MOTOR CAR TAXATION.

Marlborough Express, Volume LIV, Issue 166, 16 July 1920, Page 2

MOTOR CAR TAXATION.

CRITICISM OF BRITISH PRO-

PqSAL

The Government's taxation proposals, which are duo shortly, will be awaited with very great interest by til! motorists, ajid are certain to provoke an. animated discussion. So far as the incidence of the new taxation on British motorists is concerned, the arguments brought forward by the Government, says The Autocar, axe singularly unconvincing. A great deal is said about the impossibility of retaining tho motor spirit duty, particularly in respect to its collection, but no facts are vouchsafed. Sir Eric Geddes (Minister for Transport) seems quite prepared to play to the gallery, and t/> impress upon the gullible that it is the '"luxury" car owner who will be hit. Sir Eric's definition of a luxury car owner appeals to be the man who works hard all through the week, and can drive only on Saturday and Sunday. In ihe debate on the Budget resolutions, the* Minister for Transport said: — '■The more a man uses his car only for week-ends, and who keeps it as a luxury, and does not use it regularly like a doctor, is the man who is worst hit." On the face of it the statement is a remarkable one to come from a Minister who is proposing new taxation for the maintenance of road surfaces. It would indeed be difficult to imagine anything more farcical than the serious advocacy of a system of taxation that makes the hardworking week-end motorist pay for the road wear caused by his more fortunate neighbor who can use his car freely all the week. If a man had not the car, he would probably take up some other form of recreation or pastime of less general benefit to tho community in that he might not give employment in the iT-any industries connected with the construction, repair, operation and equipment of the car, to say lofcV-^ oi: the catering, as in touring, otc.