It does work the other way too of course. My Father drives a 3.0 Peugeot 406 V6. Its T reg. So his road tax is the same as yours. If it were a 2001 model it would be more. If they had carried on making them until 2006 a car with that sort of CO2 would be near £500 a year.
If you get pleasure from a car with a larger engine, going older is just about the only cost effective way to go.
Now that's interesting. I never knew that was the case, so in a way it's beneficial for large engine classic cars then?
|
|
At a guess my "classic" would have a CO2 figure of approaching 250 if it had been tested when manufactured. That would result in me paying £475 a year. Unfortunately my car is not old enough to be free but it costs me a very reasonable £225 a year.
|
Are current VED rules simply killing old cars?
The answer must be yes, not all, but quite a lot.
I have this debate with myself at MOT/VED renewal time. I have a 15 yr old Alhambra TDi that I might only do around 5k a year in, but it still returns 55mpg average (I've had 70mpg on 2 occasions on 180 mile runs and 60 mpg is easy in summer on long A road runs)
So £225 represents over 2000 miles in fuel or 40% of what I might spend a year in fuel. Add MOT and its 50%.
But, its a almost pristine ultra reliable car that I know inside out, that I can DIY service (except cambelts), everyone in the family loves and finds comfortable (velour seats!!!).
So each year, I angrily pay the £225 VED and £50 MOT.
Next year I epect it will be dearer again.
As commented earlier, society and government are pressuring people to throw away perfectly good stuff for so called eco friendlier tech - conveniently overlooking the true cost to the environment (and to us).
|
|
"Next year I epect it will be dearer again. As commented earlier, society and government are pressuring people to throw away perfectly good stuff for so called eco friendlier tech - conveniently overlooking the true cost to the environment (and to us)."
It's not just that. Governments daren't risk doing anything to damage the car-making business.
By the way, Skezza (and others) - are your consumptions read from your dashboard, or calculated from reliable measuements?
|
|
|
|
|
VED has never been fair, its just another green stealth tax and a very unfair one.
Lets take a company car, an Audi 2.0TDI e, VED band C, cost £0 for the first year then £30 there on in, that car covers £40k + miles per year. Now compare that to my sister who has a 10 year old Golf 1.6, the car has only done 37k, thats 3700 miles per year, but is paying £200 per year VED.
So not only will the Golf have used the roads less it will have also created far less polution. Which is more green, keeping a car longer and running it less or the energy used to make a new one? its a no brainer, yet no concession is made.
This is of course punishing those struggling on low and fixed incomes, as these are the people who cannot afford to replace their car every three years - OAP's are probably those most affected by running older cars.
Is answer to your question, the goverment does not want old cars on the road, not because they're not green, but because keeping an old car doesn't help lift the economy.
IMO a decent car made between 1998 and 2006 will probably be more reliable and last longer than one manufactured after, corrosion had been conquered, quality was better (pre recession) emission controls were more relaxed (DPF's etc) and the electronics were more simple.
I intend to keep my 02 Audi A4 TDI PD going for as long as possible, or at least until the government price it off the road...
|
VED has never been fair, its just another green stealth tax and a very unfair one.
How is VED a stealth tax. Its clear what you are paying. If I pay the same as another person with the same car what is unfair about that.
When i buy cars I look at the VED and use that as one of the selection criteria. If the car I choose has a high VED thats my decision but I will know what it is.
|
|
Fine for a choice you may make today, but what if you made that choice years ago, and whats to say the rules, or rates won't rise or change again in the future ?
I can see the green lobby coming after old diesel vehicles in the not too distant...
|
|
When the current system was introduced in 2001 it was cheaper for the highest level than the pre 2001 tax. This has now reversed by quite a margin.
It seems wrong to alter the relative positions after a car has been made. Its not as if the current owner can do anything about it.
|
|
I'm in no doubt that it's a tax on the poorest, I just hadn't brought that up as I was speaking from a purely vehicle perspective. The poorest usually own older cars, like mine, and as such, then pay more in tax than those who can afford newer cars.
I really hope they don't retrospectively change the rules anymore, because I already feel £225 is far too much for my car, considering the facts and figures. I pay it, because I'm still reeping the benefits of the original cost, but that won't be the case in a few years.
|
|
VED seems to be adjusted to maximise the profit from the most popular cars.
i.e hit the 'Mondeo man' band in the area of £200, with the token £0-30 band for the electric cars we see so often, and the stupid £480 band to penalise the 'gas guzzlers'
When we're all dying in g-whizz related crashes they will be charged at around £200! It will never be about green credentials, always about maximising the intake from the most popular cars
|
i.e hit the 'Mondeo man' band in the area of £200, with the token £0-30 band for the electric cars we see so often,
What century are you in. A typical Mondeo TDCi is between 114 CO2 for the 1.6 and 129 CO2 for the 2.0. The VED is either £30 or £105 for those.
My Seat Leon 1.4 TSI petrol is 119 CO2, £30 a year.
Since when has a Mondeo diesel or a Seat Leon petrol been "token electric cars".
|
|
I'm not sure what your point is...
|
I'm not sure what your point is...
Well if you cannot understand it I am not going to explain it.
|
|
Most diesel Mondeo's are like mine(59 plate) which have the 2.0 engine.Road tax is £175 with co2 at 156g/km.
Edited by Videodoctor on 06/11/2013 at 18:02
|
|
Unfortunately there's cut off points and just missed it dates in all walks of life, VED is just another of the myriad we have to endure.
Yes i suppose it would be annoying on such a frugal vehicle as Skezza's, but on the other hand that generation of cars win for their owners by being robustly simple and durable where their replacements, whilst being cheaper for VED, can present their owners with bills that make a £225 annual tax bill pale into insignificance.
Funny thing is my 3.2 24v MB is the same VED rate, just or unjust?, its on LPG so debatable which is more of a polluter.
As one postser has mentioned, its all designed to make us buy new, spend what little we have left after tax to keep their taxation merry go round turning, every transaction every person involved in the production distribution sale etc taxed and then taxed again, they want your money and thats all they want from you...apart from your unquestioning support every 5 years.
I suppose dissidents are those who buy even older cars, then feed them on home brew fuels thereby denying the monster food (tax)...that scenario might have featured just a little bit in the decision to LPG my old MB..;)...its not home brew but LPG is taxed substantially lower, for the time being.
Edited by gordonbennet on 06/11/2013 at 19:06
|
i.e hit the 'Mondeo man' band in the area of £200, with the token £0-30 band for the electric cars we see so often,
What century are you in. A typical Mondeo TDCi is between 114 CO2 for the 1.6 and 129 CO2 for the 2.0. The VED is either £30 or £105 for those.
My Seat Leon 1.4 TSI petrol is 119 CO2, £30 a year.
Since when has a Mondeo diesel or a Seat Leon petrol been "token electric cars".
Where did I say that a mondeo or leon was an electric car?
My point was the commonest cars will hit the VED sweet spot of 'around' £200 - and only the rare cars getting the £0 band. When everyone is in a Nissan leaf then VED for that will be around £200 (assuming VED still exists then)
|
|
|
VED has never been fair, its just another green stealth tax and a very unfair one.
So not only will the Golf have used the roads less it will have also created far less polution. Which is more green, keeping a car longer and running it less or the energy used to make a new one? its a no brainer, yet no concession is made.
Come on, a car doing 3700 miles/year has damaged the roads less, sure. But it has also paid less fuel tax. Must take rough with smooth.
|
|
Very true, but my point was that is a sleath tax, VED is now based on the emission of the vehicle (pollution tax?). Governments down the years have refused to add it to the cost of fuel as they know they can drag more tax out of low mileage owners by having a standard rate across the board. If the government was really serious about us being 'green' they would add it to fuel, common sense, more useage = more tax.
VED is fixed, an owner can affect the fuel tax he pays by the way he drives and the frequency he uses his car, a careful and economical driver will pay less tax, and of course be more 'green'....
|
|
VED rates are published.. there are lists on this site.
Any buyer worried about costs does their research BEFORE they buy.
To complain after that it's a stealth tax says more about the complainer - cos it ain't and it shows a lack of foresight when buying.
|
VED rates are published.. there are lists on this site.
Any buyer worried about costs does their research BEFORE they buy.
To complain after that it's a stealth tax says more about the complainer - cos it ain't and it shows a lack of foresight when buying.
Swing and a miss eh? You totally missed the point. Well done, have a cookie.
I'll reiterate for anyone who ignored the original post: I was fully aware of the cost of VED for my car. I also noted the main benefit being the initial cost of the car being much less.
I am not complaining about the price I am paying, I am simply highlighting that after five years of ownership, if my car is still running, the cost of VED will have negated the benefits of buying an older model. I will have spent £900 (assuming they don't retrospectively change the rules... again) on tax alone, which, added to what my car is currently worth privately, is roughly what you could get a newer model for. I was also trying to point out that by the time I've owned the car for five years, assuming it's been my daily driver all that time, it will have amassed roughly 200k miles and will be near 20 years old. It won't be worth much, if anything, but it might still be a perfectly good car. My point being that I would have to consider breaking it for parts, as to maximise any return on what I sold it for. Therefore, I'd be breaking a perfectly good car, for no other reason than the tax being very expensive. Do you understand now? :-) Wonderful.
|
|
Sorry but anyone who buys a car and uses it and looks on it as an investment should really rethink their view of cars...
|
|
You're still missing the point. Are you a politician?
|
You're still missing the point. Are you a politician?
No I am a normal driver who thinks cars are white goods which cost a lot to run . Period.
And to debate Government VED rules may be interesting but an exercise in fultility.
If I were a politician I would soft soap you -= but I am not so you are micturating into the wind.
|
|
My point isn't to argue about VED rules. I'm also not debating the economic logic behind owning a car.
I'll reiterate, hopefully for the last time, that from a purely environmental sense, we're wasting cars primarily because of VED. We're destroying cars, simply for the sake of it due to the VED cost being too high. I'm in no doubt that if I do it, albeit in a few years, that many others are already doing it. It's not that hard to understand and it doesn't take a genius to work out the logic behind it, especially when there's such a lucrative parts market. So my point, once again, is that VED is killing old cars because there are better options than to keep the car. Three options yes?
1. Keep the car, continue paying expensive tax, but by this point you're now overpaying.
2. Break the car for parts.
3. Sell the car to a scrappy that may give you £150-£200 for it.
In two cases, you're basically scrapping a perfectly good car.
|
My point isn't to argue about VED rules. I'm also not debating the economic logic behind owning a car.
I'll reiterate, hopefully for the last time, that from a purely environmental sense, we're wasting cars primarily because of VED. We're destroying cars, simply for the sake of it due to the VED cost being too high. I'm in no doubt that if I do it, albeit in a few years, that many others are already doing it. It's not that hard to understand and it doesn't take a genius to work out the logic behind it, especially when there's such a lucrative parts market. So my point, once again, is that VED is killing old cars because there are better options than to keep the car. Three options yes?
1. Keep the car, continue paying expensive tax, but by this point you're now overpaying.
2. Break the car for parts.
3. Sell the car to a scrappy that may give you £150-£200 for it.
In two cases, you're basically scrapping a perfectly good car.
I still thaink you're starting from a false premise. You, and everyone else in an older car, whether pre emmissions VED or not, need to look at the whole cost.
You're doing 20k miles plus and assuming your realisitc (as opposed to out on a run best) fuel consumption is 50mpg paying well north of £2k for fuel. Add in a couple of basic services and a decent contribution for bits that inevitably wear out or fail and lets say it's costing you £3k a year to run. Depreciation is pretty well zero.
But your obssessing about a an 'excess' VED of £130 which is 4% of your runnig costs. Change the car and you're losing far more in depreciation.
Just drive it, enjoy it, and stop moaning ;-P
|
|
Lets see.
Your logic is that VED costs of say an extra £200 per year are more expensive than annual depreciation of £3k/year on a new car.
Hmm..
|
|
If the government was really serious about us being 'green' they would add it to fuel, common sense, more useage = more tax.
VED is fixed, an owner can affect the fuel tax he pays by the way he drives and the frequency he uses his car, a careful and economical driver will pay less tax, and of course be more 'green'....
VED is, and I think always has been, a tax on owning a road vehicle, pure and simple - or more accurately (SORN) on putting it on the public road. Originally it would have been a tax on the rich. Maybe it was intended as a deterrent to ownership, but if so, it doesn't work?
Edited by Andrew-T on 06/11/2013 at 23:32
|
VED is, and I think always has been, a tax on owning a road vehicle, pure and simple - or more accurately (SORN) on putting it on the public road. Originally it would have been a tax on the rich. Maybe it was intended as a deterrent to ownership, but if so, it doesn't work?
Originally of course it was intended to fund the expansion of the road network as vehicle numbers exploded in the early decades of last century. A rare example of a tax earmarked to a specific purpose. Many local roads were little more than dirt tracks until the twenties. The oldest locals will tell you they remember what's now the A4500 linking Northampton with M1/J16 was a shady lane.
The oddity is that nearly 90 years after Churchill abolished the Road Fund there's still a missaprehension that this tax pays for the roads.
In the past I guess car ownership would have been a proxy for a degree of wealth, certainly, Model T notwithstanding that would be case until after WW1. However my Grandfather had a car before WW2. While, as a Mill Manager, he would have graduted to the middle classes he wouldn't have been rich by any rational standard, though i suppose much better off than a Jarrow marcher.
|
|
My motor tax record for the last 21 years, all 1.4 eight valve engines has been. 1992 £100, 1999 £130, 2000 £55 then grading back up to this year £130, next year £140. You win some and lose some. At least i am getting more mpg these days.
|
|
I pulled down some statistics on classic cars some time ago and probably half of the cars that were kept in the tax bracket by that nice Mr Brown are Sorn'd. That means that there are a lot of classics that would be used if their tax was less than £225 and make a contribution to the economy of several times that amount in fuel tax, VAT, spares and repairs etc.
The only alternative is to add the VED to the cost of fuel but of course that would disciminate against the newer "greener" vehicles. It is , as always, a case of pay up and shup up if you want to enjoy your vehicle!
|
|
|
|
|
"However my Grandfather had a car before WW2. While, as a Mill Manager, he would have graduated to the middle classes he wouldn't have been rich by any rational standard, though i suppose much better off than a Jarrow marcher."
My mother (no longer with us) owned a Jowett several years before they introduced the driving test in ?1936, so never took one. She would also have been 'middle class', her father having been in the Indian Education Service in the days of the Raj.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
