Leslie

I have to say that is no valid excuse for finding yet another way to rip off the motorist so that they can continue with their shameful overspending on things which are a total waste and useless to the majority of people of this country.

Les

PeteBrant

How is it ripping off the motorist?

It a choice on the behalf of the person. That's entirely what disincentives are about.

The government is sayign you can continue to drive an uneconomical car, and pay the costs - Or you can pay far less, and have a much greener vehicle.

The choice is completely up to individual. If you decide to pay the £400, when you have the opportunity to pay £50, then the only person you can blame is yourself.

Ghetto Dude3

doubt it, these cars are getting on for 10years + old

most will be falling to bits anyway
seams like a load of extra hassle for cars that will be getting scrapped soon enough anyway IMO

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Its not a disencentive if you bought a car in 2001 to 2006 as you bought it based on the prevailing tax burden back then, ok, you expect it to go up in line with inflation but for some cars it will have trebled since 2001. We arent even really talking about massive gaz guzzlers here, my dad bought a ZT 190, ok its a V6 but his road tax has gone from 165 to 400 quid.

Ok they dont like big/powerful/wasteful cars, we get it but a little more warning would have been nice, we need time to modify our choices, rather than having to once we have made them.

So if thats not a ripoff I dont know what is, whats next, retrospective income tax at 30P in the pound so the honest taxpayer can fund wars we dont want. Makes me laugh when we are told that the war is for the people over there, ok and theres the matter of all that oil so we keep a bit quiet as they are safeguarding our cheap supply of oil, that sounds like crap as well, 50p per litre in tax, plus vat, so we get dicked, whatever happens.

PeteBrant

Yup, the 2001-2006 is slightly unfair. However, Bands did exist when the car was bought, and the argument is that you could not have expected those prices to remain static. Of course, the fact that at the point you purchased the car, the top band was, what, £190 a year shoul dbe taken into account.
Agreed. However, you now have that choice ot mae - ok, so one year you get hit - But subsequent years are entirely your own choice. Keep the car, or sell it.

skoobidude

As one poster said earlier:
Why not get rid of road tax all together and put it all on fuel duty. Gas guzzlers use more, tiny engines use less... Easy to work out.
People who own more than one vehicle have to tax both at the moment when they can only drive one at any time .
Example: Golf Diesel for weekday car, a Caterham for weekend blasts. You pay for whatever Fuel/**** you pump out, when it's pumped out. Simple!

Oh ang on a mo... That means the government will end up with less money.
Damn we can't do that!
About-turn....

PeteBrant

There are a million and one reasons why this is the best approach.

But it seems no political party is willing to go down this road, presumably because you cannot control congestion with it.

I would happily pay extra on fuel and no road tax - its a fairere system all round. Why should a pensioner covering 5 miles a week, pay the same VED as a rep covering 2,000?

I would also add a further premuim on to fiel to have state run third party insurance. Which you top op to fully comp should you wish it.

Bingo, all of the sudden the uninsured driver problem is completely solved.

Martin2005

Hi Pete I've cleared out my PM inbox now, I'm intrigued

DYK

[quote=PeteBrant;7845581]How is it ripping off the motorist?

It a choice on the behalf of the person. That's entirely what disincentives are about.

The government is sayign you can continue to drive an uneconomical car, and pay the costs - Or you can pay far less, and have a much greener vehicle.

It wouldn't be so bad if the Goverment were actually doing this because they care about the enviroment,but we all know its Rollocks and they just using this green/enviroment as an excuse to rip off the motorist AGAIN..EASY TARGET £££££ CA CHING..do you really think Gordon Brown and his Clowns care about the Enviroment and this Country..And all us with high performance cars are gonna be basically stuck with em unless we sell at a real stupid cheap price or scrap them,because no one is going to want to buy em even px at a garage it will get to the stage when this tax really kicks in,that you will basically have to give your car away just to get rid....The Goverment is turning this country into a Boring/unsociable/expensive,society/culture....sorry for the Meldrew rant,,but im fed up with this goverment jumping on this Green issue as an excuse to drain more money out of us....Ive had a Drink

jonc

Also lets not forget the proposed "showroom tax" which will add a further tax of £2000 to the price of a new car!!

So the Gov' is running out of money, lets increase/create new taxes!! Perhaps also spark a panic buying session of the heavily taxed petrol/diesel while their at it to increase tax revenue for the short term by "urging" the public not to panic by in the wake of the Grangemouth strike.

PeteBrant

But it onply applies if you decide to buy a car of a certain type - Surely there is a difference between a duty that is designed to dissuade people from making certain choices and an out and out tax.

I don't have a choice whether to pay Income tax or not. I most definitel have a choice whether to buy a high emmisions car or not - It's not like I am forced into it.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

But it's retrospective, so therefore takes choice out of the equation to a point.

Also, do you really support a system, which to an extent forces a choice, think carefully about what that implies. Add to that, it's not just £50 grand + cars affected here. Really consider the fact that there will be so many people out there in cars bought before 2006, which are not going to have a huge resale value, that will be hit by this. They may not be in a position to sell, and even if they could, it would likely to be at a loss, and would not necessarily be able to afford a 'green' car in it's place. People with alot of money may complain, but will ultimately be able to carry on as they were, this really will hit those more ordinary folk, and for a labour government, that just sucks.

jonc

So for a family with 3 kids, who for practical reasons requires a large family car, which invariably are heavier generally have larger engines and thus produce more co2, I will be forced to pay the showroom tax.

What next? along with all the other taxes, it won't supprise me if we eventually have a pay as you drive tax too.

scooby-tc

iTrader: (2)

more like a pay as you breathe tax - afterall humans and animals cause more co2 than any vehicles

PeteBrant

The showroomtax isn't retrospective which is what I was replying to.
Like I said, the 2001-2006 bands being affective is a bit off, I don't particualrly agree with it, but I can see the logic to it.

At the end of the day, you always have the option of changing your car - Those cars in the top bands don't all of the sudden become worthless because the tax has gone up by £100 or so.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

The point is Pete that I like driving a "performance" car. What I never asked for was the Govt to change things so that I end up paying through the nose for the privelege (sp?). They brought it in anyway despite what seems to be fairly high feelings amongst the voting public, you being the usual exception! It's hardly a choice is it? Pay £400 to drive my chosen car or £50 for something that I would despise ...

TX.

PeteBrant

I'm not sure that's true anymore - There are plenty of people carriers around that are in the lower tax bands.

Like petrol?

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

What about if no one wants to buy the £400 p/a taxed cars anymore? Might be able to get rid of them cheaply however that reduced price is as a direct result of Govt changes ... will they compensate me & millions of other motorists?

TX.

PeteBrant

I'm not being the exception, I'm just being a realist about it - Something was always going to happen, you could see it coming way back in 2001 when the bands were first introduced.

If you want to drive a performance car (and I fallintot hat category) then you are going to have to pay more and more for the right to do so - Regardless of who you vote in.

Afterall, we have done this with insurance since day one, and petrol costs. The faster your car, the more you pay. Is it really so surprising that this has rule of thumb has been applied to VED?

The government, and all the mainstream political parties are absolutely set on reducing CO2 emissions, the way to do that is disincentivise the public from polluting.

PeteBrant

I don't beleive that this will be the case. Has the price of fuel, which in annual terms is way beyond that of the VED rates had an effect resale value to that extent?

Worse case, you say to any potential buyer "i'll knock off £200 for next years tac".

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

As you probably know cars aren't the big CO2 polluters though are they. They account for something like 3% of the total worldwide/UK CO2 emmissions (sp?). Cars are any easy target though for taxation purposes as it's circa 40m drivers who as individuals are almost powerless to do anything about such insidious taxes. Big businesses on the other hand can do something (threaten to move out of the UK, lobby the Govt etc) hence get away fairly scot free ...

TX.

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

If we even just stick with subarus for this discussion (which is not the only people effected), a person could have bought one in say 2002, before anyone had a clue of what could be coming. The price was x then, and through depreciation alone is alot less now, but due to the tax issue, prices will be effected even more. Their car now isn't worth much, but taxation may force a sale. Even if they can take the potential loss, not only why should they, but also, what about negative equity, if bought on finance, or whatever they make on what is now an inexpensive car for a potential buyer, what may they be able to afford in replacement, in terms of a green car. Take into consideration price drops in the used market for certain cars.

It's not all about choices, people have been effected by this, who never saw it coming, and may not be in a position to just change cars. It should have started from now, not 2001. OK, to some a couple of hundred quid a year will be nothing, but to some, it will be more than a problem. It can't be right to almost backdate taxes like this, without the choice available.

But like I said earlier, do you, or anyone else, really agree with forcing choices. Think about previous discussions about other issues.

I actually agree with giving incentives for behaviour, for want of a better phrase, but I whole heartedly disagree with punishments, taxation, and penalties. I have problems with the way society is, but if real changes need to happen (all down to acceptance of certain issues), I believe positive incentives are the way to go, rather than disincentives. You win the faith of people out there, and you may just get a result, but that doesn't make any money, does it?

jonc

Of course none of this affects MP's since they'll just reclaim all it all back as expenses on tax payers money and continue to drive their not so green "stately" cars a few hundered yard to go from one meeting to the next!

speedking

The change in name from "Road tax" to "vehicle Excise Duty" was when the rot set in. No link between the money collected from motorists and its use to build, modify, repair and maintain roads.

Also, if its all about pollution, which is an absolute 1:1 between emissions and effect, why have a huge step change for 'high' polluters. Why not charge a 200g/km car twice the tax of a 100g/km car? This has the same effect as the transfer of VED to petrol.

lozgti

Well,all it has encouraged me to do is to think I will be looking at classic cars.

Which is good because I hate most new cars with a passion.

Butt ugly to save pedestrians/comply with NCAP and rubbish wheezy 1.2 petrols or flipping diesels.

I'm sorry but smug 'I have a 95mpg super green VW polo with 35paVED'people get right up my nose .

As someone mentioned in the paper,they will be paying the same in Road Tax for his 4/5 year old car as someone in a spanking new £1,000,000 Veyron.

Tax the poor labour.You seem good at that

Leslie

If you must have an uneconomical car Pete, then you are paying for it via the fuel tax and VAT. Not at all necessary to get you twice just for the sake of screwing yet more motorists into the ground making a lot more cash to sling around for their own advantage.

The "green tax" bit is a cynical way to dump more and more taxation on the people in a most unfair manner.

Les

DYK

Another thing is for example,take two cars of the same make,lets say a mitsubishi shogun..one is 2001,and the other is 1999..Does anyone know or think that there is going to be any or little difference in emissions.it's just because one is registered a year or so later.and yet your being hit in the pocket twice as much,so we all got to be driving cars with a lawn mower engine under the bonnet,reving the rollocks out of it for 20 seconds or more,just so we can get up to 40mph.we will all be driving cars that sound like the Crazy Frog..ITS JUST A BIG CON,and everyone knows it.even to those who don't want to admit it...

PeteBrant

The reaosn is that there were no tax band pre 2001. Therefore no "official" record of emissions for those vehicles (although easily obtainable one would imagine)

THe government, has shyed away from banding pre-2001 cars so far - Whether they will in the future is debateable. I don't think they will do it. They will rely on the natural order of things to weed those cars off the road in the next 5-10 years- It would be a waste to spend the money banding and administrating those vehicles that in all likelyhood are going to exist in any meaningful numbers in the next decade.

zip106

Let's look at it another way.
We could all drive around in 4x4 pick-ups that seat 5 people with loads of room in the back.
Granted, not exactly 'fast' but mine only costs me £120 per year RFL and it only does at best 30mpg.(and kicks out more than 225co2)

The 'Greens' really love it.......

Luan Pra bang

Thats not a bit off its a **** take. The is the tax is an incentive not to buy the car or own it. It is not an incentive not to drive one. I drive less than 6k miles a year in my Subaru because I can walk to work. At 400 pounds a year on top of insurance etc it becomes a penalty on owning the car even though my carbon footprint is tiny.
They should have taxed petrol more as that is the only logical solution but of course politically they take descions to help them stay in power not descions to do what is right. Hopefully in the next general election they will get booted out and for a few years at least we might get a party with some understanding of reality.