If I was in charge, and wanted to socially engineer people, I would at least try and do it with positive actions rather than punitive taxes and penalties and bans etc,,,,,
Also, something I learned while reading my Local City Council's PDF files on transport policy was that they tax new houses by about £4,000 with what they call "Sustainable transport levy" which is supposed to go on public transport, this is based on garage, driveway, number of bedrooms, they bill the developer, who of course passes it on to the home owner,.....why is this kept so secret? Transparency of taxes please!
|
Something needs to change though:-
You currenlty pay less VED on an old smokey 1.4 Escort than a modern catalysed efficient petrol such as the Seat Leon 1.4/ VW Golf 1.4 VED band B
That doesnt make sense!!
|
I agree with that.
However, until they have got a handle on making everybody tax and register their cars properly, there doesn't seem much point in trying to make the system more complex.
|
|
I choose to run a high performance car with poor fuel economy. For this I pay more on fuel duty than most.(I get about 25mpg).I use more therefore I pay more. Why should I pay again with higher VED?
|
>>I choose to run a high performance car with poor fuel economy. For this I pay more on fuel duty than most.(I get about 25mpg).I use more therefore I pay more. Why should I pay again with higher VED?<<
Thanks PR for putting the case so succinctly. I would only add that my "modern classic" does less than 1k miles per year at a lot less than 25 mpg, so pays its whack at the pump, and I can't get less than 3k miles worth of expensive insurance; enough is enough!
Rudolf
|
Of course paying tax on fuel is the perfectly simple way of taxing fuel (in)efficiency.
There's no point in trying to figure out how this government can justify an increase in "road" tax for environmental reasons, there is no justification, it's simply a very typical "New?" (Old) Labour envy tax, often backed up by dull people whose mission in life is to ban and / or control anything that other people do if it doesn't quite comply with the way they carry out their own lives.
The government seems to be defaulting to its typical old labour ways of thinking up ever more devious ways of taxing us into a submissive state.
|
|
|
|
I choose to run a high performance car with poor fuel economy. For this I pay more on fuel duty than most.(I get about 25mpg).I use more therefore I pay more. Why should I pay again with higher VED?
I suppose that depends partly on what you consider to be an appropriate level of taxation on non-essential use of a limited resource -- and that's a long discussion.
However, if it is public policy to discourage the use of fuel-inefficient vehicles, then there is good reason to consider levying part of the tax through a standing charge (such as VED) and part of it through fuel tax.
That not only increases the transparency of the tax, it also discourages the purchase of such vehicles, by increasing the cost even for low mileage users. If the aim of public policy is to ensure that fewer of each year's new cars are fuel-inefficient, then it is important to discourage their purchase even for low-mileage use ... because second-hand buyers then have fewer efficient cars to choose from.
Increasing the VED is also likely to reduce the s/h value of inefficient cars, thus further incresaing the disincentive to buy them in the first place.
I know that not everyone here will share my enthusiasm for maximising fuel efficiency, but I'm just trying to make the point that if improved fuel efficiency is the objective, then the proposed form of taxation is one rational tool to use in achieving it.
|
|
|
|
This thread isn't entirely about jealousy and revenge, Mark. Some of it may be an attempt to reduce congestion, i.e. the unpleasant truth that so many other people are trying to do what I want to do that we all get in each other's way. As money is the simplest thing to demand in exchange for a 'favour', that is the first (and often the only) method to be tried. Uncle Ken tried it in London, apparently with some success.
Problem is, there is so much money about, for many people it causes little pain, just a lot of resentment.
|
reducing congestion could be done more efficiently by raising tax on *all* vehicles, not just a sub-set.
Increase the fuel tax and you will get the higher fuel consumption cars.
Raise VED and one of two things will happen, or perhaps a combination of the two; you will decrease the number of the cars on the road, or you will decrease the number of cars on the road legally
Where is the logic in singling out a group within the whole ? There are cars which polute more than an SUV. There are vehicles which damage the roads more than an SUV, there are vehicles which cause and are involved in more accidents than an SUV; its just that nobody is sufficiently jealous, envious or resentful of a Reliant Robin to bother legislating against them or taxing them more..
|
|
But Relaint robins are harming no-one else. They are not armoured, nor do they carry bull-bars to emphasise their antipodean toughness, nor do they frighten small children by darkening the sky.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mind paying a grand extra for my gas guzzling Land Cruiser. I'm self employed, so I simply pass the cost on to my customers. And those customers are the likes of you guys, even if you have a 70mpg diddly little car. Get real, like any taxes, we all end up paying for them, no matter who they're initially aimed at.
|
I agree that there is enough motoring tax as there is any more is just a way to gain more revenue for the government without having the raise taxes in other areas, the only different with motorists is that the government can do this under the smokescreen of "environmental reasons" and no one complains.
But something else that is bugging me, since when did people in this country start calling 4x4's by the very american Sport utility vehicle (SUV)?
|
|
I just hope that this isn't introduced on existing cars - what am I going to do with my Omega - God knows I wouldn't be able to afford to run it and it would become next to worthless (and I know someone will tell me it already is).
|
Well well well,
£1K on bigger cars including 4 wheel drives?
That will definately win the agricultral vote around here (not)!
Hugo
|
"pass the cost on to my customers"
And from what I gather, quite a few companies pass on the cost of getting their kids to school and wife to shops in these 4x4s also!!
Present company excluded of course, he says as he dives for cover!!!
|
|
|
Dave, if you pass the cost of your gas-guzzler on to your customers, your competitors (assuming you have some) who drive small cars will have a price advantage?
|
|
|
|
Agree with Andrew - too many people all trying to do what they want and getting increasingly fed up with everyone else exercising their right to do likewise. Something has to give sooner or later.
I think if HMG was really interested in the environment they'd simply ban certain types of vehicle/engine. Likewise if they were really interested in health (as opposed to raising revenue) they'd ban smoking, alcohol, fatty foods, etc. etc.
Don't buy the jealousy argument - it implies that everyone who doesn't drive some form of large engined 4x4 (call it what you will), people carrier or whatever lves in envy of those who do. Why would that be ? They're not exactly scarce or in the luxury/prestige price bracket are they so why would anyone who didn't choose to drive one covet such a car any more than any other vehicle?
|
>>Don't buy the jealousy argument - it implies that everyone who doesn't drive some form of large engined 4x4
No it doesn't. Since not all of them have sufficiently small lives to worry about what someone else chooses to buy/drive.
AS for banning stuff, oh give me strength. If one wants to be a fat, drunken, chain smoker, then good luck to you. It is still, mostly, a free world and its your own body.
And don't give me the drain on the health system clap trap, have a look at the bill for the health service and then compare it with the amount of money taken from tobacco taxation.
Some time while I was away two things happened in this country; 1) we fell in love with the idea of banning stuff 2) we suddenly decided we had something to say about the way other people lead their lives.
Neither trait is attractive.
|
AS for banning stuff, oh give me strength. If one wants to be a fat, drunken, chain smoker, then good luck to you. It is still, mostly, a free world and its your own body.
As a moderator has gone off topic then I'll be cheeky and do the same
At last in America they are starting to see sense and have just passed a bill (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3500388.stm) banning people from taking out lawsuits against MacDonalds and the like just because they have no self control and have become obese.
More of that over here please.
|
|
|
|
I couldn't care less what people drive if it didn't have any effect on me or mine. Unfortunately some aspects of 4x4 fashion have a negative impact, and we have to share the roads and pavements with them. Its the ineptitude of some drivers, coupled with the limitations of such high and weighty vehicles, plus the doubtful motivation for owning them that causes ill-feeling. Fish out of water. As for having something to say about the way people lead their lives, there is nothing new in this, and its perfectly valid. Hogarth depicted the evils of drink in Gin Lane. Some writers here wish to poke a stick at the pretensions of some, probably the majority I would guess, of SUV owners. I'm content to let the fuel price and Hogarthian comment by onlookers regulate the trend. Just give it time, and the fashion will abate, and Mark will be able to continue to ride in semi-regal splendour.
|
100%, norton. Some of this sounds too self-centred. I don't mind what people do - even illegally - provided they consider how it affects everyone else. It's called sociability. As an example, I can't stand much of the pop noise that one hears everywhere, but others can listen if they must. But I get annoyed when they like it so much that everyone within 200 yards of their car has to listen to it too.
I feel that a lot of BIG vehicles (apologies Mark) are just a way of grabbing more than a fair share of increasingly less-available road space.
|
|
|
Its the ineptitude of some drivers,
I agree. And they should pass laws restricting this and enforcing additional training.
> coupled with the limitations of such high and weighty vehicles,
There are no limitations unless you think you're driving a sports car. It doesn't go around corners at speed, for example. But equally it will go around a corner and stop faster than a transit.
plus the doubtful motivation for owning them
Only to the jealous and the small. I have one because I want one, pure and simple.
>>and Mark will be able to continue to ride in semi-regal splendour.
I'm not sure whether I've been insulted or not ! But, what do you mean SEMI ????
|
VM,
You didn't post this just to get Mark at it did you?
Gas guzzlers - nice expression for some of the more interesting cars on the road.
Anyway, gas guzzlers already pay - it's called petrol tax. The more you use - the more you pay. Perfect.
If only all taxes were as fair.
|
Well if this thread was serious gow about taxing aircraft fuel?
Currently nil
And make multi storey car parks with height barriers to prevent over high cars?
Nothiung wrong with gas guzzlers imo- just don't park near me cos you take out > 1 parking bay..
Government has 2 many laws - and does not police them properly - see mobile phones use in cars..
madf
|
Well if this thread was serious gow about taxing aircraft fuel? Currently nil
What do you think that your £29.99 airport tax is for? The fee has to be paid for even those under 2, even though it is otherwise free for them to fly.
|
|
Mark: I hope I raised a smile on that one! A clean double-entendre.
|
"But Relaint robins are harming no-one else. They are not armoured, nor do they carry bull-bars to emphasise their antipodean toughness, nor do they frighten small children by darkening the sky. "
There's nothing like a well thought out and reasoned argument. And this is nothing like a.......
How long is it since you left the playground?
As my 20 yr old Landrover has no depreciation I would mentaly offset the charge against that, so it would hardly affect me. How many cars have you owned in that time? All requiring energy to produce and polluting the atmosphere?
A new car is hardly the most expediant way of looking after your money - so any taxation would have minimal effect.
|
|
Graham: I have to confess I left the playground quite a long time ago. But when did you leave your sense of humour?
|
|
|
Mark - not sure if you're having a bad day :) but I wasn't suggesting HMG should do all/any of those things, just making the point that they rarely seem to do things for the worthy reasons they claim. As a lover of red wine, indian food and the full English breakfast I'd hardly be in favour of banning them would I.
As regards smoking, I couldn't care less and anyone who wants to do it is welcome to so long as they don't blow it all over me/mine.
WRT envy - so, if all those who don't have such small, sad lives to give a damn what other people drive (presumably the majority) aren't envious of 4x4, SUV, MPV drivers and the like, the envy argument is a little thin isn't it?
When were you away Mark ? People have been banning stuff and interfering in other people's lives since the year dot. The closer you have to live to other people and the more of them there are the more likely you are to complain about what they do and vice versa.
|
As soon as I come in here. Listening to people banging on about banning everything that they don't want/like.
So much for freedom of choice, or having ones own opinion.
|
|
|
the envy argument is a little thin isn't it?
No. It is not relevant to my argument what the majority think, only what those who are actually whinging think.
>>When were you away Mark ?
Approx 1990 -> 2002
|
>>When were you away Mark ? Approx 1990 -> 2002
Did that include parole?
|
|
for good behaviour ? Me ????
|
Your claim was that the arguments of those who complained about 4x4's MPV's and the like were:
"typically based on jealousy and resentment"
My belief is that the proportion based on the former is miniscule. Those whose complaining is based on the latter may be driven by of such things as adverse personal experience and/or sincerely held and legitimate concerns about the environment - something we are all going to have to come to terms with sooner or later.
|
S'funny I've never had a problem with other 4x4's. Is the problem in your head? I have more of a problem with self righteous arrogant holier than thow drivers. Or speeding motorists, maybe they?re the ones on here complaining of cameras?
So is an "essential" 4x4 journey less environmental than loads of unnecessary journeys in a "normal" car.
|
I don't have a problem with 4x4's either and am not advocating banning anything Graham.
And in answer to your question, No. However what's essential and what isn't is a largely subjective argument. So, if you can do in a 4x4 something that's necessary which you can't do in another car that's great. I do however have some sympathy with the environmental argument so why use a 4x4 (or any other type of gas guzzler for that matter) to drive round the corner to buy a newspaper or drop your kids to their school half a mile away ? This is one reason why I practice what I preach and drive only 3-4k pa, walk a lot and use the bus as much as I can.
|
>>Your claim was blah blah blah......
whatever.
|
If 4X4s/SUVs/Gas Guzzlers are to be banned, then I think small cars with weedy fuel-miser engines should be banned also. The latter because these cars are often bought by people so intent on conserving fuel that they feel it is perfectly acceptable to tiptoe along a motorway slip road then expect to safely enter 70MPH motorway traffic at 40MPH.
Talk about one person's selfish actions affecting many others!! 8-)
|
Bad week for me?, no not at all, its probably been one of the better ones I have had recently. I am new to the UK and UK drivers/roads and just making an amusing observation. The concept of driving to conserve fuel as opposed to driving to get where you are going is a new one on me and one that will take some getting used to.
The safety aspect of small, weak engines is very real though. A couple weeks ago I had a Nissan Micra 1.2 auto as a courtesy car and was, in all honesty, frightened of the thing. I intentionally took the long way home so I would avoid the motorway, unfortunately too many owners of such a car don't do the same thing.
|
|
I never heard the original broadcast about this and haven't seen it on the news, was the tax going to be C02 based?
|
Well it looks like my tax bill may be going to increase then, you've got me on all counts,
I drive a 2.5 V6 mondeo = Guzzler tax 23 mpg winter 28 summer (does that mean it might be cheaper to tax it in the summer)
It is a heavy car = heavy car tax
I do short journeys = short journey tax
I don't do many miles per annum = low annual mileage tax
I'm overweight = fat/obesity tax (maybe on a sliding scale).
I agree with an earlier post above, that the government should be giving more incentives not punitive measures. e.g. If they want us to use more fuel efficient motors then the phasing out of road tax for the more efficient vehicles first (then the rest of us later).
|
The Dearer the motor, should mean more road tax. Even when the car is used, the initial RRP should apply.
If you can afford expensive cars, no reason why you should not pay higher taxes.
My present motor is 2.5 Mondeo Ghia - I will pay more if this is rquired. Our other car is a 2.0 focus, again we would pay more tax. Otherwise we would buy a cheaper car.
|
Why should the price of a car determine how much road tax to pay? What is the relationship between the two? This would be an even more absued tax than some we have already, based solely on presumption of ability to pay. It would surely encourage the creation of artifically low RRPs with many more "extras" to bump the price up. Almost as daft as a window tax. This sounds like another from the Labour "think tank" to be introduced after the next election (should they get in again!).
It's too obvious - a tax on fuel is the ultimate usage tax and a tax on consumption. This lets people decide (1) whether they want to drive a higher consumption vehicle (2) How many miles they wish to drive a higher consumption vehicle. Any other form of tax which doesn't depend on usage is not logical and sounds like a Labour "envy tax".
Scrap road tax and save a very large administrative burden (and those annoying (and surely expensive) adverts on TV).
|
Why oh why is that when ever anyone crticises somenone in a 4x4, dual cab or other 'status' symbol is the owners respond with that's not fair you are sad green eyed monsters?
They all say that they can afford to run them then claim that taxing them more is unfair, why? They use more resources take up more road space and cause worse damage to anyone or anybody that they hit.
Then we get:
"Any other form of tax which doesn't depend on usage is not logical and sounds like a Labour "envy tax"."
OK so let's start by abolishing income tax, national insurance contributions, corporation tax and Stamp Duty Land Tax, Road fund licences, council tax, insurance premium tax and on goes the list.
Even VAT is not a true 'usage tax', but we need to keep something.
So out of £41 billion government income in January 2004 you are now left with about £13 billion, how are you going to raise the balance on 'non-envy taxes'? I'd love to know.
All taxation is envy based, the popularity of any tax is inversely proportional to the number of people who have to pay it, for obvious reasons.
|
>>the owners respond with that\'s not fair you are sad green eyed monsters?
Perhaps, in part, because of comments like...
>>4x4, dual cab or other \'status\' symbol
|
The Dearer the motor, should mean more road tax. Even when the car is used, the initial RRP should apply. If you can afford expensive cars, no reason why you should not pay higher taxes. My present motor is 2.5 Mondeo Ghia - I will pay more if this is rquired. Our other car is a 2.0 focus, again we would pay more tax. Otherwise we would buy a cheaper car.
Hmmm. Not sure that follows. Comparing me and a friend, he had more to spend on a car than me, so bought a nearly new, but originally cheap car, a Ka. I bought a 5 year old, but originally more expensive car, an Alfa 145 Cloverleaf.
I spend at least £1500 less than him, because I could afford that much less, but according to your proposed tax I can afford more?
One of the reasons I choose to buy an older car is that I can't afford to loose all that money in depreciation. Admittedly another is that I can afford a far better car for less money, but if several of my decision points on this were budget based, why should I be taxed as if I've spent 'money no object'?
|
|
Again, we already do this with VAT, the more the car costs the more VAT you pay!
|
JJ and BB
I stand by my earlier statement.
The Alfa cost u less as it was older, but you need a deeper pocket to service and repair - so you can/should pay the extra tax.
The alternative would of been that you purchased an old Ka.
This should gradually start getting rid of the expensive/big cars.
|
Perhaps it would be simpler if we were just all confined to only using a small motor-scooter on the roads, unless we get special dispensation from a local government department for any journey needing more seats/luggage space?
What you are suggesting is that the government tell us what we can and can't drive, and taken to it's conclusion, the above is the outcome.
|
BB
Not really. You have a vast choice - Ford Ka, Smart car, fiat uno, etc, etc. If you have deep pockets then you should pay. I'm prepared to pay, or change to a smaller car. Presently we are considering buying a new/ish MB C class - if the tax was to be a lot higher then we would opt for a Focus, etc.
|
But what you are saying is that I should pay more tax because I can afford to do so. This is untrue - I can't afford to spend a lot on a car, hence buying a second hand car for £5000.
If I can afford to spend £5000 on a car, and A.N.Other can afford to spend £10,000, but his preference is for a brand new car, while I prefer to save money by buying second hand, by your system I am still paying a greater amount of tax - supposedly because I am 'richer'.
I'm sorry, but your proposal just makes assumptions which are clearly untrue.
|
>>so you can/should pay the extra tax.
Perhaps I can, but why should I ?
And how is the value of the car relevant to what it does to teh environment, what it does to the roads and how much fuel it uses ?
How very silly.
>>This should gradually start getting rid of the expensive/big cars.
But why should we get rid of expensive cars ?
|
"How very silly."
No need to start throwing insults son.
Why should I pay tac? I tell you why, it's because it keeps the country moving.
"relevant to the environment." They could throw that into the pot as well. I stand by what I said earlier and those that can afford should pay/buy smaller cars or shut up.
I also agrre with the opinion I've heard in the media a few times - ie, during rush hour, only motors carrying two or more people should be allowed on the roads between 7 and 10 a.m. This should cut the conjestion by miles!!
|
Taxes may keep the country moving, but they certainly dont have that effect on the economy. If everyone is so busy paying taxes, and apparently happy to pay unnecessarily increased taxes for larger cars, then can I ask, what happens to people's disposeable income?
My guess is that it will be left heavily depleted, then, people spend less on going out and enjoying themselves, business suffers, hence the economy suffers. Sorry, but overall, very high taxes are damaging to the economy IMO.
I'd love to hear the views of a proper economist.
Blue
|
>>How very silly.
>>>No need to start throwing insults son
Whilst not understanding why you would call me \"son\", I wasn\'t intending to throw an insult. Its just seems better than saying an idea is stupid or, at least, stupidly represented. However, since the word \"silly\" bothers you, simply pretend that I didn\'t make the effort.
I don\'t understand why you think that there is some advantage in taxing more expensive cars beyond the various acquisition taxes.
Surely any usage tax should relate, at least in some way, to the impact of that use? There seems little reason to discourage expensive cars per se.
|
Taxing more expensive cars is silly, particularly when it is done under the guise of protecting the environment etc. An 83MPG Honda Insight costs more than a larger 38MPG Honda Accord so surely the Insight owner should pay more tax as they can afford to buy a more expensive car. Try telling them that the tax is done with the environment in mind...that should soften the blow.
|
trancer,
see my previous response. do you seriously believe that this/any British government gives a care about environment? I will tell you straight - THEY DON'T.
Why do you think I NEVER vote? I will tell you... ALL/ANY party that is elected will be elected on false promises!! They are there for two reasons and two reasons only:
1: Themselves.
2: Themselves.
therefore, members may disagree with my stance - but the people that run the country will do whatever it takes to keep them in power.
MM
|
>>How very silly.
>>>No need to start throwing insults son
Dear mark, just pretend that I did not call you son.However, I do not understand why you should object to me calling you son as it was used a term of endearment. All sorted so back to business.
the government will tax anything and anyone, we all know that. All governments are prepared to do this. As long as they feel that they will get away with it, they will do it
"Surely any usage tax should relate, at least in some way, to the impact of that use? There seems little reason to discourage expensive cars per se."
How many times have you seen a government make a sensible move? They will tax - and the way forward is my recommendation as the unemployed, low waged, students, etc normally run small fords and vauxhalls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
