I wouldn't necessarily say that high fuel prices only hits the high-mileage driver. A tank of fuel costs the same for everyone (dependent upon the car of choice, of course).
Of course as prices go up, they affect people to the same proportion. A 10% increase is a 10% increase, whichever way you look at it. If you're on a low income and already struggling to find £20 per week for fuel, then maybe that extra £2 pinches even more than the extra £10 per week that someone with a £100 fuel bill has to find.
I tend to do a lot of work for older, retired people (not saying they can't drive or park...), and many have kept the car they last had when working (S-type jag, for example). They only drive a couple of thousand miles per year - so what real environmental damage are they causing, that they need to be penalised for?
Presumably the S Type used more resources to build than, say, a Kia Picanto. That's the argument that I was putting forward at least. We all know the truth is that they're really being hammered for having the audacity to buy something other than an electric roller skate.
The old excuse behind VED (or Road Tax, as it was named & the funds notionally intended for), was the maintenance of the existing road network, and the creation of new roads as & when needed.
That is clearly no longer the case; the existing roads can resemble a bombsite, and any new roads are few & far between. It is now the case of 'the polluter, paying' (which is another way of saying, they 'the motorist' are good enough to take money from, but not good enough for us 'the govt' to spend on).
In a country where every penny you pay in income tax goes straight to someone's benefit payments (well it did last year at least) it's hardly surprising that fuel duty and VAT only just cover the interest on our national debt. I don't think they're really even trying to pretend that VED goes straight onto the roads. They'd rather have you believe that it's being invested in public transport, although that's far from evident too.
If bureaucracy really wanted us to buy green, rather than just be taxed just for owning a car (far less having the audacity to use it), they would've kept the Powershift grant scheme which subsidised cars being converted to LPG (a much less-taxed fuel, which also saves the environmental expense involved in building/shipping a new hybrid) - the reason they stopped funding this subsidy makes me question their ethics - they really don't want people spending less (and being taxed less).
Its a crock of something, the colour of which sure isn't 'green'.
Yes, there's plenty of evidence to indicate that the true motives aren't about being 'green.' It's all a crock of something nasty. But increased VED on higher emissions vehicles is no bigger a crock than the hefty so-called environmental taxes on the fuel itself. I'm against both. I just don't see one as being any worse than the other. Both can easily be justified with the correct application of political spin.