Well, the Volvo's going up to £300pa. It's theft. Nothing more. This is a 4 door family saloon with a 2.0 petrol engine. Hardly a symbol of opulence, waste and excess.
MichaelR hit the nail on the head with his earlier post. What exactly are they expecting people to do here? Keep it and pay the tax (yes, that's exactly what they want us to do, because when you peel away all the nonsense, it's about boosting treasury coffers to compensate for years of incompetence), scrap it early (a total environmental nonsense!), or sell it on and let someone else drive it? (same result as if I keep it)
And as others have said, if they're stealing £300 pa off me, I'm going to drive the damn thing as much as possible.
I will vote for any party, however otherwise nasty, evil or downright mental which commits to drop this ridiculous environmental charade after the next election. I am totally pig sick to the back teeth of it, and for me it has become the biggest issue in politics today. Most of us can see it for what it is, so why do we allow it to happen?
Even the hand-wringing environmentalists must be able to see that this approach, apart from turning a significant majority of moderate thinking people into rabid anti-environmentalists, actually won't do squat to reduce emissions.
Sorry, this is a bit of a rant, but this whole thing makes me absolutely sick.
Cheers
DP
|
>>Keep it and pay the tax (yes, that's exactly what they want us to do, because when you peel away all the nonsense, it's about boosting treasury coffers
>>Most of us can see it for what it is, so why do we allow it to happen?.. actually won't do squat to reduce emissions
Yes, agree with you completely. That is what it is all about and the smart people will just pay the tax on their current cars as it is the much cheaper option, while the not-so-smart ones will rush out to spend £ thousands because either they think they will be doing their bit to save the planet or to more likely because they can see that it will save them a few pennies in return for spending thousands.
|
|
|
|
Yet I will be paying c.£100 more (Civic vs Mondeo) in tax in future. So If the chancellor wants me to buy smaller
I am amazed by other comments in a similar vein. Are people really going to change down their cars to smaller engine ones just to save £2 a week on VED?
The news item on BBC BreakfastTV today showed a SAAB at a dealer in Slough which has been marked down from £30000 to £10500 after just 18 months on the road with under 20k miles. The dealer predicted that 2nd hand prices for similar big-engined cars will fall even faster than that in a few months. If I lived near there, I would be rushing to bag that kind of bargain to save hundred on the purchase price and happily pay the extra pennies per mile on the VED.
Proves that people tend to be penny wise, pound foolish.
The Government answer of course will be to reduce the speed limit I expect!
That is bound to happen - either in the cause of reducing emissions, or by fitting out the speed control measures on all Motorways as on the M25 Heathrow in the cause of reducing congestion.
Edited by jbif on 13/03/2008 at 10:44
|
|
That's pretty typical for a large Saab so you don't need to live near there. Even if you don't, I'm sure they'll deliver it to you. Are you going to buy it?
|
Yes, sure, definitely, if I can find one like it near me. It was TradeSales who do not do "enhanced customer services". Anyway, I like to buy locally to do my bit to save the planet.
As it is, I was just about to put a deposit on a 182 g CO2 car that was coming to the dealer at the end of this month. I am now looking again at what price reductions can be found in the next two weeks.
Or if I wait, in a few months, the depreciation on RangeRovers and BMW-X5 and Porsche-Cayennes due to the double whammy of Red Ken's CC and the VED will make those affordable too.
Edited by jbif on 13/03/2008 at 11:00
|
|
x
Edited by UncleR on 13/03/2008 at 11:25
|
My car was registered in 1998, with 192 g/km emissions. Because it is pre 2001 and will 'only' suffer from the normal VED increases does this mean it may increase, or at least hold its value better, and that post 2001 vehicles with large emissions will now drop faster in value?
In my simple world it appears that if I want to avoid paying large(er) VED sums, and want a decent 2.0 (or larger) petrol engined motor, I will have to continue to run cars registered in 2001 or earlier.
|
In my simple world it appears that if I want to avoid paying large(er) VED sums and want a decent 2.0 (or larger) petrol engined motor I will have to continue to run cars registered in 2001 or earlier.
I have come to the same conclusion. SWMBO has a 1999 Galant V6 which looks just fine since yesterday afternoon.
There's a similar post about the value of a 2001 2.5 Mondeo today. Just insane
|
I've just checked what this means for our cars
Mine 1998 emits 206g will cost 200
wifes 2002 which emits 209g will cost 300
previously both cost 190
absolute scandal.
Neither are gas guzzlers and we only do about 8-12k a year in each.
|
|
If I box clever then I'll renew for 6 months in Sept then for a full year in March - so I won't have to pay these rip off rates until 2010. New rates come in April right?
|
I still think the best answer is to scrap VED and put the tax on fuel. Surely this is a fair and effective solution?
|
Without taking this thread down the road of a political or global warming rant, which would rightly annoy the mods, I need to ask what happens to the money raised by these 'Green' taxes? People who own vehicles which emit high amounts of CO2 are charged for the privilege; however, in what way is the money raised going to be spent to reduce or mitigate these allegedly damaging emissions? Will forests of trees be planted or what? As an aside, there is a clear difficulty in balancing priorities and taxation when I can take flights, as I did yesterday, to Frankfurt and back for £10 and pay £14.20 to park at the airport for the 14 hours I am away!
|
My wife's is up for renewal in a couple of weeks if we renew for 6 months and then a year, will we still have to pay the current 200 rate, or a pro rata of the new 300 rate?
Alternative is to pretend disk is lost and reapply a month earlier (end of feb not march/april) losing £17 but saving £100
|
|
Do these VED changes also apply to Wales and Scotland?
|
Please stop whingeing.
Darling needs cash.
Motorists are sitting targets.
CO2 based charges have been running for years and the trends have bene clear for years.
If you want to do something, vote at Local and General elections.
As for Gareth's repost of an article from a guy with an RX8, it's full of half baked statistics and self justifying rubbish. Anyone who claims an RX8 is efficient despite doing 260odd gms/km is seriously deluded imo...The writer quotes mpg figures but CO2 levels are based on average consumption: his mpg figures iirc were on a long run.
But hey even the Chancellor gets his stats wrong.:-)
Edited by madf on 13/03/2008 at 12:27
|
Whoa! Everyone!
I ran round the office like a headless chicken yesterday too!
I drive a 2003 Vx Omega auto worth maybe 3.5K
It emits 276g/km - a gas guzzler - I could be sitting on a car thats now worthless and believe me, I dont like the thought of losing that kind of money.
This morning having slept on it I realise that the new rules MUST only apply to cars registered after the point in 2006 that the gas-guzzer road tax was introduced.
The budget PDF file I "think" is misleading as it tries to cram too much information in to one table and I think we have just pounced on what it unfortunately doesnt say.
Besides,if it is true (which I dont think it is) because its mis-leading then it gives Darling chance to wriggle out of it when he see's how unpopular it is.
If the new 13 bands apply retrospectively back to 2001 how come no-one has mentioned it in the press?
Car tax regimes have never been retrospective. This would be dynamite otherwise.
The current incumbents of Downing street are not that dumb surely?
Yes it will have the desired affect on re-sale of new gas-guzzlers but thats the point - I understand that.
|
"If the new 13 bands apply retrospectively back to 2001 how come no-one has mentioned it in the press?"
Yes, it's really strange that isn't it...
On the official documentation, the title of table A.8a clearly states registered since 1 March 2001 - unfortunately
Edited by Marc on 13/03/2008 at 12:31
|
This morning having slept on it I realise that the new rules MUST only apply to cars registered after the point in 2006 that the gas-guzzer road tax was introduced. The budget PDF file I "think" is misleading as it tries to cram too much information in to one table and I think we have just pounced on what it unfortunately doesnt say.
"With effect from 1 April 2009, and as set out in Table 8a, VED for cars, registered on or
after 1 March 2001, will be reformed to include six new bands. From 1 April 2010, a new first
year VED rate will be introduced. "
That pretty much says it all - VED for cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 will be reformed.
It doesn't say for Cars registered after 1 April 2009, or from 13 March 2008.
|
>>That pretty much says it all - VED for cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 will be >>reformed.
>>It doesn't say for Cars registered after 1 April 2009, or from 13 March 2008.
Yeah, I know - thats my point - there "must" be an error in the cramming of data in the table.
Why make a point with the 23 March 2006 in notes 2) and 3) at the bottom of the table then?
But the crux of my argument is that someone has accidentally clumped the data together and I think it should read:-
Before 2001 - VED up in line with inflation or + 5 a ayear or whatever
2001-23 March 2006 as you were but with slight increases (naturally)
23 March 2006 - Watch out gas guzzlers and new cars we're coming to get ya with the new 13 band system.
I reckon I'll be okay with my cheap 2003 gas guzzler.
|
sorry meant to put
23 March 2006 - Watch out gas guzzlers and new cars we're coming to get ya with the new 13 band system. We told you we'd ramp it to £400 for band G cars didnt we?
|
As I read it, my 2.0 Volvo S60 (current Band F) is going up from £210 in 08/09 to £300 in 09/10, and then another tenner(why???) the year after.
So I think you might be in for a shock.
I agree it doesn't make any sense at all. There is no environmental excuse or justification for backdating this to existing cars whatsoever. VED costs aren't affected by use or mileage, and scrapping cars before they are worn out is environmental lunacy. No sane person would condone doing so as environmentally acceptable, never mind beneficial.
It's blatant money-grabbing. I just wish the idiot had had the honesty to admit it.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 13/03/2008 at 12:53
|
Cars these days only last 10/11 years.
They will be looking forwards to reducing emissions not backwards and hammering the lower income traditional Labour voters.
They are not that stupid.
Really I dont think you have anything to worry about.
Moving forwards, you have choices when it comes to buying post 23 March 2006 cars.
Is anyone in agreement with my string of posts?
|
I agree with everything you say, BUT, as has been released the tax will be retrospective. If there has been an error somewhere I would be mightily relieved.
As you said the weirdest thing about it is the lack of media reporting of it. Indeed, the BBC has a calculator which you put data in, and it says my tax will go from 205 to 210 (as it is currently band F with 287g CO2). I think this is wrong though
|
Is anyone in agreement with my string of posts?
The table says it applies to cars registered after March 2001, they only mention 23/3/06 cars for the 2008-09 year, after that 23/3/06 ceases to be relevant.
The PDF will have been proof read about a million times before being released!
|
The BBCs budget calculator THINKS that a now banded F car will go from 205 to 210 pounds....
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7290230.stm
|
|
Sorry, just realised why, it is because it is for 2008 - 09, and the new tax bands are from 2009-10
|
The BBCs budget calculator THINKS that a now banded F car will go from 205 to 210 pounds.... news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7290230.stm
Which it will From 13 March 2008, but after 1 April 2009 the new banding system comes into play for ALL cars registered after 1 March 2001.
There's no ambiguity, just wishfull thinking on the part of some...
|
Is anyone in agreement with my string of posts
I completely agree with your sentiment, and that would have been the logical and fair way to do it. At least it would have given people a choice whether they were prepared to accept the cost and residual value hit before they bought the car in the first place.
Sadly, that is not what Darling has done, and has clobbered people with higher band cars dating back to 2001. He really has. It's quite clear.
And don't for a minute think that once more people buy diesels (the only reasonable choice now for low VED on a family sized car) and the treasury coffers start to suffer, he (or one of his successors) won't find an excuse to ramp VED up those as well, or at least move the goalposts again to catch people out.
They will be looking forwards to reducing emissions not backwards and hammering the lower income traditional Labour voters.
They couldn't care less. There are 3 million people doing very nicely on benefits who will vote for this shower, and a couple more million right at the top of the tree who are also doing well. Everyone else in the middle can go hang. They've made that clear since their first budget in 1997.
Cheers
DP
|
"There is no environmental excuse or justification for backdating this to existing cars whatsoever."
I can see a justification. If he didn't backdate it people would assume that any future band changes also wouldn't be backdated, thus limiting their risk.
With the example set that bands are subject to change, people should hopefully realise that choosing a car in a high band will leave them exposed to unknown future increases, thus further dissuading them from buying such cars.
The bands have been ever-tightening for company cars, even ones already registered, so there's nothing new here. I think people are just upset because they'd been lulled into a false sense of security (fostered by the 23 March 2006 band G fudge) that the VED bands would never move.
|
I can see a justification. If he didn't backdate it people would assume that any future band changes also wouldn't be backdated thus limiting their risk.
If his intention was to influence behaviour, all could have been made clear with a simple one-liner in the Budget statement. "All vehicles in Band(s) x registered from April 1st 2008 will be subject to annual review" or something similar.
What he has done with people owning older Band F and G cars is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. It will wipe thousands of pounds off residual values overnight, and leave people in a position where they have no choice but to cough up.
It doesn't present a problem for me financially - £205 to £300 (or even £400) a year isn't a lot of money in the greater scheme of car ownership, but it's the principle. I feel as if I've been ripped off, and all manner of other words not suitable for publishing on a family website. If the green movement want people on side they should be up in arms about what this incompetent shower of politicians is doing in their name. This is not the way to win friends or influence anyone.
Ultimately making people's behaviour greener can only happen with consent. Bludgeoning them with taxes just builds resentment.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 13/03/2008 at 14:02
|
What he has done with people owning older Band F and G cars is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. It will wipe thousands of pounds off residual values overnight and leave people in a position where they have no choice but to cough up.
Totally, a tax that is more expensive to avoid then it is to pay - shooting fish is spot on.
I feel as if I've been ripped off and all manner of other words not suitable for publishing on a family website.
Exactly my feelings DP. I'm also really hacked off with the media for completely failing to make people aware of what a dirty trick Darling has pulled.
|
Still don't have a whole lot of sympathy. If it's hitting you, it's because you chose a relatively high-emission car - when I was buying in 04/05, I never considered for a moment buying anything in band F, let alone what became band G, when there were so many cleaner alternatives available.
And you've had years of low tax use out your band F/G car - it's not as if they're backdating the payments or anything. But if you want to keep driving it, it'll cost you.
Presumably this high VED will depress the second-hand market for larger cars and cause them to be scrapped earlier than smaller ones, which is the right way round.
|
Still don't have a whole lot of sympathy. If it's hitting you it's because you chose a relatively high-emission car - when I was buying in 04/05 I never considered for a moment buying anything in band F let alone what became band G when there were so many cleaner alternatives available.
Can you just turn the smugness down a tiny notch? Thanks :-)
Presumably this high VED will depress the second-hand market for larger cars and >> cause them to be scrapped earlier than smaller ones which is the right way round.
I don't think scrapping a car just because the road tax is expensive is very environmentally friendly. Not if it's still in fine working order.
|
And you've had years of low tax use out your band F/G car - it's not as if they're backdating the payments or anything.
Not really, I've owned it for less than a week. Changes to existing cars weren't even mentioned yesterday morning, let alone a week ago. And let's be clear, this is a humble four door family saloon with a 2 litre petrol engine. It's not the kind of V8 limo that Mr. Darling gets about in.
But if you want to keep driving it, it'll cost you.
You're right of course, but is this really the right message if we are supposedly heading for an environmental catastrophe? Is it wrong to drive a polluting car, or is it OK if you can afford it? Something doesn't add up.
And I repeat, causing any car to be scrapped early is so misguided from an environmental point of view that it beggars belief.
Cheers
DP
|
>> With the example set that bands are subject to change people should hopefully realise thatchoosing a car in a high band will leave them exposed to unknown future increases thus further dissuading them from buying such cars.
But SOMEBODY will buy them becuase these cars ALREADY EXIST. It just means people will buy them for less money as they will be less sought after. It doesn't remove them from the road. It serves no purpose as it isn't discouraging people from REGISTERING NEW high emissions vehicles.
These cars are already with us!
|
As a result of this latest tax collecting "initiative" I can see a healthy market emerging for diesel cars (especially) being chipped for more power.
This is at least one way of evading the duty increase on a simple basis of engine power per unit tax. As yet, there seems to be no provision for the Govt. database to be varied for individual cars. (They're not too good at databases, it seems).
A business opportunity...
659.
|
Could anyone confirm whether if you buy a tax disc in March 2009 to start on 1st April 2009 whether it will be at the new or old rates?
Thanks
|
This budget has zero to do with the environment. (Biofuels tax relief gone),
Darling was just pontificating...any excuse will do to raise taxes.. not that any is needed.
We need to pay for all the new motorways.. sorry speed cameras.. sorry traffic police.. sorry traffic wardens.. sorry speed humps.
|
"I'm also really hacked off with the media for completely failing to make people aware of what a dirty trick Darling has pulled"
Agreed, although no surprise really, especially from the BBC. The smokescreen was created with the so called "showroom tax" which will be "avoidable" (IMO) so to speak anyway through dealer incentives like cashback, fitted accessories, preferable finance deals etc etc. Even if not, private punters will just factor it into the initial purchase price. Let's be honest, the savvy private buyer never buys brand new anyway.
The increased annual roadtax will be an ongoing burden.
Am I sore about all this? Too right, we've got a 53 Vectra and an 05 Galaxy and we're looking at an extra £300 pa in road tax between them - hardly the "typical gas guzzlers" as the media likes to call them eg Range Rovers, Ferraris etc
|
|
why do'nt the taxman put a surcharge on electrically powered vehicles ? lets face it the plug they use to charge the batteries in the garage is connected via the national grid to a gas or coal powered powerstation is'nt it? i think some people think that zero emission vehicles recharge on fresh air !!
|
.. sorry traffic police..
Wouldn't mind if thats where the money was going.....
Re the pre 2001 cars, I feel their time will come - he hasn't thought of a method of doing them as yet, but he will do - one obvious one would be to have more bands based on engine size and fuel... and a tougher MOT....
Anyhow lets keep mum about it and not give him any more ideas!
|
Although others have picked up B308's points in posts earlier on, I agree completely that there does seem to be a very annoying trend for new parents to rush out and buy a Grand Voyager for their 1st new born! However we personally are not one of these. We managed perfectly well with our M-reg 3dr Corsa (which my wife still uses) with our 1st child, but with the twins that followed we had to have (my term 'need' in my op was inaccurate!) a larger car which takes, as others pointed out, 3 child seats across the back - trust me althogh I think the Fabia estate is a 'fab' car, you cannot get three of these across the back.
Back to VED issue, I still maintain this will hit larger-than average families very hard over the coming years. A further thought I had was that this likely to force these type of families into pre-2001 cars, which due to their age tend to be less reliable and safe.
DB
PS - I've signed the No. 10 petition for all the good it does.
|
My mate thinks the whole thing is hilarious.
He drives a 2000 X plate 530i Sport Automatic with 258g/km of C02 but of course, it predates the 2001 changes. His road tax rises to just £200.
I, however, have a newer but otherwise identical 530i Sport - although mine has a manual gearbox and thus develops noticeably less CO2 - 229g/km. My road tax is already £205 and, from next year, will be... £415.
Even though I only drive 5k a year..
|
I however have a newer but otherwise identical 530i Sport - although mine has a manual gearbox and thus develops noticeably less CO2 - 229g/km. My road tax is already £205 and from next year will be... £415.
I am in the same boat 530I 2001Y auto Touring, now paying top whack regardless of the fact it is only a three litre engine (when there are many more powerful engines around) and I only drive about 4k a year in it Fair I don't think so..........
|
Re: the two BMW examples above:
Of course, the sensible thing for Darling to have done would have been to abolish VED altogether, accompanying it with a corresponding increase fuel duty. The problem is, that gives people a choice (they can drive less and pay less), and allows them to only pay for what they use.
This approach makes sense on so many levels. Fuel duty is unavoidable (unless you steal fuel), self policing, automatically collected, and self-adjusts for the actual "damage" your combination of economy and mileage does to the environment.
Nothing I have seen in any of these proposals convinces me that the environment actually had any genuine part to play, apart from as a nice, pre-packaged excuse.
Cheers
DP
|
|
And the door is now open to ditch the 3000cc in favour of a much nicer 5400cc as the tax will be the same. Also, (if you can afford it) why bother with a family people carrier when you can get a nice Audi Q7 for £100 per year more in VED
|
"Nothing I have seen in any of these proposals convinces me that the environment actually had any genuine part to play, apart from as a nice, pre-packaged excuse."
Quite so, the 'environment' is just your spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down (for those dim enough to believe the spin). The govt need our money and culculate that they will take x million pounds from VED. If we all scrap our high tax band cars today and replace with low emmisions cars the govt will still want x million pounds in VED so guess what will happen to the VED rates.........
|
It will increase the rate of VED evasion. At some point if enough people refused to pay then they'd have to go away and leave us alone. If only 10% of people refused to pay then that would be enough to bring the whole system down. I suspect it will be all down to the EU to increase the cost of car ownership.
If everything was put on the fuel then it should also be identical levels for buses, trains and air lines. This would level the playing field so that the most efficient form of transport would be the cheapest and the cleanest. Of course they'd never dare do this as it would show up how over priced and polluting public transport really is. All the revenue should also be ploughed back into transport and infrastructure.
VED for trucks needs to rise massively as they are damaging the roads. Near me there are quarry lorries thundering up and down. I have no idea how much damage they do but I bet they do the bulk of it on this stretch of road. I bet they aren't asked to cough up to repair the road they use either. The VED doesn't cover the likely damage at all as it is only a few grand. It needs to be more like 50k per truck.
|
|
Seems the penny's finally dropped with the media - Telegraph covering full implications today.
|
A colleague has just reminded me while we were ranting about it over lunch that you can write to Mr. Darling via his House of Commons e-mail address.
findyourmp.parliament.uk/commons/email/l/814.html
Ok, strictly speaking it's for constituency issues, but I'll feel better just for trying.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 14/03/2008 at 14:17
|
I actually think this could do me a favour.
Six years ago I bought a nice car from a dealer, second hand and its' C02 output, being a 3 litre V6 is 259g/km...so if reg after 2001 (which it isn't) i'd be liable for a very high road fund tax...which puts me off buying a newer one...er no actually
over 6 years, very roughly, my car has depreciated by £3,333 per year and currently costs about £180 p.a. to tax
if i wait for a while until large luxury cars are enduring plummeting 2nd hand values, which is what all this hysteria will do....then although buying one of them will hammer me in road fund licence, i'll save big time in depreciation, because it will already have taken a big hit before i buy it.
swings and roundabouts....... and with the above economics i'll be able to keep the old one until it becomes a classic
|
DP. Plus it makes foreigners and tourists pay to use our roads too. And it would free up some civil servants and computer capacity to foul up the Identity Card scheme we are all looking forward to!
|
There are cases where a pre 2001 car pays higher road tax than an identical post 2001 car.
I have a Vauxhall Astra diesel, with a 1700cc engine which has emissions of 132g/km.
Because it is an X registration car, the current road tax is £185pa, which is due to increase to £200pa.
But had it been a Y registration, or later car, I would be paying £120pa, which would be due to fall to £110pa.
I don't think that this is a vote winner with me!
|
|
|
|
