping. From the inquiries that I have made, which have been numerous, I judge that the small commercial vehicle owner would much sooner have the old petrol tax than. the new scheme of duties. His mileage is comparatively small and is variable, and he wants to pay on the basis of the work actually done, rather than on the basis of the work k his vehicle s capable of doing. The C.M.U.A. is, I believe, fairly representative in membership both of small and of large proprietors. I take it that it is probably governed by a comm cc on which the latter are predominant. The small Nan would, naturally, leave it to the big men to manage the affairs of the whole matter, on. accoimis of the greater influence they can exert.
Now, I am firmly convinced that, for every one commercial user who is prepared to endorse the published opinion of the Joint Committee, there are three who would take the opposite view. It is a question of a few big people against a great many small ones. Possibly, the big group own the larger number of
i
vehicles n the aggregate, but it does not seem to me that this being so would justify the C.M.U. A. in officially adopting a policy repugnant to the majority of its members, which, I san convinced, it is doing at the present juncture,
Are Bus Interests Controlling the Situation ?
What the thing comes to is that the big bus companies have "captured the machine," both of the Association and of the Standing Joint Committee, with the result that it is highly probable that the Government will force through a series of proposals entirely contrary to the wishes of the bulk; of commercial vehicle owners, but will do so solely on the grounds that these very people who dislike those proposals have, through their representative organization, apparently expressed the utmost affection for them.
Unless I am grossly mistaken, the C.M.U.A. has either misinterpreted the feelings of its members, or else is sacrificing the interests of the many in the interests of the few who chance to have the power of public expression of the Association's supposed policy.
The proper course would be for the question to be referred in a completely unbiassed manner to all members, and, if the replies received proved that I i am right n my contention,lor the Association to give the same prominence to an anncamcemesit °Pits revision of policy as it has already sloneito its almost unnaturally fervid support of proposals, which appear to be heartily disliked by very large numbers of commercial motor users.