VED causing cars to be scrapped

Rilot

Rilot

Rilot

Don
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
23,614
Location
Wargrave, UK
Apologies if this has been posted before. I did take a look but couldn't see anything.

I was reading an article about this a couple of days ago and it's worth discussing it here.

With bands L and M only applying to vehicles built after March 2006 it's always been safe to assume that even though the cars may be expensive to tax, their intrinsic value makes it worth it. 2006 was 7 years ago now and we're approaching a situation where the cost to tax some cars becomes more than half of the car's total value. This is going to see a fair few vehicles scrapped well before the end of their service life, simply because no one will want to buy or own them.

Hardly environmentally friendly having perfectly good cars priced off the road.
 
Taxation has never about being green, it's about the money. Back when they taxed people for running on cooking oil HMRC reviewed their "understanding" of the law (the law didn't actually change) and bumped up the duty rate by 20p/L.

Green policies are about making a nice impression, not encouraging green behaviour.
 
If the first year was taxed at a much higher rate than it is now, then the subsequent years are taxed at a more "normal" rate, it would make far more sense, and potentially put off a few more buyers of higher-emission vehicles from brand new.

Of course that would make far too much logical sense for any UK government to implement.
 
VED is a running cost. Why would it cause a car to be scrapped. High cost of petrol doesn't cause low value cars to be scrapped does (given equal mpg cars)
 
Last edited:
muon said:
VED is a running cost. Why would it cause a car to be scrapped. High cost of petrol doesn't cause low value cars to be scrapped does (given equal mpg cars).
Click to expand...

Because you're never filling up with £500 worth of fuel.

Getting stung for £490's worth of tax on a £1500 car doesn't make sense to most people in "one hit".
 
paradigm said:
Because you're never filling up with £500 worth of fuel.

Getting stung for £490's worth of tax on a £1500 car doesn't make sense to most people in "one hit".
Click to expand...

I don't think that argument is valid. However, there is another avenue where cars get negative value due to depressed demand.

However, that should also effect newer cars and restrict supply over time so it doesn't happen.

edit:

This surely affects all cars as well over time? It's just worse for Band M and L because the government wants a steep depreciation curve to stop people buying them in the first place.
 
Last edited:
My biggest gripe with VED at the moment is all the car's that do not pay any or such a pitiful amount.

I know these car's are classed as green so all touchy feely for the environment, but they still drive on the roads, still cause wear and tear.

My mate company car is 2.0 TDI Insignis estate and think the road tax on that is £60 or something stupidly low on a car that is not exactly light on the road.

What they should do is derive the cost of VED from a combination of miles traveled to weight of the car.

That way people with big heavy cars and drive a lot will be charged more than the old lady driving her metro into town once a week.
 
Nikumba said:
My biggest gripe with VED at the moment is all the car's that do not pay any or such a pitiful amount.

I know these car's are classed as green so all touchy feely for the environment, but they still drive on the roads, still cause wear and tear.

My mate company car is 2.0 TDI Insignis estate and think the road tax on that is £60 or something stupidly low on a car that is not exactly light on the road.

What they should do is derive the cost of VED from a combination of miles traveled to weight of the car.

That way people with big heavy cars and drive a lot will be charged more than the old lady driving her metro into town once a week.
Click to expand...
As has been mentioned eleventy gazillion times EVERYWHERE on tinternet..

There is NO SUCH THING as Road Tax

You/We are paying a "You dirty scummer" tax for travelling as a guest on the public highway via a polluting vehicle.

There are different categories of "Dirty Scummer" taxation

Simples !!
 
Agreed with the OP, the whole system needs overhauling.

I've got a Saab 9-3, 2001 plate, 150bhp Turbo. Most likely worth less than a grand as it's air con is knackered and it only does about 2500 miles a year (if that) at the moment as I walk to work. And yet I'm paying £280 a year for it to sit outside my house for 95% of the time on top of the insurance cost. It runs perfectly fine so I'm not going to chop it in as it's a massive waste. Plus, I need the flexibility of a car as Public Transport is even more expensive and awkward.

I just can't see why they can't add a couple of pennies to the fuel duty and let cars be "taxed" that way - cars that are less economical use more fuel and pay more tax. Cars that are used more, pay more tax. Who knows how much it would save in administration - we already track cars with the insurance databases, no reason why we can't have an "insurance disc" system in place.
 
The argument becomes invalid when an RX8 does 2000 miles a year and pas top whack yet a Fiat 500 twin air pays hardly anything yet could do 30000 a year producing more C02 but costing less as it is "greener".
 
NathWraith said:
The argument becomes invalid when an RX8 does 2000 miles a year and pas top whack yet a Fiat 500 twin air pays hardly anything yet could do 30000 a year producing more C02 but costing less as it is "greener".
Click to expand...

Careful what you wish for, id be more than happy to pay £500 a year if it means the gov doesn't track my vehicle usage.
 
The whole argument goes out of what when one plane out does several thousand car miles yet they pay very little petrol tax? And they pollute closer to the greenhouse causing more damage per kilo of emissions anyway.

And all transport including aviation and cars only contribute about 3% of all man made greenhouse gases..which mean cars effectively add sweet fa.

So yes its a tax on those the government can charge because they know you will pay it even though the effect of that pollution is minimal.
 
Surely when they coined the phrase green tax they were initially referring to the colour of the £1 note and now the £5 note that the tax brings in, nothing to do with being environmentally green or clean as far as I've known.
 
paradigm said:
If the first year was taxed at a much higher rate than it is now, then the subsequent years are taxed at a more "normal" rate, it would make far more sense, and potentially put off a few more buyers of higher-emission vehicles from brand new.

Of course that would make far too much logical sense for any UK government to implement.
Click to expand...

This pretty much already happens doesn't it? Band M is £1000 first year and then £460 after that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom