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!
fined £548 for not having road tax, !!!!!!? Need advice
Comments
-
-
Norman_Castle wrote: »VED rates vary based on emissions with the intention that motorists will buy lower polluting cars.
Which they'd also do if the tax was put purely on fuel...0 -
So when fuel prices rise. Those with higher emissions drive less miles?
I'd say so, yes. If I'm going to do a 600 mile round trip back up home, I do look at fuel costs when deciding which way to go. If petrol were £2 per gallon, I'd likely drive, but as it is, £200 on the train is the cheaper choice.0 -
So when fuel prices rise. Those with higher emissions drive less miles?
Generally yes - because they can't afford the fuel for the extra not needed bits.Norman_Castle wrote: »Very few people have a V12 weekend toy. Your example relies on reducing mileage by 16k per year. Whatever mileage is driven, using a lower polluting car will pollute less.
It doesn't matter.
"Lower polluting" is only another word for "more economical" - unless you're talking old, pre-cat / no DPFcars the two are exactly correlated because the amount of emissions in real life depends only on the amount of fuel you burn.
Getting a "low emissions" car doesn't mean you'll pollute less if you then drive it like an idiot and only get 2/3 of the quoted fuel consumption. Having a "high emissions" car doen't mean you pollute more if you then drive it well and get more than the quoted consumption.
So, if you want to tax pollution (which they say they do), it makes sense to tax it "at source" according to the amount fo pullution actually created by an individual's combination of car and driving style. That means taxing the fuel used, not the car based on some arbitrary figure that's virtually meaningless in real life.0 -
It wasn't the accuracy I was commenting on. It was the scale of your annoyance and surprise that caught me out. Your world must be filled with fluffy bunnies for that to be the most annoying and wrong statement you've ever come across.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-exempt-from-car-tax
Oh, wow. Have you led a sheltered life, or what?cjdavies wrote:The most annoying and wrong statement ever
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299797/V149__2014-15.pdf0 -
On your first point, I have two cars...
On your second point, I don't want or expect sympathy, I'm reasonably happy paying what I do. I'm simply pointing out, given that I do the vast majority of my miles on motorbikes or a very frugal scooter, that VED is not related to pollution, despite some people believing that it is.
Except it is.
Your C63 pollutes more, per mile/kilometre, than the two-wheelers. It pollutes more, per mile/kilometre, than the neighbour's diesel car-as-white-good. That's reflected in both the amount of fuel duty you pay - the variable cost - and the VED you pay - the fixed cost.Joe_Horner wrote: »But that fact that we'd be worse off doesn't alter the fact that it would be a MUCH fairer system, especially for those on low incomes who need a car because they happen to be born / live in an area without decent employment, shops or public transport.
Except it isn't. If you want to provide some kind of rebate to those in low incomes in rural areas, then it makes more sense to do so through other aspects of taxation - the income tax allowance or council tax or income-related benefits. Or give free bicycles to those with a demonstrable need for transport. Penalising businesses, heavily, does nothing to help, since those costs will inevitably return to consumers via higher prices.0 -
BoP will now interpret for the hard of reading.
OP had a lovely Peugeot 106, which he drove around the lanes untaxed. He ignored letters from big place in Swansea about Vehicle Excise Duty, claiming they never arrived. PC Plod, of the Devon and Cornwall Gendermerie pulled him over and told him off. Later some official letters were also ignored and his missed his date in court.
The fines, penalty and costs currently stnd at £548.
Ignorance is bliss0 -
Joe_Horner wrote: »It doesn't matter.
"Lower polluting" is only another word for "more economical" - unless you're talking old, pre-cat / no DPFcars the two are exactly correlated because the amount of emissions in real life depends only on the amount of fuel you burn.
Getting a "low emissions" car doesn't mean you'll pollute less if you then drive it like an idiot and only get 2/3 of the quoted fuel consumption. Having a "high emissions" car doen't mean you pollute more if you then drive it well and get more than the quoted consumption.
ITYF that there's an assumption that a bad driver drives badly in any car, and a good driver drives well in any car - rather than some kind of 30mpg driver who achieves 30mpg in any car and a 60mpg driver who achieves 60mpg in any car.
It seems a fairly reasonable assumption to me...0 -
ITYF that there's an assumption that a bad driver drives badly in any car, and a good driver drives well in any car - rather than some kind of 30mpg driver who achieves 30mpg in any car and a 60mpg driver who achieves 60mpg in any car.
It seems a fairly reasonable assumption to me...
Generally that seems to be the case.
Probably the single biggest "contribution" to poor economy in any give car is braking harder and later than needed into corners, stops etc. Simply coming off the throttle a little earlier and allowing the car to lose some of its speed naturally makes a huge difference, without affecting average speeds by anything you'll notice at the end of the trip. It might "feel" like you're getting there quicker by diving on the brakes like an F1 driver, but you really aren't - you're just turning useful motion (paid for in fuel) into useless heat at the disks.
The forward planning needed to reduce braking also has safety benefits because you have to think and look that little bit further ahead, which becomes second nature after a while.
In fact, I wouldn't be all that surprised to find that a driver who does that will have a worse effect on the consumption of an eco-box than he will on something bigger, because he's quite likely to try and compensate for the lower performance by driving it even harder. That's purely conjecture but it'd be an interesting study to do.0 -
Now you've swapped higher mileage for driving style. With a similar driving style, using a lower polluting car will pollute less.Joe_Horner wrote: »
Getting a "low emissions" car doesn't mean you'll pollute less if you then drive it like an idiot and only get 2/3 of the quoted fuel consumption. Having a "high emissions" car doen't mean you pollute more if you then drive it well and get more than the quoted consumption.
Its not taxing pollution. Its an incentive to reduce overall emissions.So, if you want to tax pollution (which they say they do),0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards