I think your first statement was correct, which renders voting another party in irrelevant for this reason alone.
The Budget - Band G Tax £1000!
- Thread starter Alex UK
- Start date
I think your first statement was correct, which renders voting another party in irrelevant for this reason alone.
Wow, nice calculator, just the ticket
, fully declared "Next year, the indications are that you will be £442.3 better off."Maybe the budget wasnt as bad as i thought! Potential car desirability increase and a fairly sizable tax saving.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 13,497
£90 tax for meeeeeeeee
1.5L Golf from 1983 ***
Nice.
Edit: I assume that my tax doesn't change? And 2ndly, if your 3 grams over the limit, get it re-tuned so its a few under? Ok u might loose a hp or two but hey its £130 saved
1.5L Golf from 1983 ***
Nice.
Edit: I assume that my tax doesn't change? And 2ndly, if your 3 grams over the limit, get it re-tuned so its a few under? Ok u might loose a hp or two but hey its £130 saved
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
And 2ndly, if your 3 grams over the limit, get it re-tuned so its a few under? Ok u might loose a hp or two but hey its £130 saved
You can't - it goes on when the car was new.
Rubbish.
2006 - Manufacturing in US Dollars
Code:
United States $1724bn
China $1096bn
Japan $929bn
Germany $620bn
Italy $313bn
[i][b]United Kingdom $308bn[/b][/i]
France $275bn
Brazil $231bn
Republic of Korea $216bn
Canada $213bn
Spain $178bn
Russian Federation $163bn
Mexico $136bn
India $130bn
Indonesia $103bn
Netherlands $85bn
Australia $84bn
Turkey $83bn
Taiwan Province of China $76bn
Thailand $62bn
clv, I'd be interested in your opinion on the decision to abandon the distinction for cars produced before and after 2006 when setting taxation.
What purpose do you feel it is supposed to serve? Are people going to scrap cars now liable for high tax? If not, what is the net result of these changes beyond more money for the treasurey under the guise of 'being environmental'?
FWIW, I support taxation like this for new cars.
What purpose do you feel it is supposed to serve? Are people going to scrap cars now liable for high tax? If not, what is the net result of these changes beyond more money for the treasurey under the guise of 'being environmental'?
FWIW, I support taxation like this for new cars.
Fair cop, I should have said compared to days gone by. I was referring (subjectively) to the switch away from producing things (mining, steel, cars, etc) and into services.
It should in theory get car makers producing more efficient vehicles which everyone benefits from. Big V8s etc excluded of course.
Becuase it drives change - look at the latest engine range from BMW. Without legislation and taxation pressures a 3 litre 5 Series would do 30mpg, like mine, not 40mpg, like the current models.
It also conditions consumers to think about cost when chosing a brand new car - oil prices are not going to be much lower any time soon.
But all of this becomes irrelevent when considering taxation for existing cars. This is why I dont understand the decision.
No idea, sorry! I would have liked better grandfathering arrangements and focus VED on new cars – with the aim on changed new-buy decision making.[TW]Fox;11286095 said:
I don't think VED will cause cars to be scrapped until the cars value is similar to a year or two's difference between the VED on a "better" car and the value of the car itself. So when your old, inefficient Renault gets a VED bill for £400+ quid but the car itself is only worth £300 - at that point it may be scrapped a year sooner than it otherwise would be. No one’s going to crush a £3000 car ‘cos of the VED.[TW]Fox;11286095 said:
All it means is that cars pretty much at end of life will be scrapped a little bit sooner. Maybe no ideal, but not too serious a problem either.
[TW]Fox;11286272 said:
Two points based on fuel efficency, and the high price of oil and increasing levels of fuel duty will both drive consumer demand for more fuel efficient engines?
What does todays legislation bring to mainstream development demand that dosen't already exist?
Not exactly a problem but it hasn't exactly acheived anything.
Now, I wonder how many people are in a similar situation to me - an interesting thought:
To drive my car into town and back costs about £2 in fuel. Some days I'll fancy a walk and I'll the couple of miles and hop a bus into town. The bus return is £2.60 so it costs more than the variable cost of using the car for that journey but hey, it's less hassle than finding a space (I dont pay for parking) and I'm doing my bit and all that.
Now, after I've been forced to cough up £430 for road tax which I must pay irrespective of whether I drive 10 miles or 100,000 miles in that year, I'm going to be a lot more inclined to drive simply to 'get my moneys worth'.
I can't be the only person in that sort of situation, surely?
This sort of taxation NEEDS to be a variable cost. The more you use the car, the more you pay, fixed costs hurt the people who use their car the least! Where is the sense in that?
Look at Jez - 50,000 miles a year in a 4.3 litre car. He will pay less than HALF the road tax I pay despite emitting more than 15 times the C02 and barely returning 25mpg on the Motorway where I'd get 36mpg, whilst listening to Radio 2, preparing a 'fuel economy ***' thread on OcUK.
Not at anywhere near the rate it has currently, though.
In 2000, fuel prices hit 85p a litre.
Now, they are what, 105p a litre around here?
Thats a 20 pence increase in 8 years. Thats not the sort of increase that is large enough to drive the development thats gone on in the last decade.
EfficientDynamics has come about, I reckon, largely as a result of C02 based company car taxation.
See above.
Yeah, I agree with you. But how? Very hard to add any more to fuel. Other options are congestion charging and road pricing... As bad as high, fixed taxation is on older cars, low mileage cars - I think the alternatives are less politically acceptable. Blame the electorate.[TW]Fox;11286404 said:
I honestly dont mind road pricing and never have, provided it replaces fuel duty and excise duty and means that for, say, 'average' mileage the cost of driving remains similar, for high mileage it goes right up and for low mileage it goes down.
That way nobody is screwed over, people who think 'I will get a job 100 miles away' have to think long and hard and those who have a car but make an effort to use more sustainable transport or perhaps use a car only for fun pay less than they do now.
But The Sun said 'You will all pay £2 a mile!' so that was the end of that one.
And any oil we save China will simply use up in our place in a matter of days anyway making the whole thing rather futile.
That way nobody is screwed over, people who think 'I will get a job 100 miles away' have to think long and hard and those who have a car but make an effort to use more sustainable transport or perhaps use a car only for fun pay less than they do now.
But The Sun said 'You will all pay £2 a mile!' so that was the end of that one.
And any oil we save China will simply use up in our place in a matter of days anyway making the whole thing rather futile.
Not really, I bet most people including me would accept 1-2p per ltr extra on fuel if road tax was abolished. This would make the system fair and easy to police and no one could escape paying it like they can now.
Another benefit would be that there would be minimal admin cost in comparison to the current system this would save millions. Why does everything have to be so difficult and unecessarily complicated.
See the calculation above - it would be at least 15p per litre extra to abolish road tax. No way would that fly.