Thanks Ken!

Freefaller · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:39

If they really wanted to enforce "clean" (LOL) cars then they should just ban manufacturers and importers of producing such cars. Hmm wait a second, that's not going to happen because they want their money.

The problem is people will pay the £25 - and it will be the people that can afford it in general - another tax for wealthy people

It's almost not worth earning money anymore - you have a better life off benefits. I already pay a stupid amount of tax in all aspects of my life, why should we all have to pay more because I can afford a bigger better more gas guzzling less CO2 friendly car?!

Freefaller · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:39

Scottland said:
Ah but you're forgetting that F1 is "Carbon neutral"

Of course how silly of me!

Hamish · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:40

GeX said:
here is a good enough reason, you've already paid tax on the car when you bought it, you've then paid tax to drive it on the road, tax or any servicing or work the car has needed, you've paid for fuel that has been taxed and then taxed again. After paying out so much, why the hell would i want to sit on a bus in god knows what with a load of chavs, i've paid for my car, where i can sit on a comfy seat, with my music on, with the air at a temp i've chosen and after all this - the bus isn't even going to take me to exactly where i wanted to go.

The main reason of the tax isn't to make money though, its to discourage people from driving in the zone.
The congestion charge zone is pretty tiny in comparison to London ( http://www.peter-waugh.co.uk/congestion_map.gif ). The area it covers is one of the most transport connected areas in the world, virtually no area is further than 10 mins walk from a tube station and tens of buses an hour run down every major street. If you really must have the luxury of driving 2 miles an hour round the city in your nice car you must pay a premium. in an odd way it's supply and demand (too many cars, not enough roads).

Jez said:
What about people like me though, i will reguarly drive into london to a clients office, park for half an hour in their carpark while i pick up a load of kit, then take it to other places for installation or relocation (we are relocating a lot of kit from central to out of london datacentres). How do you suggest i do that without a car? Its nonesense that my half an hour just inside the zone should cost £25 :/

Bill it to your client? They choose to have their office in central london, they presumably pay your expenses, they pick up the cost?

Jez · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:41

Freefaller said:
It's almost not worth earning money anymore - you have a better life off benefits. I already pay a stupid amount of tax in all aspects of my life, why should we all have to pay more?!

While i agree with the fact that taxation is getting ridiculous, have you ever been to a council estate, they certainly dont have a better life :eek:

Freefaller · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:42

My tongue might have been slightly cheekified, with an added twist of sarcasm powder.

mjt · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:43

annoy everyone, get an RX400h ;D

Dangerous Dave · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:43

Jez said:
Very bad news for me, i drive into london a fair bit and mine will be hit by the £25 charge. I dont pay it but its yet another reason for the company to complain about my car.

Whats worse is that i cannot imagine a scenario where id get a car which doesnt get hit by the £25 charge, unless i bought a much smaller engined pre 2001 model.

Bah humbug

What about a S320 CDI would have thought that would be under the £25 charge, doesn't have the overall poke of your s430 but interior/comfort would be identical. Would have thought they would muster 35mpg on the motorway aswell and with the extra torque at motorway speeds I would have thought the performance would be similair.

Jez · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:43

Hamish said:
Bill it to your client? They choose to have their office in central london, they presumably pay your expenses, they pick up the cost?

Missing the point there, obviously i dont pay it, its the principle of the whole thing that gets to me, and the fact that its yet another avoidable expense which i am either going to have to explain the reasoning for, or avoid it by getting an economical car.

Von Luck · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:45

[TW]Fox · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:47

Von Luck said:
Now you're just being silly. If there was a lower cost option to my current electricity supplier which would illuminate my light bulbs just as well, then obviously I'd choose it.

Changing an electricity supplier is of no other consequence to you, though.

Of course you have the right to be annoyed - however the option is there to save money, it's down to you to make the decision to stick with your current car or not.

Changing car, however, will result in an inferior car AND him losing money. Not really the same thing as swapping to NPower, is it?

Jez · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:47

Dangerous Dave said:
What about a S320 CDI would have thought that would be under the £25 charge, doesn't have the overall poke of your s430 but interior/comfort would be identical. Would have thought they would muster 35mpg on the motorway aswell and with the extra torque at motorway speeds I would have thought the performance would be similair.

Even the diesel is band F, and the engine is rubbish

Von Luck said:
Now you're just being silly. If there was a lower cost option to my current electricity supplier which would illuminate my light bulbs just as well, then obviously I'd choose it.

Of course you have the right to be annoyed - however the option is there to save money, it's down to you to make the decision to stick with your current car or not.

There is not a solution which would fall into the lower bracket which would "illuminate my bulbs just as well" however. I would have to have a huge downgrade simply to maintain the current charge.

clv101 · 13 Feb 2008 at 13:58

Jez said:
Hamish said:

Bill it to your client? They choose to have their office in central london, they presumably pay your expenses, they pick up the cost?

Click to expand...

Missing the point there, obviously i dont pay it, its the principle of the whole thing that gets to me, and the fact that its yet another avoidable expense which i am either going to have to explain the reasoning for, or avoid it by getting an economical car.

No, Hamish is exactly right. The tax system is being used to adjust the relative attractiveness of various decisions - this includes your personal car choices, your companies expense policy, your clients choice of suppliers, your clients choice of location etc...

For example, in your situation, this increase means the cost of doing business for your company has increased. Say another company offers the same service, but uses efficient vehicles, all of a sudden they have an advantage over your company. Great. The efficient company is being rewarded, their costs are lower, their prices can be lower and eventually, all else being equal they will put your, inefficient company out of business.

If your company is smart they will stop paying your £25 congestion fee and remain competitive, this will then encourage you to drive a more efficient car and the country is better off.

Von Luck · 13 Feb 2008 at 14:04

[TW]Fox · 13 Feb 2008 at 14:06

clv101 said:
If your company is smart they will stop paying your £25 congestion fee and remain competitive, this will then encourage you to drive a more efficient car and the country is better off.

For efficient please read 'inferior' or 'more expensive'. He could buy a brand new S320 CDI which is indeed in the lower emissions bracket. This will cost him £50,000, and whats the C02 cost of the production of this car? Or he could downgrade.

Otherwise, you are correct.

Mr Jack · 13 Feb 2008 at 14:06

Jez said:
There is not a solution which would fall into the lower bracket which would "illuminate my bulbs just as well" however. I would have to have a huge downgrade simply to maintain the current charge.

Yes, that's the general idea. You stop needlessly polluting by driving a larger engined car than you need.

Freefaller · 13 Feb 2008 at 14:07

It is forcing you to make a choice though - it's a bit unfair really. Then again life's a bitch. Most companies that I know would just roll the costs on to their customers rather than absorb them - so things will get even more expensive! Hoorah! Now there is the "low emissions" zones in town too. Which in a way is good because it's only for big diesel vehicles which do cause much more polution and damage to environment. However I still think they should ban big HGVs from Central London anyway.

[TW]Fox · 13 Feb 2008 at 14:08

Mr Jack said:
Yes, that's the general idea. You stop needlessly polluting by driving a larger engined car than you need.

Why is it needless? There is no hard evidence that the pollution his car emits is noticeably more damaging than that emitted by, say, a BMW 325i. Notice I say 'noticeably'. There is, however, evidence to suggest his car is LESS damaging to human health than a Ford Mondeo TDCi..

I posted some figures a year ago indicating that if the British public EITHER gave up driving completely OR all traded their cars in for 4.4 V8 Range Rovers, the effect on world carbon emissions would not register.

Mr Jack · 13 Feb 2008 at 14:09

[TW]Fox;11094199 said:
C02 isn't deadly and poisonous - NOx is.

Yet diesels, which emit reasonably low C02 yet stacks of NOx, are encouraged under these hairbrained schemes. Please justify that?

Euro 4 standards limit diesels to 0.25 g/km NOx, proposed Euro 5 will drop it to 0.2 g/km NOx. Don't pretend that NOx emissions aren't a concern that is being dealt with.

[TW]Fox · 13 Feb 2008 at 14:09

Mr Jack said:
Euro 4 standards limit diesels to 0.25 g/km NOx, proposed Euro 5 will drop it to 0.2 g/km NOx. Don't pretend that NOx emissions aren't a concern that is being dealt with.

Could you explain how the congestion charge deals with NOx?

Freefaller · 13 Feb 2008 at 14:14

I wish he'd rename it from "congestion" charge, to "pollution tax" or something a bit more realistic.