The Budget - Band G Tax £1000!

clv101 · 12 Mar 2008 at 23:59

Jonnycoupe said:
What, hes measuring the CO2?

I think your missing the point, the CO2 emissions of that car will be similar to a car of that power in the real world conditions, its just the stupid 1200 seconds test they run through where the difference is significant and hence drops the BMW product a tax band or two.

No it's not. He's seeing the improved mpg (CO2 is a good proxy for the inverse of mpg).

clv101 · 13 Mar 2008 at 00:02

Lynndinky said:
Labour do not know what to tax next, they hit the motorist because they know they can, we still all have to work make the same journeys etc so what do we do we pay and so they tax again and the british public again will pay. The fuel tax has **** all to do with the environment, the goverment just sees it as an excuse to tax the living daylights out of us becuase basically theyve totally ****** up the country as LABOUR always do (anyone remember the 70's).

It's comments like this that are disappointing - the UK one of the lowest tax burdens in Europe outside Eastern Europe and Ireland. :rolleyes:

[TW]Fox · 13 Mar 2008 at 00:08

clv101 said:
It's comments like this that are disappointing

But hardly suprising - when the government do something like introduce a hugely punative retrospective tax which even you struggle to see the purpose in, then what do you expect the electorate to think?

It's like the increased tax on a pint to curb binge drinking. 4p a pint? To curb binge drinking? So if you go on a 10 pint bender you pay an extra 40p a night. It's not going to do ANYTHING bar raise more money for the government.

Just like taxing the owners of 2001 Mondeo 2.0 Automatics £300 a year isnt going to do anything but raise more money for the government.

Simon · 13 Mar 2008 at 00:13

clv101 said:
No it's not. He's seeing the improved mpg (CO2 is a good proxy for the inverse of mpg).

As an example. Hybrids get nothing near the quoted numbers in the real world

Dolph · 13 Mar 2008 at 00:15

clv101 said:
It's comments like this that are disappointing - the UK one of the lowest tax burdens in Europe outside Eastern Europe and Ireland.

Yes, but that's only because the tax burden in mainland europe is even more stupidly high, not because ours is low

Kingy · 13 Mar 2008 at 06:56

[TW]Fox;11286852 said:
335 is rubbish - 221g/km and 30mpg combined becuase its based on the M54 in my car not the new N52.

\o/

So you're telling me it will be in a lower VED band, return better economy than ours, while giving 70 more horses out of the box, and a potential easy extra 50 if wanted AND there may be less demand for it because hippies want to save a £100ish a year on VED by going for the N52?

Get In.

What are the economy figures of the N52 like, and have they been been proven in the real world (aimed at the 123d / 320d also)?

Third Opinion · 13 Mar 2008 at 10:42

If they continue along these lines of fleecing the motorist i wonder if any manufacturers will abandon sales in the UK?

If a majority of your range falls into the Governments hitlist then you are bound to see your figures take a tanking.

I personally feel this is the beginning of a extremely bad run for the motorist who is going to get stung more and more as the years go on.

clv101 · 13 Mar 2008 at 10:49

Third Opinion said:
If they continue along these lines of fleecing the motorist i wonder if any manufacturers will abandon sales in the UK?

No, manufactures will still sell lots of cars here.

Third Opinion said:
If a majority of your range falls into the Governments hitlist then you are bound to see your figures take a tanking.

Yeah, and rightly so. If inefficient cars lose market share it will to the benefit of efficient cars. The response of the sensible company is to improve the efficiency of its range. This isn't a UK thing - the whole of Europe is putting tight CO2 limits in place and in the US the cost of fuel has risen 3-fold improving demand for efficiency.

The smart car company is working as hard as possible to develop efficient products - see the new BMW range, see Toyota's hybrid technology. The right response to "the real world" is not to pull out of markets one by one until you haven't got a business anymore!

Jonnycoupe · 13 Mar 2008 at 11:10

clv101 said:
No it's not. He's seeing the improved mpg (CO2 is a good proxy for the inverse of mpg).

But the point im making is that the OEM stated Co2 and MPG figures are attained by two totally different test methods.

clv101 · 13 Mar 2008 at 11:22

That's as may be - but doesn't stop them being a good proxy for each other. Just look at the data, plot a scatter graph of all cars, CO2 on one axis, MPG on the other - you'll be able to stick a straight line through the data.

Simon · 13 Mar 2008 at 11:48

Not for diesels and petrol. You will need a different graph for each due to the different carbon content per gallon of each fuel

MTA99 · 13 Mar 2008 at 11:50

At the risk of taking the thread off-topic is no one else concerned that's he's putting money aside to develop the road pricing technology!

As with ID cards, its seems the government are acknowledging the public's lack of interest in these schemes but going ahead anyways :rolleyes:

Jonnycoupe · 13 Mar 2008 at 12:34

clv101 said:
That's as may be - but doesn't stop them being a good proxy for each other. Just look at the data, plot a scatter graph of all cars, CO2 on one axis, MPG on the other - you'll be able to stick a straight line through the data.

Which MPG? Urban, extra urban or combined. There wont be a MPG rating for the CO2 test so how could you expect a straightline?

Saytan · 13 Mar 2008 at 12:39

all it does is make me *really* want an X-plate S-class or A8

mattpc · 13 Mar 2008 at 12:49

It's pathetic! It's like the no road tax for green cars. It's only for the first year therefore pointless because you would have to waste money on a brand new car to get the small benefit.

GT3 · 13 Mar 2008 at 13:37

Hmm some integra DC5s were registered as PLG and not with an emissions reading despite them being a 2001 onwards car. So £180 tax!

platypus · 13 Mar 2008 at 14:41

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/13/budget_2008_fuel_duty/

Makes for an interesting read

.

clv101 · 13 Mar 2008 at 14:50

platypus said:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/13/budget_2008_fuel_duty/

Makes for an interesting read .

It's rubbish, for the obvious reason pointed out by the 2nd comment:

Flawed analysis
By Mark
Posted Thursday 13th March 2008 10:31 GMT

Tim - your analysis is completely flawed. You make the assumption that the only reason to have fuel tax is to try to prevent climate change. Its not - there was already fuel tax before anyone had ever heard of climate change for issues to do with attempting to ration road use to prevent detrimaental effects on the real environment due to car use - i.e. making car drivers pay something towards the real time external costs of car use.

In order to calculate the correct level of taxation under your analysis you would need to add the further taxation needed to pay for climate change objectives to the existing taxation.

Now stop posting complete garbage.

platypus · 13 Mar 2008 at 16:46

I said it makes for an interesting read, nothing more, nothing less.

clv101 · 13 Mar 2008 at 17:01

platypus said:
I said it makes for an interesting read, nothing more, nothing less.

Sure, I didn't disagree. I just said it was rubbish.