UK Budget - car tax hikes [Archive] - SaabCentral Forums

: UK Budget - car tax hikes


circuitman
13th March 2008, 09:48 AM
Well, thanks very much Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer - I now face a 90 hike in my road fund license next year.

My 9-5 is 206gms CO2 output, which means I will now pay 300 instead of the current 210 per year.

Same goes for my 2.0 Vert!

Bar-stewards!

Circuitman

macp
13th March 2008, 10:17 AM
Its like being legally robbed and nothing you can do about it except vote elsewhere come election day.

Just pi**es me off how they hide behind the carbon footprint issue.

ShadowWorks
13th March 2008, 10:21 AM
Well, thanks very much Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer - I now face a 90 hike in my road fund license next year

Circuitman

What! Why!

I pay 185 on a 18 year old car, will this affect me?

unkleG'sif
13th March 2008, 03:26 PM
Just pi**es me off how they hide behind the carbon footprint issue.

explain?

G

Albert Trout
13th March 2008, 03:29 PM
explain?

G

Yeesss! Get in there G! :cheesy:

900t
13th March 2008, 03:58 PM
explain?

G

I imagine he means that they are pushing to take as much money as possible under a thin veil of "green"... ie they don't really "care" about climate change but rather they just want to make the bucks.

ShadowWorks
13th March 2008, 05:00 PM
thin veil of "green"... ie they don't really "care" about climate change but rather they just want to make the bucks.

This true, I bet the would not do that in Cincinnati

aeropilot
13th March 2008, 05:14 PM
My 9-5 is 206gms CO2 output, which means I will now pay 300 instead of the current 210 per year.


9-5 Aero auto, so, 210 for this year for me, and a rise to 415 next year.....:evil:

Almost 100% increase.......thieving scum politicians:x

Edit: actually it's more than 100% as really that 210 for this year is an increase from now over what I paid for tax last Sept, IIRC 185..?

:evil:

Andy C
13th March 2008, 06:38 PM
Yeah, I was not amused!!! I'm up to 300 now. For roads the third world would be ashamed of!

TooMany2cvs
13th March 2008, 08:03 PM
Just pi**es me off how they hide behind the carbon footprint issue.

There was a certain irony in the photos of Darling Alistair getting into the car to be driven just down the road to deliver his "green" budget.

ShadowWorks
13th March 2008, 09:49 PM
There was a certain irony in the photos of Darling Alistair getting into the car to be driven just down the road to deliver his "green" budget.

Oh don't you know, its for security and there very busy people:lol:

I remember John Snow asking The Pit Bull that question and he got barked at for his trouble.

woywitka
14th March 2008, 01:23 AM
Here in BC our new Carbon tax kicks in soon. :(

circuitman
14th March 2008, 04:48 AM
Details here - God help you if you buy a new one!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7293011.stm

Circuitman

mikeucr
14th March 2008, 08:50 AM
This happened in California about 3-4 years ago. The then governor tried to increase the license fee by like 50%+, and this was one of the main reasons the guy was recalled and thrown out of office only a few months later.

It is pretty ball-sy for these politicians to increase ANY tax (that what it is) by that much. Normally they try to do it ever so slowly so you don't realize what is going on, like my property taxes here. And then they double your tax and wonder why you get pissed. Working families have a tough time coming up with hundreds of dollars extra, especially when fuel is at all time high.

Morons.

LondonCSE
14th March 2008, 10:25 AM
wasn't clear to me whether wenow have a pre-2001 load of charges, a pre-2006 lot etc or if all those new brackets hit everyone?


one thing to show how this won't work - someone on the news said its cheaper to sell the higher charge car and buy two cheaper cars instead. instant x2 fumes. another half 4rsed budget.

Albert Trout
14th March 2008, 10:40 AM
one thing to show how this won't work - someone on the news said its cheaper to sell the higher charge car and buy two cheaper cars instead. instant x2 fumes. another half 4rsed budget.

Why would anyone, in their right mind, sell one car to buy two because the road tax is cheaper? And even if they did, you can only drive one at a time.

TooMany2cvs
14th March 2008, 10:51 AM
wasn't clear to me whether wenow have a pre-2001 load of charges, a pre-2006 lot etc or if all those new brackets hit everyone?

The only band change which may or may not have happened in the last week (I think it has, but I've not found anything conclusive) is the backdating of band G (>225g/km) from 3/06 (when it was introduced as an extension to the original A-F introduced in 2001) to 3/01. So if you've got a car that's between '01 and '06, and >225g, it's just been hit hard.

ALL the A-G bands will be replaced by the new A-M, for all cars from '01, in '09.

one thing to show how this won't work - someone on the news said its cheaper to sell the higher charge car and buy two cheaper cars instead. instant x2 fumes.

Well, if instead of two people driving around in one large car, they each choose to drive around separately in smaller cars... But, surely, the smaller cars would use less fuel each, so may well use less fuel between 'em than the one big car...?

Since 7-seaters currently start in band C, the whole "big family" claim is a red herring. As is the whole "Some family cars..." claim.

It's as simple as the amount of CO2 it emits. No value judgements are being made.

LondonCSE
14th March 2008, 10:55 AM
the example was for a couple driving an old people carrier. they get slammed 950 quid when if they buy a new people carrier but if they go for two lower emission cars they solve their school run probs and can both save on their costs. the pollution problem isn't solved as together the two cars make more pollution than the one and i thought that was the point?

TooMany2cvs
14th March 2008, 11:05 AM
the example was for a couple driving an old people carrier. they get slammed 950 quid when if they buy a new people carrier but if they go for two lower emission cars they solve their school run probs and can both save on their costs. the pollution problem isn't solved as together the two cars make more pollution than the one and i thought that was the point?

Why two cars?

They could easily buy a 7-seat people carrier that'll do a damn sight better than Band M. (256+g/km) - Renault Grand Espace? Yes, the 3.5 v6 petrol is band M. But none of the other engines are. The 2.0d is band J, 240. The 3.3 petrol Chrysler Grand Voyager is band M. But the diesel Citroen C4 Grand Picasso (7 seat) is band C, and will be band F - 120.

LondonCSE
14th March 2008, 11:10 AM
[QUOTE=TooMany2cvs]Why two cars?
QUOTE]

they did look quite stupid....

I think either way the re banding will be a problem. I heard the most pollution for a car is when it's made....dunno if that's true or not. There should be more incentive to keep cars on the road for longer I reckon. the saab i had was 13 years old and nothing wrong with it.

Albert Trout
14th March 2008, 11:45 AM
I've now get a mental picture in my head of some mad couple driving two cars, with 1 kid in the back of each, in convoy because the the road tax is too expensive for a people carrier.

i want an aero
14th March 2008, 03:24 PM
this lot have dug such a big hole they can't get outof they now use green issues to screw you over because they can. where does this tax money go? to prop up failing nhs or for more mp's pay and expences

Orca
14th March 2008, 04:01 PM
^ WOOP! WOOP! Tory Boy alert!

No, it's there ... because. Simple as that. As a policy to tax on the output of a new car ... it's welcome. Blimey! It's the least of your costs for crying out loud ... 400 quid? Ya-boo! So what? Buy an old car if you don't like it.

Meanwhile, the NHS is saving 300 million this year on N3 connections alone? Sounds good to me ... we might get our Dental service back one day.

TooMany2cvs
14th March 2008, 04:04 PM
Meanwhile, the NHS is saving 300 million this year on N3 connections alone? Sounds good to me ... we might get our Dental service back one day.

Don't be daft. That's much lower priority than 23k per year of "allowances" for each MP to furnish their second home. Oh, and the 30k of TAX-FREE "redundancy" that every MP who loses their seat at an election gets.

Still, when Ken loses the London Mayor election, he'll only get the FIRST 30k of his 59k "redundancy" tax free. He'll have to pay tax on the rest. Poor love.

Sorry, but this is beyond party politics. This is just ridiculous.

Orca
14th March 2008, 04:25 PM
MPs? Yeah ... whatever ... that's a gravy train that's outside my thinking. I just don't care about that lot. My corner of the world that I can do something about? Yup! I'll try to do what I can ... and 300 million in savings is pretty good. Shame it's a p55 in the ocean of the "defence" budget :evil:

aeropilot
15th March 2008, 12:48 PM
Shame it's a p55 in the ocean of the "defence" budget :evil:

Oh, that'll be the same defense budget that is now at it lowest as a percentage of our GDP since 1930........:roll: despite this criminal Govt.'s willingness to send it's armed services to do it's dirty work without proper funding and total neglect of it's responsibities to them...:x
The UK defense budget is down to a mere 2.5% of the UK GDP which is now less than the likes of Turkey or Bulgaria :o

Of course don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.....:roll:

ShadowWorks
15th March 2008, 12:55 PM
You guys want to get a room :lol:

It makes no difference who you vote for, the little people get screwed, its always been that way, I don't hear any rich people complaining, they can afford it, a tax based on income would be fairer but they don't want fair, we know all corporation avoid paying TAX like the plague, Ebay moved out the UK to Luxembourg and saved 300 million in Tax ever year, they can afford it, cheeky shills.

Just bend over and try and enjoy it, I use O my and Oh my Gel:o just for fun you understand;)

Orca
15th March 2008, 04:17 PM
Oh, that'll be the same defense budget that is now at it lowest as a percentage of our GDP since 1930........:roll: despite this criminal Govt.'s willingness to send it's armed services to do it's dirty work without proper funding and total neglect of it's responsibities to them...:x
The UK defense budget is down to a mere 2.5% of the UK GDP which is now less than the likes of Turkey or Bulgaria :o

Of course don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.....:roll:

I don't follow ... a saving of 300 million quid made by the NHS against over a 30 billion budget for defence? To my mind, that's a proverbial in the ocean ... no idea what you think it is :roll:

ShadowWorks
15th March 2008, 08:17 PM
I don't follow ... a saving of 300 million quid made by the NHS against over a 30 billion budget for defence? To my mind, that's a proverbial in the ocean ... no idea what you think it is :roll:

He must be Bill gates rich,:lol:

I have 9.38 in my bank account, I am doing ok because its better than being thousands of pounds in debt:lol:

The biggest export for the UK are weapons of mass distruction and drugs:lol:

How much did Ken spend on his China trip recently? I heard it was a stupid amount of cash, what a roller:roll:

VikingSpirit
15th March 2008, 10:17 PM
Careful there lads, remember SC's T&Cs on political topics...

I'm begining to see why the Classic-Car 25 year tax exemption allowance petition got denied, at 185 a year your still getting a good deal compared to the people who get shafted 300-500 a year for buying a new car.

The government doesn't want you to have an easy life for driving any vehicle, period!
Just watch as vehicles from prior to 1973 skyrocket in price! Find one for less than 200 and the car pays for itself in road tax savings! :roll:

ShadowWorks
15th March 2008, 10:28 PM
Well the governments should stop holding back on Zero point energy and develop these powers instead of letting 25,000 pensioners die every year from fuel poverty in the UK alone.

I could say something about the London Olympics and that dam logo but I won't, because I have to make some soup:lol:

Orca
16th March 2008, 07:42 AM
In many respects, forums like this attract huge numbers of people interested in old(er) cars. True, there's loads of people here with new cars and a lot of these people have fallen foul of what amounts to a stab in the back from our Government.

What really gets me riled is that when I contacted the VCA about SAAB BioPower cars (thinking I would like to go down that path), I was told that they would be taxed at the same rate as the petrol variants. What? Why? Well, because it's unlikely that the owner would run on bioethanol, because we don't have a great supply in this country. What? WHAT? Whose fault is that? Soooo ... if "BioPower" meant charging your car up at home by electricity or running it on compressed air (compressed by electricity); none of which is environmentally friendly coming from either coal or gas fired power stations or from nuclear power then that constitutes an eco-car? But hang on ... the Prius *can* run on petrol, too ... so why is that not taxed as a petrol car?

I noticed our lovable Mr Branson got on board with SAAB in the UK and I do hope that these new "eco-friendly" fuels that were mentioned in the latest budget speech include bioethanol. But hang on ... doesn't mass crop production require huge amounts of petrol by way of agrochemicals? Isn't it true that we put more than a tonne of petrol into the ground to yield a tonne of food? Isn't bioethanol produced by the fermentation of crops (which is a process that produces carbon) which have been produced en masse by petrol-based agrochemicals? How are the crops transported to the production sites? Would we not just be better off burning the petrol in conventional combustion engines?

To return to my first sentence, groups like us should be championing our old cars as examples of well kept automobiles that are no more polluting than any new car - even zero emissions cars which already have a substantial carbon footprint by virtue of their production and transportation costs. If we really want to be green, we should go back to walking but we can minimise the impact by considering how much "new stuff" we really need and reduce the overall footprint of mass-production.

jjonju
16th March 2008, 08:24 AM
Sorry my Areo but looks like you will be replaced by an Alfa 147 diesel, the loan I take out will be more than covered by the fuel, insurance and road tax recouped and I get a car five years newer. Thanks new chancellor!

TooMany2cvs
16th March 2008, 08:40 AM
Just watch as vehicles from prior to 1973 skyrocket in price! Find one for less than 200 and the car pays for itself in road tax savings! :roll:

Trouble is, pre-73 cars tend to be a damn sight more demanding and expensive to own/run.

No, the _real_ difference is going to be <01 and 01- large cars - a 9-5, say.

VikingSpirit
16th March 2008, 10:41 AM
They already are though! Any classic car is immediately more desirable if it has the old tax exemption status, there are plenty of bangers from the 70s and 80s that are still in the sub 500 bargain bin, but even the properly ropey cars from prior to 1973 are now being sold for 1k+ as "projects"!

Yes a pre 1973 doesn't make a lot of sense for daily long distance use, but a lot of them are much easier to look after and live with than you might think.

Ford's especially fall into this category, they are tough, easy to work on, cheap to repair, and have suprisingly good pep and fuel economy, just take a look at any Escort, Cortina, or Capri from pre '73 and notice how cheap they're not!

And me I use my Saab 99 more or less everyday and its never let me down once. Ok so it was built in 1984 not 1973 but the design of the car itself dates back to 1965! There's nothing stopping anyone taking a pre'73 car and dropping in a later engine / upgrading the brakes and doing other modifications to make the car useable day to day...

If I found a good 1972 two-door 99 I could well be tempted to "re-shell" my own car!:p

TooMany2cvs
16th March 2008, 10:48 AM
Ford's especially fall into this category, they are tough, easy to work on, cheap to repair, and have suprisingly good pep and fuel economy, just take a look at any Escort, Cortina, or Capri from pre '73 and notice how cheap they're not!

Mmm. But '73 was roughly the break point between the Mk1 & Mk2 Escorts and Mk2 and Mk3 Cortinas. Which is probably far more relevant.

aeropilot
16th March 2008, 02:01 PM
Mmm. But '73 was roughly the break point between the Mk1 & Mk2 Escorts and Mk2 and Mk3 Cortinas. Which is probably far more relevant.

Escort Mk1 - Mk2 change over was 1975.

Cortina Mk2 - Mk3 change over was 1970.

I really don't see any great increase in value of pre-73 cars, as they are in general just not economic to run as everyday transport as parts supply is just too much of a problem in 95% of cases.

MGB's are a definate exception as every part, incl. body shells are available new still. Old Merc's are another, and of course there are others, but, insurance is also a factor if the value is high, as you will not get a everyday insurance co to insure one for it's agreed worth, you'll need classic insurnace and therefore these policies won't insure them as everyday transport, so it' a non-starter in real terms.

VikingSpirit
16th March 2008, 04:04 PM
Yeah, cars that old aren't practicle for long commutes, but then if you can afford a long commute you can afford a new car + ascociated taxes.

What I'm saying is the classics are gonna start making more sense to those with less money, who don't habitually do a lot of miles or drive everyday. Not because they are collectable, but because they are simpler and so cost less to repair. Like I say no-one says you have to keep these cars original.
You can instantly make anything more drivable by fitting electronic ignition, or case in point, Practical Classics magazine recently converted an Austin A40 to use fuel injection. Immediately made it more drivable, still tax exempt and the thing still gets well over 44mpg! Tell me that won't look appealing to the car owner on a budget!

I hear people say time and time again that old cars cost a lot to maintain but to that I say bull. I drive an old car BECAUSE its more affordable!
Most people's new car monthly payments are more than I see in a month's worth of student loan, Its just a matter of educating yourself a little on car care. I have seen countless people spend more money on one service for their modern car at a garage than I've spent both buying AND taxing my old "buckets" :p
All I do to my car at the moment is check the fluids and tyres weekly and slap a spot of jenolite on any rust spots I catch. No more hassle than a modern car as long as you're prepared to keep an eye on it...

TooMany2cvs
16th March 2008, 04:13 PM
but then if you can afford a long commute you can afford a new car + ascociated taxes.

That's a bit of an assumption. A few years ago, I saw an aging and tatty Pug 205 on the M40 quite a few times with signwriting on the rear screen saying...

"FOR SALE - Flat in Croydon. Swap for Flat in Birmingham considered"

Sounds to me like somebody who'd managed to find a new job (or had their job move under them) and was burning the candle at both ends to try to keep afloat.

What I'm saying is the classics are gonna start making more sense to those with less money, who don't habitually do a lot of miles or drive everyday. Not because they are collectable, but because they are simpler and so cost less to repair.

Yup, that I definitely agree with - but the "sweet spot" would be (imho) late 80s/early 90s cars. By the mid 90s, they were starting to get a bit too electronicky, and there's going to be very little after the start of this decade (and the CO2-banded tax) which isn't going to be multiplexed to the hilt.

VikingSpirit
16th March 2008, 05:16 PM
That's a bit of an assumption. A few years ago, I saw an aging and tatty Pug 205 on the M40 quite a few times with signwriting on the rear screen saying...

"FOR SALE - Flat in Croydon. Swap for Flat in Birmingham considered"

Sounds to me like somebody who'd managed to find a new job (or had their job move under them) and was burning the candle at both ends to try to keep afloat.

Yeah, fair point, I was thinking more of the people who work in a city but choose to live outside and commute in. But then having said that inner city appartment prices are mental these days as well, so it could be the lesser of two evils...

At the end of the day though, every car is gonna become obsolete for parts eventually, and my train of thought ran that in terms of longevity I would rather place my bets on the older cars that are still having parts made for them by because they are collectable, rather than relying on manufacturers to continue supporting newer cars (which due to the throw-away ethos of current society I'm guessing they won't!)

Yup, that I definitely agree with - but the "sweet spot" would be (imho) late 80s/early 90s cars. By the mid 90s, they were starting to get a bit too electronicky, and there's going to be very little after the start of this decade (and the CO2-banded tax) which isn't going to be multiplexed to the hilt.

right on the money, post 90s car use so many specialised electronic components that eventually the cost of replacing them will be far more than the car is worth. Even the complicated nature of the castings and materials used in the mechanical bits is likely going to mean that aftermarket companies won't be able to make replacement parts for a reasonable cost. Thats the benefit of having a car roughly hewn from pig iron! (why do you think Ladas last so long? :roll: )

Edit: Case in point, not saying this country is necesarily heading that way, but in Cuba everyone either drives Ladas or 1950s American Leviathans!
Would they be doing that if older cars really did cost more to maintain?

TooMany2cvs
16th March 2008, 05:24 PM
Edit: Case in point, not saying this country is necesarily heading that way, but in Cuba everyone either drives Ladas or 1950s American Leviathans!
Would they be doing that if older cars really did cost more to maintain?

Perhaps a better question would be "Would they be doing that if they could have bought anything else?" After all, Cuba became a bit of a closed shop after the '50s, with the Russians being the only people Fidel was friends with...

philo
16th March 2008, 06:08 PM
^ WOOP! WOOP! Tory Boy alert!

No, it's there ... because. Simple as that. As a policy to tax on the output of a new car ... it's welcome. Blimey! It's the least of your costs for crying out loud ... 400 quid? Ya-boo! So what? Buy an old car if you don't like it.

Meanwhile, the NHS is saving 300 million this year on N3 connections alone? Sounds good to me ... we might get our Dental service back one day.

Ed Balls, is that you? Oh yeah, my mistake, you said "So Weak". Of course. So, I drive 4000 miles a year in a car that produces 256g/km co2. Why should I pay twice as much tax as some smug git whose car produces half that but gets driven 20000 miles a year? At least a seven year old 9-5 is nearly worthless already otherwise I'd be really upset.

900t
16th March 2008, 06:39 PM
In many respects, forums like this attract huge numbers of people interested in old(er) cars. True, there's loads of people here with new cars and a lot of these people have fallen foul of what amounts to a stab in the back from our Government.

What really gets me riled is that when I contacted the VCA about SAAB BioPower cars (thinking I would like to go down that path), I was told that they would be taxed at the same rate as the petrol variants. What? Why? Well, because it's unlikely that the owner would run on bioethanol, because we don't have a great supply in this country. What? WHAT? Whose fault is that? Soooo ... if "BioPower" meant charging your car up at home by electricity or running it on compressed air (compressed by electricity); none of which is environmentally friendly coming from either coal or gas fired power stations or from nuclear power then that constitutes an eco-car? But hang on ... the Prius *can* run on petrol, too ... so why is that not taxed as a petrol car?

I noticed our lovable Mr Branson got on board with SAAB in the UK and I do hope that these new "eco-friendly" fuels that were mentioned in the latest budget speech include bioethanol. But hang on ... doesn't mass crop production require huge amounts of petrol by way of agrochemicals? Isn't it true that we put more than a tonne of petrol into the ground to yield a tonne of food? Isn't bioethanol produced by the fermentation of crops (which is a process that produces carbon) which have been produced en masse by petrol-based agrochemicals? How are the crops transported to the production sites? Would we not just be better off burning the petrol in conventional combustion engines?

To return to my first sentence, groups like us should be championing our old cars as examples of well kept automobiles that are no more polluting than any new car - even zero emissions cars which already have a substantial carbon footprint by virtue of their production and transportation costs. If we really want to be green, we should go back to walking but we can minimise the impact by considering how much "new stuff" we really need and reduce the overall footprint of mass-production.

Not only that, the Prius ONLY runs on petrol. It doesn't run on ethanol, nor electricity (it can for a short period, but this is electricity generated from the gasoline engine). It's just decently efficient, but there are smaller cars that get the same numbers.

The problem is the question of environmental impact - cars today are extremely clean in terms of pollutants emitted, basically zero - and hundreds of times less than even cars from the early 90's (particularly in the UK). But for CO2, well that is different.

ShadowWorks
16th March 2008, 09:20 PM
Not only that, the Prius ONLY runs on petrol. It doesn't run on ethanol, nor electricity

It's just decently efficient, but there are smaller cars that get the same numbers.

Actually is not that efficient, it averages 36 or 38mpg in the city, nor any better than a diesel and way off its claimed 60mpg.

I read some report that a flipping Hummer will pollute less as its been designed to last 300,000 miles and the Prius is not even expected to last half that life expectancy.

Its designed to make rich people feel good about themselfs, its a pile of cra p really.

ragtopcav
16th March 2008, 09:47 PM
Interesting thread guys.

So where do we go? I chose a my2000 9-5 in preference of a 2002 and now I'm a couple of hundred quid better off? Probably; but Saab trionic is still one of the worlds least polluting [toxicity not CO2 output] vehicles; tragic irony that to reduce toxicity cars need to run a bit more heavily on fuel increasing the net CO2 output. I suppose we could have toxic smog back for less CO2? :confused:

I find it a tragedy that the UK has probably the best method of eco taxing of vehicles [though pointed out in the E85 comments still flawed] and that is our nasty high fuel duty. Think about it, you drive a big heavy car, it has poor fuel efficiency and you're a lead-foot; what happens? You use lots of fuel and you'll pay lots of duty. Though you may have a light, lean and clean car and you drive it with a delicate tickle-foot; so what happens? You pay a lot less tax per mile. It seems equitable to me.

I do wish total toxicity of a car was a measure alongside the CO2 output, how far would a Prius or other wobbly engineered hybrid stay near the top of the table?

Penguin45
16th March 2008, 09:59 PM
Cut to the chase - politicians and nappies* should be changed regularly and for the same reasons.

Penguin45.

*That's diapers for our colonial friends.

Albert Trout
17th March 2008, 06:24 AM
Ed Balls, is that you? Oh yeah, my mistake, you said "So Weak". Of course. So, I drive 4000 miles a year in a car that produces 256g/km co2. Why should I pay twice as much tax as some smug git whose car produces half that but gets driven 20000 miles a year? At least a seven year old 9-5 is nearly worthless already otherwise I'd be really upset.

The other guy pays more tax as he's buying 16,000 miles worth of fuel more than you.

Albert Trout
17th March 2008, 06:50 AM
Actually is not that efficient, it averages 36 or 38mpg in the city, nor any better than a diesel and way off its claimed 60mpg.

There was an article in the Sunday Times yesterday and they drove a Pious and a BMW 520d from London to the South of France. There was virtually no difference in the amount of fuel used. It's not a car, it's a politcal statement.

And clear your PM box ya walloper.

philb
17th March 2008, 09:34 AM
Hmm, looks like you are rapidly catching up with ireland, but still have a ways to go. We got a 10% hike last year, bringing me up from about 550 euro to 590 eur. (440 pounds to 465 pounds. )

This year, the new co2 based scheme is being brought in.
200 grams per km means you pay 1000 euro road tax, 225 or over and you pay 2000 euro. Thats 768 or 1530 pounds.
Luckily it only applies to newly registered cars, new cars. They were going to apply it to imports as well, regardless of age. And its very difficult to prove the emissions on a 91 saab.. in which case you get to pay the top rate.

ShadowWorks
17th March 2008, 11:51 AM
We got a 10% hike last year, bringing me up from about 550 euro to 590 eur. (440 pounds to 465 pounds. )


How can they make you pay that Phil, they would have to catch me and pull my pants down first:lol:

QUOTE=philb] This year, the new co2 based scheme is being brought in.
200 grams per km means you pay 1000 euro road tax, 225 or over and you pay 2000 euro.[/QUOTE]

That is just crazy Tax, I guess industry does not have to watch their CO2 emissions, so what does your engine produce Phil in CO2 terms per Kilometre?

I know I can make my engine produce less C02 than a much more modern 2000 Honda but that is at idle., I don't know about load.

PM cleared

philo
17th March 2008, 07:43 PM
The other guy pays more tax as he's buying 16,000 miles worth of fuel more than you.

So he is. And maybe, he drinks more, smokes more and pays more income tax than me too, that's not the point. This thread isn't about fuel duty, it's about road tax. I am only suggesting that this tax is not equitable. That said, when I change the car, will the tax band influence my choice? You better believe it.

Albert Trout
17th March 2008, 07:59 PM
So he is. And maybe, he drinks more, smokes more and pays more income tax than me too, that's not the point. This thread isn't about fuel duty, it's about road tax. I am only suggesting that this tax is not equitable. That said, when I change the car, will the tax band influence my choice? You better believe it.

Well, what would be equitable? You seemed to be suggesting it should be based on annual mileage, which doesn't seem to be very practical as a large amount of money would be needed for administration.

ShadowWorks
17th March 2008, 08:01 PM
That said, when I change the car, will the tax band influence my choice? You better believe it.

You know my best mate laughs at me, he is a big body builder and drives a little red 996cc Corsa Breeze, his tax is 80 for a year I think, I pay 185, he gets 50mph I get 22mpg,

He tells me I am daft for owning a car like I do, I know he is right:lol:

Chris 9-5
17th March 2008, 08:07 PM
You know my best mate laughs at me, ............... he gets 50mph


Yeah but yours can do 159mph ;)

philo
18th March 2008, 03:29 AM
Well, what would be equitable? You seemed to be suggesting it should be based on annual mileage, which doesn't seem to be very practical as a large amount of money would be needed for administration.

So why not increase duty on fuel and ditch road tax altogether?

TooMany2cvs
18th March 2008, 04:29 AM
That said, when I change the car, will the tax band influence my choice? You better believe it.

Their intention has worked, then.

Albert Trout
18th March 2008, 05:31 AM
So why not increase duty on fuel and ditch road tax altogether?

Peronally, I wouldn't have a problem with that but whether we like it or not the government are trying to make the sort cars that we like socially unacceptable and basically that's what the hike in road tax is about. What they do with the money is another matter entirely.... As Sha said, people who have an interest in cars and buy them based on emotion rather than logic, and I include myself amongst them, are basically daft. We're in the minority and we're going to become more and more marginalised and it's going to cost us more every year.

You could argue, quite legitimately, all day about the true motives of the government but the way the world is today, I can't really justify owning a turbocharged c900 rather than an N/A with any argument other than it's better fun.

cdaly
18th March 2008, 06:40 AM
So why not increase duty on fuel and ditch road tax altogether?
'cos that would be logical and sensible.



The usual argument against this is that it would have an adverse effect on domestic manufacturing and transport. Oh, and everyone would drive across the border / channel to the next country for cheap fuel. Back in the day when there was a big difference between fuel prices in Northern Ireland and the Republic, there was not a single petrol station within about 40 miles of the border on the south side. These days, fuel prices in the Republic are lower than in NI and the big flashy petrol stations are all south of the border...


Mind you, if there was an EU dictat on the subject...

TooMany2cvs
18th March 2008, 06:45 AM
The usual argument against this is that it would have an adverse effect on domestic manufacturing and transport. Oh, and everyone would drive across the border / channel to the next country for cheap fuel. Back in the day when there was a big difference between fuel prices in Northern Ireland and the Republic, there was not a single petrol station within about 40 miles of the border on the south side. These days, fuel prices in the Republic are lower than in NI and the big flashy petrol stations are all south of the border...

Mind you, if there was an EU dictat on the subject...

As ever, people on one side or the other would be up in arms.

Consistent taxation on diesel? Would it halve the price in the UK or double it in France?
Same for consistent taxation on alcohol between the UK and France. Or Tobacco between the UK & Belgium.

Either way, the ferry companies'd be up in arms, because the booze cruise traffic would plummet...

ShadowWorks
18th March 2008, 10:01 PM
Corsa Breeze, he gets 50mph I get 22mpg,

I meant 50mpg, when I get 22mpg, he can actually do 80mph.

#I can't really justify owning a turbocharged c900 rather than an N/A with any argument other than it's better fun.

I can't justify it either, I try to avoid driving at all cost because of the amount of fuel it sucks up:lol:

If I had a car that did 50 mpg car I would drive to the end of the street just for the hell of it, fuel heavy cars keep lots of cars of the road, so there better for the environment ;)