We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Can someone satisfy my curiosity?
Comments
-
SNAFU.Situation absolutely normal then.
Maybe to you, but that's exactly what it's trying to do to poorer people with smaller engine cars. Owners of slow small engined hatchbacks like Punto's, Clio's, Polo's etc that aren't particularly poor for emissions, with 1.0 engines made before 2001 are charged £140 whereas wealthy people with powerful Audi's, VW's, Merc's with much worse emissions made after 2001 are charged less. The wealthy are laughing.A bit annoying isn't it? Clearly, I know nothing about it but, it doesn't exactly make an incentive for getting rid of your old cars and buying newer.
It also benefits wealthy people who buy old classic cars from the 1970's, 1960's etc, pre-ECU. These have terrible emissions yet enjoy the pleasure of comparatively cheap tax. Win win for the wealthy!!
It's a rather vicious regressive tax. Wealthy people can afford to buy a new car, and enjoy free or very cheap tax. Less wealthy people have to buy an old car, so enjoy the pleasure of a nice high tax bill and don't be surprised if the government move the goalposts again.0 -
SNAFU.
Maybe to you, but that's exactly what it's trying to do to poorer people with smaller engine cars. Owners of slow small engined hatchbacks like Punto's, Clio's, Polo's etc that aren't particularly poor for emissions, with 1.0 engines made before 2001 are charged £140 whereas wealthy people with powerful Audi's, VW's, Merc's with much worse emissions made after 2001 are charged less. The wealthy are laughing.
It also benefits wealthy people who buy old classic cars from the 1970's, 1960's etc, pre-ECU. These have terrible emissions yet enjoy the pleasure of comparatively cheap tax. Win win for the wealthy!!
It's a rather vicious regressive tax. Wealthy people can afford to buy a new car, and enjoy free or very cheap tax. Less wealthy people have to buy an old car, so enjoy the pleasure of a nice high tax bill and don't be surprised if the government move the goalposts again.
I'm not in the least bit wealthy, hence the 52 plate but, I do have need of a (semi) 4x4 due to location. It just seems ridiculous when, not that many years ago, they were basically paying people to scrap their old cars in order to 'save the environment'.0 -
I'm not in the least bit wealthy, hence the 52 plate but, I do have need of a (semi) 4x4 due to location. It just seems ridiculous when, not that many years ago, they were basically paying people to scrap their old cars in order to 'save the environment'.
Apologies, I wasn't suggesting you were benefiting. When I said 'to you', I meant in your opinion
Sorry if I came across rude.
What I'm trying to say is the system benefits some people, mainly the wealthy. I suppose you're the exception in the sense that an M Reg Landy isn't exactly the definition of a classic car.0 -
Yes, different systems for pre- and post-2001 vehicles
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables
When they brought in emissions-based tax rates a grandfather clause was applied to vehicles which had already been registered, so a big old gas guzzler is often significantly cheaper to tax than a big new gas guzzler, even though its emissions and engine size may be greater.
Lucky it's not a post 2006 vehicle - the rates jump way higher after that as the cap is removed.
My 2001 car is £285 pa but would be £475 if it was 2006 model.It's a rather vicious regressive tax. Wealthy people can afford to buy a new car, and enjoy free or very cheap tax. Less wealthy people have to buy an old car, so enjoy the pleasure of a nice high tax bill and don't be surprised if the government move the goalposts again.
I don't totally buy this. Wealthy can buy a new car but if it has high emissions like Range Rover it will be clobbered for tax at much higher rates than a 2001-2006 or pre 2001 vehicle.
You can still buy older cars that are cheap to tax.Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
Apologies, I wasn't suggesting you were benefiting. When I said 'to you', I meant in your opinion Sorry if I came across rude.
What I'm trying to say is the system benefits some people, mainly the wealthy. I suppose you're the exception in the sense that an M Reg Landy isn't exactly the definition of a classic car.
Not in least bit rude, I did think that I was getting the wrong end of the stick, it's a reasonably common occurrence:p
Definitely no classic, that poor old thing hauls all sorts!0 -
I don't totally buy this. Wealthy can buy a new car but if it has high emissions like Range Rover it will be clobbered for tax at much higher rates than a 2001-2006 or pre 2001 vehicle.
You can still buy older cars that are cheap to tax.
The wealthy can afford to buy a brand new Audi S3 TFSI Quattro, which if I remember is a 2.0 petrol engine, with pretty !!!! fuel consumption and quite high emissions. £175 for 12 months tax.
My car, a diesel engine with much lower emissions, less performance, higher economy (up to 80mpg) and more accessible to the less wealthy will cost you £225 a year in tax.
A regressive tax... like I said. We're all in it together you know?0 -
The wealthy can afford to buy a brand new Audi S3 TFSI Quattro, which if I remember is a 2.0 petrol engine, with pretty !!!! fuel consumption and quite high emissions. £175 for 12 months tax.
My car, a diesel engine with much lower emissions, less performance, higher economy (up to 80mpg) and more accessible to the less wealthy will cost you £225 a year in tax.
A regressive tax... like I said. We're all in it together you know?
This why it should be scrapped and the cost added onto fuel, it would save the tax payer money as you would no longer have the adminstration of the tax. All those reminder letter, paying for vosa to check for missing tax ect.0 -
Mankysteve wrote: »This why it should be scrapped and the cost added onto fuel, it would save the tax payer money as you would no longer have the adminstration of the tax. All those reminder letter, paying for vosa to check for missing tax ect.
+1 to this. It puts the cost onto the people who have the most emissions (over time, which is what matters). Emissions x annual mileage is a better measure of how a vehicle contributes to environmental damage than a one-off test when the car is new.
Currently, a modern car thrashed for 50k miles a year has a lower tax requirement than a cherished classic that is brought out on summer Sundays, which makes a nonsense of the idea that the banding system rewards low emissions. Putting the tax on fuel also gives all car owners - both older and modern - the incentive to cut their mileage and keep their cars efficient.
The present tax system is nothing but greenwash.If someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person.0 -
......and the above effectively wipes out the zero VED for [soon-to-be] pre-1973 vehicles!
Which I would find particularly galling, after all the campaigning to have VED reduced to zero!
Keep the VED, but maybe go back to the old system?No, I don't think all other drivers are idiots......but some are determined to change my mind.......0 -
Government have just jumped on the bandwagon with the CO2 nonsense - any excuse to tax "choice" of the car you want to drive.
And for anyone singling out older cars they don't really emit that much more harmful gasses (if you consider a colourless, odourless plant fertilizer harmful - CO2 harmful), plus there is a lot less older cars anyway on the road, and us older car owners tend to look after our cars, keep them tuned and hence the very reason they have reached such an age, they are usually maintained well.
Compare that with the 'new car every other year brigade'. consider that the cost of energy to build a new car is about the same or even more than the energy to run it over an average vehicle lifetime. you should be rewarded for keeping your car on the road longer - not vilified as some evil polluter.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car
Also all the emissions controls on a new car - adds weight, strangles the engine causing it to use more fuel, and when they start to go wrong usually the result is an increase in fuel consumption.
I think the most eco-friendly car ever, or at least some sort of award like that was the old land rover. About 75% of all the LR made are still on the road:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/classiccars/7505768/Classic-Land-Rover.html
Something to think about!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 247K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards