My response to her letter (sent to her secretary):
I received a letter from X this morning, and wanted to thank both you and her for responding so quickly to my concerns. It is good to know that I am not the only one who feels there are elements of the changes in car taxation which are patently unfair!
I would also like to take this opportunity to make a couple of observations on the contents of X?s letter to me.
X lists a lot of interesting facts about the changes which have been made, some of which I had spotted, some I had not (is it concerning that the budget has been written in such a way as to hide some elements?) The vast gulf between the tax rebate for less polluting cars and the extra burden for anything average or above is truly eye-widening.
In one part of this, X states ?The most polluting cars will pay up to £425, a 42 per cent rise on current top rates?. Can I just point out that for cars registered between 2001 and 2006 this will be a rise from £205 ? a staggering rise of over 100%. And let?s not fall into the trap of believing the ?gas guzzler? hype. My car fits into this band, and will undergo this massive tax rise. While it is (to my eyes at least!) an attractive car, it is not a Ferrari or a Rolls-Royce. It is not the luxury transport of someone who can shrug off such an extra cost. I drive an Alfa Romeo 156 GTA. It has a larger than average engine, but it is the one way in which I ?treat? myself, and I feel justified in doing so, both economically and ecologically, because I travel a much lower than average mileage per year.
I also note this sentence in my letter: ?My Conservative Parliamentary colleagues and I believe that these kinds of taxes should be offset with tax reductions elsewhere.? I may be misreading this sentence, but it worries me that it seems to suggest the Conservatives support these tax rises and while wishing to make some amends, intend to do so in other areas. It seems that the motorist is becoming such an easy target than ALL tax requirements are answered in this area, resulting in a disproportionate burden on private transport.
Thank you again for your attention to my concerns
Sorry this all results in a huge glut for people to read, but I thought it might interest some. I also hoped it might make others consider emailing their own MPs. By using my letter as a template (not that I pretend it is particularly well written!) it would be the matter of 5 minutes work to find their email address and send something.
It may of course do no good, but complaining on here and doing nothing will most certainly do no good.
|
Too many words, Bazza. You can make your points with far fewer, and actually, it often becomes harder, not easier to answer.
Write what you feel. Leave it a day, and look anew. What can you leave out? Any gratuitous use of the word 'that'. Test is can it be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence? Short is good and works in all sorts of areas.
Lastly, if you want answers, use question marks. Letters without not only risk being misread and annoying the person who responds (however you feel, you don't want to do it that way) but also risks the "Dear Sir, thank you for your statement, your points are noted type of response.
Good points though, and hard to weasel out of the retrospective and scrapping ones.
|
|
|
Yes, i've sent a email, not to my own MP but to the chancellor.
He must be very busy as he hasn't acknowledged it, but i'm sure its only time before one of the many (i assume judging by the expenses) assistants gets in touch to allay my fears and to indoctrinate me into the current thinking.
Bet if owed them money they'd be a sight quicker.
|
|
Bazza, I thought your letters excellent, particularly the first, IMHO. Also worthwhile tips from SP.
|
Hi All
I know you're just dying to see the next installment of my opus! I have received a reply from Angela Eagle (HM Treasury) forwarded to me from my MP.
It is three pages long, but the important part of it, from the point of view of my grievance about the retrospective nature of the changes, is contained within this paragraph:
"With regard to retrospection, it was the case that the Government made its intention absolutely clear and conducted a full consultation exercise before introducing CO2 linked graduated VED in March 2001. All car ownership choices made since that time have been against a background of CO2 emissions based taxation. The tax signal has therefore been consistently in effect, and whilst the ownership choices that people make must be respected, the onus has been on each individual to make an informed decision about the emissions level of their preferred car.
My reply will be as follows:
Hi Ann
You may remember you recently helped me to raise my objections to the new VED rates. Let me start by expressing my gratitude for your help ? I would not have known to contact Angela Eagle without it, and undoubtedly would not have managed to get my voice heard as you enabled me to.
The letter I have received in return is very interesting, but I am most unsatisfied with the answers where the retrospective nature of the changes are concerned. I certainly intend to continue my correspondence with Angela, but I am unsure whether at this point it is fitting to continue to do so through yourself, or whether I should now contact Angela directly.
Assuming for the moment that it is correct to write via you, and wishing to keep you in the loop on issues where I believe the government is being less than truthful about their motives, I will list my comments below. If you feel I would be better served contacting Angela myself, please let me know, and I shall do so.
Focussing on the subject of the tax changes being retrospective, there are two issues with the reply I received about this matter in my opinion:
1) Irrelevancy - The claim that this is a green tax is (either purposefully or due to a misunderstanding of the issue) plainly untrue. Applying this tax to cars which are already on the road will do absolutely nothing to help the environment, and will in fact harm the environment. The only possible change that applying this to cars already on the road can make is that cars which have plenty of life in them will be scrapped because they become economically unviable to own. How can causing the polluting activities of scrapping of old car and production of new cars to replace them be considered helpful to the environment?
The very words used by Mr Darling when introducing the changes say everything about why this tax should not be applied retrospectively: ?a major reform to Vehicle Excise Duty to encourage manufacturers to produce cleaner cars?. He clearly points out himself that this is irrelevant to cars already on the road.
2) Immorality - I take great exception to the paragraph beginning "With regard to retrospection?? The claim is that the governments intention to apply and raise tax rates for higher emission cars in exactly this manner was made clear in 2001 after consultation.
In fact, while 2001 was the first year that CO2 based tax rates were introduced, they were only introduced for cars which were newly registered from that point.
As if this was not a good enough indication, in 2006 the tax bands were changed, with band G being added. Once again, at this point the changes were specifically only applied to cars registered from that point on.
What was made absolutely clear was that, while tax rates would certainly rise, once a car was purchased the government would not impose a sudden, unpredictable and crippling rise in the tax rate currently in place for that vehicle. They have since turned their back on this stance, and the only possible reason, as highlighted in my first point, is revenue.
I would be delighted to hear any factual justification the government has for the retrospective nature of the changes. Currently I believe there is none, beyond revenue. Believing this, the inescapable conclusion is that we are being lied to ? and this more than anything is what has angered me.
If suitable evidence can be provided to me that this is not a purely revenue based decision, then I will go away happy in the knowledge that I have not been misled. If, on the other hand, the reason is financial, then I would have hoped that the people elected to lead this country would have had the morals and sense of honour to tell the truth about this from the start.
I would also be grateful if you could point me in the direction of any documentation covering the consultation run in 2001 on this matter, as I have never seen any details of the form it took, nor the conclusions it reached.
Regards,
James B. Leeson
I hope this finds at least one person not bored rigid by it!
|
"I hope this finds at least one person not bored rigid by it!"
Count me in. I think you make some excellent points very clearly. Pity our Gov can't think as clearly.
Keep me informed!
|
Bazza. I guess the Angela Eagle who wrote to you is the same one who assured Paxman a couple of weeks ago that all the consequences of abolishing the 10p tax band were foreseen. Then appeared on Question Time and appeared to contemplate changes to put matters right. Now is presumably involved in changes which might (or might not) be backdated.
Who did the 2001 consultation involve? Have a look at the website for bettertransport.org.uk.
|
|
|
|
Good stuff Bazza. I'm surprised that your MP is so much aware of these changes than the typical person on the streets, and yet the Tory party isn't actually making much effort to reveal this injustice to the general public. It seems there's plenty of room to make political capital from this, once people realise just how much it will set them back for ordinary family motors they already own.
That makes me wonder that if we did have "Dave" for PM, then he wouldn't be so quick to abolish these retrospective changes...
|
Unfortunately, I believe you're correct. In my second post (containing my letter back from Ann herself), she said this
"My Conservative Parliamentary colleagues and I believe that these kinds of taxes should be offset with tax reductions elsewhere."
Which strongly inplies they have no intention of changing it. But the point of these letters is to try to apply some pressure for them to alter their thinking.
|
I sent a similar letter to my MP (William Hague), got a similar response so must be the Tory line on it.
On another note George Osbourne (Tory shadow chancellor) was on Sunday AM and whilst talking about the abolition of the 10p rate said they had brought it up 12 months earlier. He then went on to predict a similar outcry next year when the new VED rates come in
|
>>conducted a full consultation exercise
The most utterly iniquitous statement of the lot. Just like they consulted the general public on the much needed next generation of nuclear reactors, or an extra runway at Heathrow.
They consult 100 people and then ignore what they say.
|
>>They consult 100 people and then ignore what they say.
And the 1.8 million people who signed the online petition against road pricing.
|
|
I presume the following link to an article in The Times is relevant to this thread;
Snip - links to that publication not allowed, either directly, or via tinyurl.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 30/04/2008 at 11:08
|
Surely no-one here thinks MPs, or others in Government actually read or reply to correspondence themselves! It's what the civil service and party staffers do for a living.
|
Having been on the receiving end of decisions made on the back of 'consultation' I believe it to be a facile nod to due diligence. I.E. They consult on their plans but have no intention of changing their plans in the light of that consultation.
I read the papers and have an interest in politics and economics and am of the opinion this government are nothing more than scheming bankrupt shysters. The proposed/impending changes to VED and fuel duty are very good examples of unfair taxes.
|
|
|
|
Snip - links to that publication not allowed either directly or via tinyurl.
Quite rightly too, the evil Digger, they'll be posting links to the Sun next...
|
>>I read the papers and have an interest in politics and economics and am of the opinion this government are nothing more than scheming bankrupt shysters.>>
The poster may well be right. But even shysters have an aim in view. What does he think (or suspect) the aim of Brown and Co is in view of the fuel duty and VED changes?
Edited by Optimist on 30/04/2008 at 17:21
|
"the aim of Brown and Co"
Raising money - an extra £465 million next year
www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/20...l
I read an article where the Treasury (I think, maybe a select committee) estimated that it would affect CO2 emissions by less than 1% so it can't be a "green tax"- will try to find a link
|
Green Taxes!!!
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/20...l
Now they predict a 7 year 'break' in climate change, it must be because of the new VED rates.
|
Well, well, well - what a surprise ......not.
Even worse is the suggestion that cars have any effect on Climate change, global warming etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
