Car Tax rant

AdrianC

glentoran99 wrote: »

because they make more money that way

That's the only non-reason. The documentation that surrounded the proposals had the changes as pretty much revenue-neutral.

There's only a minority of keeper changes that are of taxed cars.

The average new car in 2013 was band D - £110/year, so less than a tenner a month VED. Even the average 2007 new car - eight years old now - was band G, £180, so we're only talking about £15/mo.

Two thirds of the new cars sold in 2013 paid zero VED for the first year, and just about half are <£30 after that - not much more than £2.50/month at most...
http://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/Chart-5.jpg

You look at those figures, and one thing's for sure - the whole basis of VED is going to HAVE to change before long, because revenue is going to be falling hand over fist.

Chris.Marsh

Cornucopia wrote: »

Because there's no tax disc, therefore no assurance that when someone tells you your new car is taxed that it actually is.

That's not strictly true you can simply goto Gov.uk Vehicle Enquiry and check, job done.

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

The effective date is still the same as it's always been for a refund - the date the application is dated/posted, not the date it's processed.

Or, the obvious solution if they insist on cancelling it, which would be to allow it to stay in force for the remainder of the month of sale (the bit that won't get refunded anyway).

So, if you buy today, the old tax will stay in force until 31st March so the old keeper will get a refund from 1st April and you have until 1st April to sort out the paperwork, with no double paying for any time period.

AdrianC, the fact that (allegedly) most used car sales are done without tax included is beside the point. That just means that this "double paying"
for the month of sale has been going on un-noticed for some sales in the past. Now it's more visible and people (rightly) don't like it.

Any "lost revenue" as a result of stopping it should easily be made up by the easier enforcement that they keep assuring us is behind all these cameras and the new computerised systems.

AdrianC

Joe_Horner wrote: »

the fact that (allegedly) most used car sales are done without tax included is beside the point. That just means that this "double paying"
for the month of sale has been going on un-noticed for some sales in the past.

Bit of a leap of logic there...

Joe_Horner

AdrianC wrote: »

Bit of a leap of logic there...

Not at all, just simple maths.

The "no tax" used car sales were usually because the previous owner cashes in the tax on sale, at which point exactly the same thing as now happens. They get a refund from the start of that month (usually having paid to at least the end of the month) and the new owner has to tax it from the start of the same month, so the month of sale is double paid.

Obviously, there were a few used sales that happened with SORN vehicles, and those will still work the same, and there were a few where the PO may have allowed the tax to lapse for a short while, but those were a small minority ever since continuous registration came in over a decade ago. But any others required double payment for the month of sale if the old owner didn't pass the tax on.

The new system has made that more visible and applies it to all sales rather than just the ones where the PO had chosen to cash the tax in. Therefore, a net increase in revenue.

AdrianC

You seem to have forgotten all those cars that have been in the trade. They're the ones that form the majority of used vehicle keeper changes. Why would any trader have stock on their forecourt wasting tax?

Joe_Horner

Again, they make no difference to revenue change because they're still the same.

So, to give all possible cases (including the ones where there's no difference):

• Trade sales without tax: still work the same = no change in revenue
• Trade sales where (usually short) existing tax was passed on: now require double payment for the month of sale = increased revenue.
• private sales where the PO previously decided to cash the tax in: always required double payment for month of sale (though not so obvious), still work the same = no change in revenue
• Private sales where the PO would have passed the tax on: now require double payment = increased revenue

Two scenarios stay the same, two give increased revenue of 1 months tax on each sale. Which means the overall effect across all sale is an increase in revenue. Really not sure why you're finding that so hard to accept, let alone why you seem to be trying to justify it!

jimjames

sirloyneofcowes wrote: »

I know it's the law, but if you multiply that by all of the car sales in the UK it soon starts to add up as a nice little earner for the government. It's just crazy

Perhaps the government could put these little extras towards improving the pot holes... especially the one that crippled my car in the first place

Nice earner for the goverment - or you could see it as a way of keeping income tax down by other taxes rising.

sirloyneofcowes

Chris.Marsh wrote: »

But that's not what the "sirloyneofcowes" was told by Swansea?

That was the guidance that the helpful guy (no seriously, he was really helpful ) at the end of the phone in Swansea said.

The advice from him was that to avoid losing a second month, you declare the old car as SORN on the day that you have sold it (in this case the 28th February). That way you get the full refund due to you, and also you are declaring that the car is no longer on the road, which legally you are required to do as the former owner (same as it's your responsibility to advise the DVLA that you have sold on the car).

I wasn't going to risk losing another £15 (i know it's a small amount but every little helps), if they were going to be picky about processing the refund based on date received.

glentoran99

AdrianC wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten all those cars that have been in the trade. They're the ones that form the majority of used vehicle keeper changes. Why would any trader have stock on their forecourt wasting tax?

every car ive ever bought froma trader has had at least a couple of months tax left