Am I the onnly one who has worked out that the new road tax system is a complete con?

Trebor16

forgotmyname wrote: »

I thought the emissions based tax groups came out before 2006? I swapped cars in early 2006 from a pre 2001 car to a
post 2001 car.

That is correct, it was introduced in 2001, I recall it was cars registered with a "Y" prefix that were the first cars to be taxed under the emissions based system.

It was revised again with different bandings 2-3 years ago.

All cars registered before 1st March 2001 pay road tax based on engine size. I think the bandings are up to 1549cc and 1550cc and above.

forgotmyname

Did wonder is i was going mad. So in 2006 the emissions based system would have been in force for 5 years.

Maybe the OP's car was reclassified?


Ahhh I think I remember.... Cars built 2006 onwards have been regrouped?

Read forums where some V6 mondeo buyers have been caught out.

Penny_Farthing_2

Trebor16 wrote: »

That is correct, it was introduced in 2001, I recall it was cars registered with a "Y" prefix that were the first cars to be taxed under the emissions based system.

It was revised again with different bandings 2-3 years ago.

All cars registered before 1st March 2001 pay road tax based on engine size. I think the bandings are up to 1549cc and 1550cc and above.

That's right.

And we choose to have only 1 car-a people carrier. We bought it at
1 yr old and was registered on 13th March 2001 so we have been 'stung' by 13 days!
We could choose to change the car for one with a smaller tax but we need a big car for camping. The cost to change would be prohibitive so you pays your money and you makes your choice.

I do understand the OP's view as we have been 'caught' too but I think the general benefit of penalising heavy emitters is worth it in the longer term. When 'they' make changes that effect retrospectively, there will always be winners and losers.

cutandshut

The whole thing regarding emissions is a nonsense. The amount of carbon chucked out depends on mileage covered not engine size. I run a Range Rover and a Discovery and they both cover only around 4000 miles a year so my total emissions are far less than someone with a small car doing a high mileage and i pay loads of VED - But hey-ho nobody ever promised us life would be fair.

Trebor16

cutandshut wrote: »

The whole thing regarding emissions is a nonsense. The amount of carbon chucked out depends on mileage covered not engine size. I run a Range Rover and a Discovery and they both cover only around 4000 miles a year so my total emissions are far less than someone with a small car doing a high mileage and i pay loads of VED - But hey-ho nobody ever promised us life would be fair.

You are doing 8000 miles per year in total in two vehicles that are not renowned for their economy. You would still be putting out far more carbon than someone who also drives 8000 miles a year in a small fuel effiecient car.

pendulum

I've always had a bad deal with car tax.

It cost me £210 to tax my Citroen ZX which returned over 55mpg. The same tax as my dads 2.8 V6 BMW which gets less than half that MPG figure. In order to 'save money' and 'do my bit for the environment', I'd have to scrap a perfectly good, economical car and shell out thousands for a post-2001 car that's no better with emissions than my one. That's really fair isn't it!

Anyone who falls for taxes in the name of saving the environment is a mug IMO.

Now I'm thinking of getting a car that's a bit sportier, because I no longer travel many miles. Of course I will be stung on the tax again...

Paid loads with an economical motor which I used a lot
Paid loads with an uneconomical one which I'll hardly use

Great!

Lum

If you're going to buy a sporty gas guzzler then best to go for an older one. I struggle to get 22mpg but only pay £210/year. I also don't have an expensive catalytic converter to go wrong.

That sais, now that we're in 2011, imported cars are the best way to avoid the new tax regime, for example if you import a car from outside the EU (Japan or the USA being the most popular sources) under the 10 year old exemption then there will be no emissions data so the old rules will apply.

Also, until quite recently imported cars under 10 years old went through SVA, not IVA, so again no emissions data on these and old rules apply, I think anything brought over prior to mid 2009 falls under this loophole. Check the logbook for the CO2 figure, if it's blank.. old rules.

scheming_gypsy

I do the same as LUM, older sporty car with a big engine = standard tax and a lot more fun than chuffing around in electic powered credability killer.

kaya

all based on the ficticious and unproven "man made climate change" which has dissapeared from our lives quicker than gordon brown did now we have a new bunch of plonkers running the country!

jase1

Trebor16 wrote: »

You are doing 8000 miles per year in total in two vehicles that are not renowned for their economy. You would still be putting out far more carbon than someone who also drives 8000 miles a year in a small fuel effiecient car.

... and as a result the poster is paying much more in fuel duty.

I agree with them, road tax should be either non-existent, flat, or based on the weight of the vehicle (weight corresponding to the damage caused to the road when driven). CO2 production is a function of fuel use, so the amount of fuel consumed should be the deciding factor in how much tax is to be paid.

Someone travelling 40,000 miles a year in a low-CO2-emitting car will nonetheless put out more CO2 than someone travelling 4000 miles in a "gas guzzler", so why should the low-mileage driver be penalised? Abolish the road tax and put a penny on the fuel tax.