Thanks Ken!

[Simon]

That's what he's basing it on though (CO2). It's unfair to tax people just because they want a type of car. I agree if we can make cars more efficient then great, but efficiency doesn't necessarily = CO2. My car does well over 210g/km of CO2, but I can achieve well over 35mpg if I drive sensibly and other more efficient cars produce maybe more CO2 and yet return more miles, so ecconomy is different to CO2 emissions. Heck there are some hybrid cars that have a huge 3.5L V6 but have some batteries, they still produce "high" levels CO2.

Yes the consumption of oil is high, but the accountability for cars is quite minimal in comparison to powerstations, manufacturing and other processes around the world.

CO2 and mpg are proportional.

The more fuel you burn the more CO2 you emit.

 

[Mr Jack]

In what way is a Ford Mondeo a 'huge emission car'?

In that it produces over 225 g/km of CO2? And you're being misleading the Mondeo is only over that limit if you chose the more polluting models; the more sensible options aren't over that limit.

 

[Freefaller]

CO2 and mpg are proportional.

The more fuel you burn the more CO2 you emit.

Ah ok, thanks for that.

I still feel that CO2 is a pointless argument though.

 

[melbourne720]

Madness. If they really wanted to lower emissions then they would set maximum limits for new cars. This purely a revenue raising exercise.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Sounds good to me. Anything that makes inefficient cars relatively less attractive than efficient cars is good news.

Ditto.

I do pity people who 'must' drive into London. Its something I personally would never want to do myself. However if you must do it, then you're either going to have to suck the cost or get something more efficient.

It is a congestion charge, even though its based on your emissions. Its there to deter people driving through london.

Plus, I love this notion that the Government are 'making money' out of tax. Where did that come from.

 

[PeterNem]

This purely a revenue raising exercise.

Exactly - just like most of these 'green' taxes. It sucks.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Madness. If they really wanted to lower emissions then they would set maximum limits for new cars. This purely a revenue raising exercise.

Yer, because you wouldn't complain more about that would you.

 

[hiroofheroes]

Expect bluemotion golf/a3 sales to increase - 119 g/km.

 

[Muffin`]

Yer, because you wouldn't complain more about that would you.

If they were really serious about keeping that Thames Barrier useful they would do a lot more then just tax.

Plus, I love this notion that the Government are 'making money' out of tax. Where did that come from.

Where does the Tax go?

 

[Freefaller]

All this "green" stuff is a pile of nonsense. The planet can look after itself. We need to worry about other countries like america and china that are causing serious amounts of pollution. Not follow the ideas of a pathetic little man that just wants to line his pockets.

 

[clv101]

...but efficiency doesn't necessarly = CO2.

CO2 is a fair proxy for oil consumption - each one of those carbon atoms comes from the hydrocarbon molecule in the oil.

Yes the consumption of oil is high, but the accountability for cars is quite minimal in comparison to powerstations, manufacturing and other processes around the world.

Everything is small if considered on its own... the problem with oil isn't the CO2 - it's the economic impact of continued reliance.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Where does the Tax go?

It all go's in Gordon Browns private account in Monte Carlo. He go's there at weekends and lives it up on his luxury yaucht.

 

[Mr Jack]

Madness. If they really wanted to lower emissions then they would set maximum limits for new cars.

I agree. That would be a better and more consistent approach. The problem with green taxation is threefold:

1. Cars are vastly over-taxed for CO2 compared to other major uses already - especially gas and electric (up to 25 times more).
2. It is difficult, if not impossible, to tax essentials in a way that is both effective for the rich (let's face it if you can afford to buy a beamer, you can afford to run it) and doesn't unfairly penalise the poor.
3. It gives a feeling of entitlement. "I've paid my X taxes for my inefficient car; I've done my part!" - er, no, you're still pumping that CO2 into the atmosphere.

This purely a revenue raising exercise.

Mostly, yes, I think so - gotta pay for those olympics somehow. But you're being a little unfair to Red Ken; it's not like he actually has the power to ban the sale of these cars.

 

[Dolph]

It all go's in Gordon Browns private account in Monte Carlo. He go's there at weekends and lives it up on his luxury yaucht.

I'd be less annoyed with that than the current spending plan, at least the above could be dealt with easily. Huge massive inefficiency and a state reliance culture takes a lot longer to address.

 

[Muffin`]

It all go's in Gordon Browns private account in Monte Carlo. He go's there at weekends and lives it up on his luxury yaucht.

Is that what you think people on here think they do with the tax?

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Is that what you think people on here think they do with the tax?

I dont know. Where do you think it go's?

Social Security & Tax Credits - £136.6 billion
Health - £81.5 billion
Education - £63.3 billion
Police & Public Order - £28.7 billion
Defence - £28.2 billion
Government Debt - £24.5 billion
Overseas Aid - £4.1 billion

If you want a more sensible answer.

 

[melbourne720]

Yer, because you wouldn't complain more about that would you.

Not really.

It just seems if there is 2 ways to help fix a problem, they would rather take on (and tax) the general public than legislate against industry.

Science and engineering are the only way to sort out global warming and pollution (imho). Once a polluting car / power station has been made, then it is too late. It is a waste of resources to get rid of perfectly good machines, just because the government didn't have the political will to enforce tougher emission standards when they were being produced.

 

[clv101]

I'd be less annoyed with that than the current spending plan, at least the above could be dealt with easily. Huge massive inefficiency and a state reliance culture takes a lot longer to address.

The vast majority of that "waste" is spent on salaries of government employees/contractors. The money is then re-spent into the economy at shops like OcUK. Whilst more could be achieved - the money isn't destroyed, it continues to circle in the economy.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Not really.
It just seems if there is 2 ways to help fix a problem, they would rather take on (and tax) the general public than legislate against industry.

Yes, thats because we live in a market economy instead of a communist regime.

They use market forces to urge us in certain directions, instead of just slapping down the law and saying we must stick to it.

 

[Dolph]

The vast majority of that "waste" is spent on salaries of government employees/contractors. The money is then re-spent into the economy at shops like OcUK. Whilst more could be achieved - the money isn't destroyed, it continues to circle in the economy.

Bug One's figures would disagree with you

Further to that, there is the question of whether the money taken from the populace provides more economic benefits when spent by the state than it would if spent by private individuals, and questions on whether the state should even involve itself in running many of the departments it does, or whether they could be better and more efficiently provided by another route.