tax hungry ineptly spending Govt.
I don't mind paying tax if the money's well spent. This lot have a hole in the finances and need to fill it. I think that's all there is to it.
|
|
Plenty of holes in roads that need filling, but I guess that won't happen some time soon.
|
The bedrock of socialism is jealousy, that's the only reason the government are doing it, and in the way they are doing it - it's a feel-good policy for their mouth breathing supporters.
" if you charge it once a year and make it very large then they do, and they will stop and think twice about owning/buying such a vehicle."
|
if its on fuel then it penalises those with more efficient cars to a greater extent than the big ones - a car in bands A and B pays very little road tax, but would pay more if its added to the fuel cost....
It's meant to be a 'green' tax so taxing fuel is the fairest way to do it, thus drivers of all cars are taxed for the fuel they burn, not on the size or number of cars they own. A Band A car doing 30k miles a year is likely to be producing more CO2 than a top band car doing 2500 miles a year.
In reality, it's just another way of getting money from the motorist to throw into the black hole of government spending.
Imagine we all went out tomorrow and bought Band A cars. Where's the tax revenue there? Guess what they'd do?
|
It's meant to be a 'green' tax so taxing fuel is the fairest way to do it thus drivers of all cars are taxed for the fuel they burn not on the size or number of cars they own. A Band A car doing 30k miles a year is likely to be producing more CO2 than a top band car doing 2500 miles a year.
If you get the person driving the top brand car owner to switch to the lower band car the total emmissions go down, even over 2500 miles, so that argument doesn't stack up!
|
>>If you get the person driving the top brand car owner to switch to the lower band car the total emmissions go down, even over 2500 miles, so that argument doesn't stack up!
I think you're totally missing the point.
|
|
|
|
I did this last weekend. Traded in a nice '02 9-3 Saab convertible for....
... an 18 month old diesel Clio 3 (Dynamique 86DCI) with 12K on the clock.
People will think I'm mad, but I think this is only going to go one way, with motoring in this country getting more and more of a rip off under the excuse of 'Environmental Concerns'. I had been thinking about moving on from the Saab (a car which although I liked, and was reasonably good to me, always was a potential money pit) before the value fell right through the floor. The budget 'stuffing' of cars like this was the last straw really.
The Renault dealer offered £1500 more for the Saab that the Ford man round the corner, who really couldn't be bothered unless I wanted to buy new.
The wife will drive the Clio, and I will take over the faithful family Zafira diesel (Nov 2000 so cheapish tax) and I'll drive that for a while.
The renault surprisingly nice to drive by the way, potential 60mpg, £35 VED theft tax and £150 cheaper to insure...
|
|
Ive not noticed prices on autotrader for these types of car going south yet,I may tempted if they do go down though.
|
|
|
(Mrs GB put that out to grass by telling me i am not driving a shoe).
Good move GB ;)
Tell your good Lady, I just realised what tool I need to buy to ease myself into my er, motor.
Regards ;)
|
Choosing to drop a nice car in favour of a less than nice car to save £200+ on RFL seems daft to me.
My D-i-L car hada bump (rear ended) and whilst off the road her Civic was replaced by a Vectra (OK but absolutely no go!)- the car had to go back for paint again and she got a Fiat Panda box (that she did not want) and my son took it for the 2 days.
That cured his thoughts of down grading to save VED of £400/yr - yes it would be cheaper to buy/run tax and petrol but at the cost of comfort & safety - it steamed up despite playing around with the heater switches - the train would be better and that is saying something.
|
Planning an escape from 2+ litre petrol VED?
IMO - The title of this thread is misleading. VED is based on CO2 emissions, not engine capacity. eg. Here is a high performance 2500cc car with an automatic gearbox, yet the VED only goes up from current £170pa to £205pa in 2009, and then £210pa in 2010.
parkers.co.uk/cars/road-tax/?deriv=36388
Hardly a penalty for a car costing £34k new for a basic model (usual extras brings it up to £40k), is it?
|
Lot of hysteria here. If people 'trade down' then they are violently over-reacting. A couple of £100's is nothing to most people running a larger car - even 'hard working families'. If I was thinking about buying a 3.0 Subaru Legacy then VED wouldn't even register as a deterrent.
Adding VED onto fuel has been talked about many times in the past, but the rural dwellers usually moan and groan (because they apparently use more fuel than city dwellers).
Although a lot of people complain about the cost of motoring, most are not really that concerned. Many of my colleagues live miles away from work and choose a long/expensive commute in. One guy has recently moved from about about 1 mile away to about 35-40 miles away and both he and his wife work where I do.
Anyone 'trading down' is likely to lose far far more in the associated dealer profits than they would have done by holding on to the car and paying higher VED.
|
Lot of hysteria here. If people 'trade down' then they are violently over-reacting. A couple of £100's is nothing to most people running a larger car - even 'hard working families'. If I was thinking about buying a 3.0 Subaru Legacy then VED wouldn't even register as a deterrent.
It's not just the VED!
Fuel costs have increased by more than 20% in the last year, and there is no sign of that increase stopping.
The spiteful VED increase was just the last straw for me, as I reckon it will be for many others.
For anyone who has to buy/run their own car and has to do a reasonable mileage, then unless they are wealthier than me, large thirsty cars are going to become increasingly unatractive. The unfortunate net result of this is that their values are going to rapidly fall - maybe not right now but at some point in the not too distant future.
The point I was trying to make is that to me it makes sense to minimise that loss now, before general realisation sinks in, and values fall further.
|
|
|
|
Choosing to drop a nice car in favour of a less than nice car to save £200+ on RFL seems daft to me.
This is not the point. It's more about exchanging a car that is likely to lose a lot more value very quickly now that the goal posts have moved, before it is worth so little that it all becomes a major financial exercise.
Fiat Pandas may be one thing, but the fact is small car design has moved on a lot recently, and they are way better than they used to be. In a straight line the Saab would wipe the floor with the Clio no contest, it also has greater 'kerb appeal' for those who are into such things, but the fact is in what passes for normal everyday motoring in this forsaken country these days the Clio is probably the more appropriate car, and is way more economical. It may be giving in to this misbegotten excuse for a Government, but it does mean that we end up with 2 usable cars rather than one that just sits on the drive waiting for the sun to come out, and it also means we stay mobile for longer which at the end of the day is surely the whole point of the exercise!
Edited by Webmaster on 30/03/2008 at 13:10
|
I have been thinking about it but to be honest I have no faith in the current VED set up being long term.
As I have said before what ever you do they will get you - that is the problem - diesel drivers thought they were doing the right thing. OK they pay a bit less VED now but look at the price differential - if your doing 25K a year it might pay but for the ordinary motorist they are no better of. Once we see some long term thinking then I would move.
Just do your calculations properly - paying an extra £100 a year in VED might be small beer compared to the difference in diesel and the additional price you will now have to pay for it. Because just as dealers will give you less for yours they will hold out for top book on a diesel and my view is that the price of diesel will continue to rise faster than petrol as more people want it.
The problem we have is that we live in the UK and we are motorists so by default we are criminals being watched by thousands of cameras - if you creep above 30 or park an inch on the white line - youv'e had it.
We will pay for our hideous crimes of driving whilst terrorists will be let out early to make space for you.
Coupled with the fact that more and more cars will now go untaxed and uninsured and that is something else we will pay heavily for - because unfortunatley you are honest and probably pay for insurance as well - more fools us - hey ?
Edited by Pendlebury on 30/03/2008 at 12:41
|
I think the emissions screw is being tightened on the manufacturers and that there will be no way back from that given all the hype about `Global warming`. I think the Government is driving change in manufacturing, that inevitably will be long term.
Its the `reaction time` though that`s worrying from the ordinary family, who financially must change or suffer financially.
Mortgages and general living getting more expensive, the thrust and worry of that factor, while petrol increases and an extra £200+ VED to find every year on top of a crippling under 30MPG fuel consumption.
I predict its going to come to a head with second hand small diesels being almost unobtainable, as the VED demands arrive on doormats.
I can see a sudden rush later this year when people realise that they *can* actually manage in a new diesel `small car` get 65MPG and pay £35 VED.
( can`t remember the exact VED figures but a halving of (rising) fuel costs + saving £200 on VED, could be make or break for some families if recession returns)
I happen to live only a few miles from mining communities devastated by the Tories and it is these staunch Labour supporters with big family cars and often poor incomes that have really been shafted by retrospective VED.
As I write the valedictory then, for the `poor mans` big, regular use, family car. One last summer on the roads to the coastal resorts perhaps, following the trail of those old rusty Vauxhall Victors of our youth.
Regards
|
Our Forester is at the moment £205 , rising to £300 in '09. We are both on lowish incomes, one reson why we bought only one car instead of the original two we thought about.
As it stands, the road tax costs £17.08 a month or £8.54 each a month. That will rise to £25 a month of £12.50 each pm. So really, the rise will cost us £4 a month extra - that really isnt alot of money at all and if you are sensible and put the money away each month, there is never any scary big road tax bill to pay.
Our concern is fuel prices as the Forester is doing about 30 mpg and its not cheap - £200 a month in fuel currently, but we can afford it at the moment so we just drive gently and enjoy.
If they want to make VED a decider, its needs to be £3-4000 a year for the highest bands to make a dent.
|
You will get it back on not running two cars Stu, that`s always a killer on servicing and repairs even with the good economy of small diesels.
Hope you enjoy your new car.
Regards
|
|
The problem we have is that we live in the UK and we are motorists so by default we are criminals being watched by thousands of cameras - if you creep above 30 or park an inch on the white line - youv'e had it. We will pay for our hideous crimes of driving whilst terrorists will be let out early to make space for you.
Talk about exaggeration!! Are you a columnist for the Daily Wail?
|
Part of the problem is that people now have high 'lifestyle' expectations and refuse to moderate their consumption. The last 10-15 years have been a boom time and the middle classes, in particular, have done incredibly well. I know 'average' people who have made some serious money over the last decade, something their parents could never have imagined. Property prices more than trebled, plenty of £50 a head restaurants in most towns and strong demand for prestige cars. No one will drive a cheap and basic car any more.
When I had a young family (late 80's) we were happy to have three kids in a old Chevette (cost £750 at the time, a lot more in today's money), or pushing it, in our old BX. A mortgage rate of below 9% seemed a pipe dream. And that was on a 'professional' income (university lecturer). Now the younger guys all want a people carrier or 4x4 as soon as the wife gets pregnant. Some of the pushchairs are like mini-4x4's in themselves.
Good, reasonably economical, and safe cars like 4-5 year old Mondeo's are cheaper than ever to buy and petrol really isn't a lot more expensive in real terms than it was 15 years ago. Most people are a lot lot better off than they were 20 years ago (a large number of people now seem to run 'weekend' cars), they just need to moderate their spending a little, that's all.
|
>>Talk about exaggeration!! Are you a columnist for the Daily Wail? <<
Rather than just come out with comments like that - why don't you counter my argument with reason and logic - no point just wailling on is there qxman.
Edited by Pendlebury on 30/03/2008 at 15:00
|
Rather than just come out with comments like that - why don't you counter my argument with reason and logic -
Because you are not making any kind of sensible argument. I'm sorry, but its just complete twaddle to say..
"The problem we have is that we live in the UK and we are motorists so by default we are criminals being watched by thousands of cameras - if you creep above 30 or park an inch on the white line - youv'e had it.
We will pay for our hideous crimes of driving whilst terrorists will be let out early to make space for you."
Motorists are not 'by default criminals'. No terrorists are being let out of prison early to make space for motorists.
Is that reasoned enough for you?
|
Something that keeps puzzling me is constant references to the "sudden" increases in the VED rates in this thread and others... surely I wasn't alone in realising that the creation of the various VED bands back in 2001 was a warning that thats what they intended to do as soon as the time was right? It seemed obvious that the only reason for taxing cars that way (in bands, based on CO2 emissions) was so they could increase the higher bands when the time was right - the only thing that stopped them doing it earlier was that "global warming" was not accepted by the masses until just recently so they couldn't use that excuse before and would have lost votes...
Perhaps having to run a car on a very tight budget makes you look more closely at tax changes than the average punter?
Edited by b308 on 30/03/2008 at 15:43
|
|
Since when has 'Global Warming' been accepted by the masses. I don't know anybody that doesn't see it for what it is, a cynical excuse for a massive tax rise.
|
I don't know anybody that doesn't see it for what it is a cynical excuse for a massive tax rise.
I agree but I would still suggest that the majority have accepted it...
|
"Something that keeps puzzling me is constant references to the "sudden" increases in the VED rates in this thread and others"
Because they have been sudden as well as backdated and punitive.
|
Because they have been sudden as well as backdated and punitive.
And it was blindingly obvious that they were coming, so hardly unexpected.....
|
Just as I thought qxman - you cannot disagree with the points put forward -
On the basis that the law has been changed recently to prosecute people after they have mistakenly parked incorrectly, more and more cameras target so called speeding drivers and I use the words so-called as allot of these cameras are set like traps as opposed to constructively positioned to reduce accidents and now the average family man in his 2litre Mondeo is now penalised for driving such a car you think that by default we are not classed as criminals ?
And what was that news release recently about terrorists being released early because of prison overcrowding ??
Any sensible argument I listen to with MP's and Ministers being interviewed is responded to with "well they shouldn't speed and and park in the way they do" suggesting that motorists are always in the wrong and hence the use of my term criminals.
That is how they are viewed - not as motorists that have made a genuine mistake.
It's people like you that will ensure this wonderful government continues to act in the way it does.
You must let me know the name of your optician - I could do with some of your rose tinted specs.
|
>>backdated and punitive<<
Sorry Marc but the use of the word punitive suggests punishment - criminals get punished - and as stated above we are motorists - not criminals.
|
|
Frankly I am much more worried about rising fuel costs. As I self-fund a necessary high business mileage the recent diesel price rises will cost me £1200 more year on year. The VED cost increases pale into insignificance by comparison.
|
I agree but I would still suggest that the majority have accepted it...
I'm not so sure b308 - I think like the statement above that says people will really notice when the VED renewal lands on the door mat.
Also I think in the traditional British way - we may have all accepted it is going to happen to us and we will probably do nothing (you know - the "well what can we do" approach we are so famous for) until election time which is what the recent polls suggest - as HJ himslef said in the DT - at least the tories have realised that 30M motorists are all getting a bit fed up with being penalised and screwed for every penny when the real big contributors to global warming get away with paying nothing extra.
|
qxman said "Part of the problem is that people now have high 'lifestyle' expectations and refuse to moderate their consumption".
Too right, people now are deliberately choosing 4x4s as a statement against the Government in general and, in London, against Ken Livingstone in particular. "Punitive" is the word for it but, rather like the East End in the Blitz, the rain of Government decisions falling on aspirational families is not making them feel like changing their minds or "giving in" - rather they become more obstinate and fit more closely the propaganda picture of the "Get out of my way school run mum".
Ordinary people still don't realise that the new tax bands affect non-4x4 cars, either!
The car is becoming far more like the computer - forget purchase price, look at the running cost.
I believe that the worst is yet to come in motoring charges, and that punishing owners of larger-engined cars who are lucky enough to have the choice to stay off the roads at peak times is not the way to do it. I believe our roads are often hopelessly overcrowded, and the motorist is also an easy target for higher taxes.
If the price of petrol since decimalisation had been linked to that of "The Dandy", I believe a litre would now cost £5!
Only one day left for "high emission" cars to renew their tax at the old rate...
|
now the average family man in his 2litre Mondeo is now penalised for driving such a car
Then tell him change to a 2.2. litre Vectra Direct. VED is £210 from 2010 onwards.
punitive ... criminals ....
Naughty anti-social people get punished. If you want to be anti-social and drive "gas-guzzlers" such as 2 litre Mondeos, you will be punished. They have given yu advance notice of it. So start looking to change to a Vectra Direct 2.2 litre and you won't be classed as being so naughty! If you wish, you can change to a BMW 525i sport and you will still only be charged £210 VED in 2010.
So stop whingeing, and get on with it.
global warming ... theory accepted by the masses
Yes, the overwhelming majority of those who have the brainpower to understand these theories do accept the climate change theory. Simple minds cannot cope with the complexities let alone cope with simple arithmetic, and are easily misled by the conspiracy brigade.
|
jbif, should we really believe a diesel is more environmentally friendly?
Of course it must be under certain criteria, but unless others (e.g. particulate emissions) are taken into consideration, drivers are herded into making certain choices which turn out to be wrong.
For instance, we know catalytic convertors produce more CO2 because they make the engine less efficient. Perhaps we would not choose to make them compulsory starting from scratch today.
In any case, the idea that a motorist should chop and change his car like a fashion item at the retrospective whim of the taxman is fundamentally flawed. The manufacturers will be all for it as they melt down more metal to turn into tomorrow's unwanted climate-destroyers...and buy a diesel today, who's to say that there won't be a new tax on potentially sooty emissions?
A car can be taxed as "high emission" but, perversely, once you've paid the tax you should maximise your mileage! And if it's in the garage, it's zero emission...
|
should we really believe a diesel is more environmentally friendly?
Both the cars I named are petrol versions.
My point is that it is wrong to focus on engine size when debating this issue. The deciding factor in VED rates is the CO2 emissions data.
My personal preference is that if there are to be incentives/taxes linked to emissions, then they should be via a fuel tax, and thus penalise those who pollute the most due to combination of mileage and engine efficiency. VED is a very blunt and crude tool to use for such a purpose.
|
>> VED is a very blunt and crude tool to use for such a purpose.
Agreed. But in reality, for most drivers, VED is a relatively small part of the overall tax that they pay in a year, although it is very high profile. I think the idea of raising the VED on higher emissions cars is to send a message to car manufacturers - its encouraging them to produce lower-emissions vehicles. I believe a number of countries do similar things. I gather that in the US the manufacturers are 'fined' for every vehicle sold which does not meet a certain fuel consumption threshold and that the threshold is raised each year.
|
Ho Hum...'ere we go!
I got banned from a forum recently because I dared to challenge a statement that all 'Global Warming Deniers ' should be jailed. The same people labelled all those scientists that dispute global warming theories as corrupt and flawed. They deny anybody who disagrees with them a platform and block any form of debate.
True to form, you state that anybody who disagrees has no 'brainpower' and 'cannot understand complexities'. You're not one of the ones profiting from the £60 billion industry that is 'Global Warming research' are you.
Edited by midlifecrisis on 30/03/2008 at 17:22
|
you state that anybody who disagrees has no 'brainpower' and 'cannot understand complexities'.
I have absolutely no connection with the £60 billion industry. I am on the receiving end of the Climate Change research, because all the industries I deal with are heavy polluters.
You obviously have misunderstood my sentence, as your statement is entirely different to the words I used. Or are you one of those in whose mind it is logical to conclude that because I say cats are animals with four legs, and because Altea-Ego's has a dog called Fifi with four legs, therefore Fifi the dog is a cat?
You are entitled to your view, I hope I am entitled to mine, and I hope that so are the climate change expert research-scientists - those I referred to as "overwhelming majority of those who have the brainpower to understand these theories do accept the climate change theory". I for one definitely do not have the brainpower to understand the theories behind that science. And certainly, as I said "Simple minds cannot cope with the complexities let alone cope with simple arithmetic" because even some great scientific minds find the complex statistical analysis hard to grasp. This is what the Royal Society of Statistics says in reference to use of evidence in Court:
""Although many scientists have some familiarity with statistical methods, statistics remains a specialised area. The Society urges the Courts to ensure that statistical evidence is presented only by appropriately qualified statistical experts, as would be the case for any other form of expert evidence."
|
and now the average family man in his 2litre Mondeo is now penalised for driving such a car you think that by default we are not classed as criminals ?
For pink fluffy dice's sake man, get a grip on life! No one is classing ordinary motorists as 'criminals', you are going completely over the top on this and come over as some sort of gimlet-eyed crank. The driver of a 2 litre Mondeo is being asked to pay a relatively small amount extra (in relation to overall motoring costs) each year for road tax. On the other hand, a lot of drivers of smaller cars (possibly less well off?) are going to be paying less.
I still maintain that, adjusted for inflation, most people driving average miles are actually paying a smaller proportion of their income for their motoring than 15-20 years ago. They are also driving cars which are safer, faster, larger, more comfortable, more fuel efficient, more reliable and durable.
As to 'Global Warming' - well, I think most people would agree that climate change is happening. What we can't agree on is WHY? It comes down to probabilities and confidence in the data.
Incidentally, I suspect that anyone who's naive enough to think 'Dave' will suddenly drop VED and chop down speed cameras after he's elected is in for a very nasty shock!! These are presumably also the people that actually think New Labour is a 'socialist' political party (rather than ToryLite LOL!)
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 30/03/2008 at 20:04
|
"Both the cars I named are petrol versions."
Sorry jbif, I saw a 6-letter word starting "Di" and my mind supplied the rest.
Direct? What a silly name for a car IMHO! I suppose it relates to a clever technology (e.g. direct injection) but it sounds like you should buy it off the internet. *laughing smiley* I will, however, believe that it is a far more efficient petrol engine than others.
Of course, the fuel efficiency achieved by modern cars is amazing compared to thirty years ago, even ten years ago.
You're right that tax incentives should push us towards the most efficient cars. Mind you, it's like Formula One - cars are built to subvert the rules. There used to be a huge incentive to have cars below a certain capacity in Italy - which IIRC explained the Rover 2300 which was IIRC less efficient than the 2600. Or was it the 2000 for Italy and the 2300 for somewhere else? And as for the fast Polo - it might have a turbo AND a supercharger, but it's still only 1400cc! (Guess what criterion is currently used to set car tax in Germany!) :)
So I expect we already find cars are being built to "limbo dance" under CO2 thresholds - odd gearing ratios, curious start/stop programs that may require the brake to be on, etc...
Edited by patpending on 30/03/2008 at 17:56
|
patpending: VED rates
Vectra direct petrol 2.2 litres parkers.co.uk/cars/road-tax/?deriv=31757 (non-clickable as per site policy)
BMW 525i M Sport petrol 2.5 litres parkers.co.uk/cars/road-tax/?deriv=36387
|
I'm with the folks who question aspirations on this one, there really is a wide gulf in this country between what people desire and what they actually need, and a false belief that it is obtaining the former that leads to happiness, when quite often the opposite might be true!
Last Saturday's Guardian Money section ran a piece on floundering buy-to-let landlords and 110% mortgage payers which spawned a flurry of letters in this weekend's edition pointing out that its hard to sympathise with folks who moan about excessive debt then get photographed in their home against a backdrop of plasma tellies and other expensive electronic equipment. Cars, like other consumer goods, are something we shouldn't really get ourselves into financial hardship to own and enjoy, and if that means having to realign our expectations a wee bit to accomodate financial changes, so be it.
Is driving a newish 2.0 petrol Mondeo really that representative of your average working Joe? Certainly not round here it isn't, that would be considered quite an opulent choice of vehicle! Mind you, I do live in a city with some appallingly poor constituencies! Such drivers might enjoy the extra poke of a bigger engined car, but in reality, it probably isn't going to get anyone and their family from A-to-B all that much quicker than the smaller entry-level engines are.
I run a battered, 162k mile, 9-year old diesel because that's what I can afford to run - it's done all its depreciation, as it's worth naff all now, and it's unlikely that running costs are going to get so much more expensive anytime soon that it'll be worth shelling out on a newer model. And do you know what - it's not a huge hardship to drive something older or more basic or less powerful. Just yesterday, I had an enjoyable run in the rain out to a damp castle in the country, and I can't think of any aspect of the journey that having a 3-litre lump under the bonnet would have made safer or more enjoyable, given the volume of traffic and speed limits on our roads.
And besides, BMW have shown that bigger cars can be made that fall into the lower VED bands without specifying the smallest engine, I daresay other manufacturers will fall into line soon enough. Would this have happened had the government not imposed such fiscal disincentives?
It's all very well for folk to say that they only do 5,000 miles a year in their big petrol jalopies, but that's kinda missing the point - that 5,000 miles could still have been done in cars capable of producing half the emissions and using half the fuel. Every little helps and all that...
But having said all that, it is unfortunate for those caught in the trap during what is probably something of a transitory period, and I'm also wary that Her Maj's Govt might well move the goalposts again in a similarly underhand manner to the retrospective changes in this year's budget. I'm firmly of the belief that running a car for as long as possible is the greenest thing anyone can do, and this will only contribute to the pile of vehicles needlessly scrapped already due to high labour rates for small repairs, amongst other things...
|
thanks for the VED rates jbif. I do hope this means the BMW really is as good on emissions as that suggests and will be when it is older. Shows it can be done. Shame that the tax rise hits people who didn't buy that model as well!
And the most ecological and also wallet-friendly solution of all for me...don't even think about changing my car and handing over dosh to the trade! *smiley*
|
I think the reason I object to the VED based on emissions is that it really isnt designed to save the planet as it has little effect on car useage or buying choices. The government knows this very well - if the planet was genuinely about to die and we were on the brink of disaster, high emissions cars would be banned and the rules would be far less permissive. Of course its about money - we are the easiest target because the government can stamp on individual members of the public whereas the biggest polluters both nationally and globally are simply untouchable.
As far as the evidence - who can you believe? I think its best to err on the side of caution as far as the enviroment and assume it needs protection, but that doesnt mean that I believe all the doom and gloom that is bandied about - if you paid me enough id tell you whatever you wanted to hear and its a sad fact that there is no way anyone will deny enviromental problems as peopls jobs depend on it, so whether or not it is true has nothing to do with the movement to save enviroment, but the industry that is supported by the theory.
Ho hum, ill just buy a Prius or Honda Hybrid and go in the way im directed to, atleast nobody can say ive not done as im told by Our Great Leader :-)
|
I wish you would all stop whingeing.
The Government needs to raise taxes to pay for MP's expenses and Mr Martin's £1.6 Million house refurb.
It must be obvious to anyone they spend money like water.
So taxes rise and motorists are an easy target.
Two years ago the Gov't laid out its VED strategy based on emissions.
The rest is a logical progression.
There are two simple solutions.
1. Change to a lower bracket car
and
2. Vote for someone else.
All the rest is puff.
I do not expect the next Conservative Government to change anything cos making redundant 800,000 extra civil servants hired in the past 10 years is not going to be cheap.
Edited by madf on 30/03/2008 at 20:16
|
" I wish you would all stop whingeing."
Well its either that or report to the lounge to watch `Dancing With The Stars` which is currently on...... ;)
|
My car goes from £205 to £300pa, but according to a PAYE calculator on-line, I'll be making £50 a month more due to the income tax changes, mostly due to the increase in the 40% threshold and the reduction of the 22% band to 20%.
Apart from the morally questionable fact that a Labour government should be helping out 40% taxpayers like me at the same time as its shafting low earners, I can't really complain.
Cheers
DP
|
I've resisted posting in this thread.... until now.
The way I see it is that the money needs to be raised somehow, so I'd rather pay £400 for the car tax than have, lets say a 41% tax band.
Its not about global warming - its about balancing the books in anyway they can get away with it.
Still, it would be nice to be able to pay road fund tax monthly, like the television tax... Or I'll have to pay by credit card and pay it off over the year...
And if it is about being green - I run a 55mpg Golf during the week with one person in it and a 25mpg Shogun on a weekend with 4 people in it......
|
DP, you are not really £50 "better off" than you were. The tax band changes only go up with inflation and even then the low official one which many people think bears no resemblence to actual cost of living.
Even if the £50 covers inflationary pressures all it does it keep you at the status quo in terms of what your salary actually buys. The VED increase is above inflation so you are worse off.
|
but according to a PAYE calculator on-line, I'll be making £50 a month more due to the income tax changes
DP - does this take account of the fact that your 11% employees NI threshold will rise from the 2007/8 level at £34,840 pa to the 2008/9 level at £40,040; an increase of 11% on £5,200 = £572 a year extra ?
www.bytestart.co.uk/content/taxlegal/9_15/national...l
As I said earlier, even simple arithmetic can be hard to follow at times.
Edited by jbif on 31/03/2008 at 18:07
|
DP - does this take account of the fact that your 11% employees NI thresholdwill rise from the 2007/8 level at £34 840 pa to the 2008/9 level at £40 040; an increase of 11% on £5 200 = £572 a year extra ? www.bytestart.co.uk/content/taxlegal/9_15/national...l
Sorry, I made a typo. It's £10, not £50. Yes, it does take into account the new NI arrangements. Anyway, it more than offsets the extra road tax.
Excluding inflation of course....
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 31/03/2008 at 19:51
|
>>pink fluffy dice's sake man<<
How do you know what hangs from my mirror ??
I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one qxman.
I know you think I am going OTT but I know not of any other aspect of our lives where the ordinary person is traced, filmed, fined and persecuted in the way motorists are.
Please inform me if you think I am missing some area.
In my view it is this government that has gone completely OTT in it's approach to motoring in the UK. I make my statement that motorists are by default criminals on the basis that the authorities deem it necessary to put so much effort into hunting people down in the way it does, and so closeley watches how we drive and introduce so many laws and so much taxation to penalise us in the way it does. Only recently a new law was passed entitling the authorities to fine you for parking incorrectly by camera. You do not even have to receive a ticket on the day now. If it applied as much attention to the real problems that lie within our society then the country would be the better for it.
Hoodies plague our streets and parks and unfortunatley go round killing people because of the way they look (and I write this with the utmost respect for the recent 'goth' who was kicked to death), but the authorities deem it more important to invest in cameras on our roads rather than policing our streets.
Edited by Pendlebury on 31/03/2008 at 18:36
|
"the authorities deem it more important to invest in cameras on our roads rather than policing our streets."
It certainly does seem that way at times but Governments tend to look at the statistics. There is approx. a one in two hundred any one of us dying in a motor accident which is a lot higher than the likelihood of being murdered by a hoodie. I guess they are right to direct a lot of resource in reducing the number of motor accidents l but I would prefer to see less concentration on cameras and a greater police presence on the roads
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
