New Car Tax Rules..... Scam?

anotheruser

Or the buyer would simply not tax the vehicle until the end of the month?

It'll still be on the system as having your tax on it until the end of the month when you receive a refund.

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

At lot of things in life are a little insulting. Paying probably £5 or so "extra" when you change your car, which is avoidable by changing at the end of a month, doesnt make it into my top 100 things which i find insulting that are happening in the world.
.

The insult isn't in the extra cost, it's in the fact that whenever this sort of thing is discussed the fact that this large group of people exist at all is either ignored / denied or glossed over and the effects on them are considered trivial.

Believe it or not there are plenty of working people in these areas who would genuinely struggle to find that "just a fiver" at the same time as buying a replacement car (probably closer to £10 - £15 because of the cars concerned) despite being on full time hours. That idea is no doubt so foreign to you that you won't believe, but it's true nonetheless.

I've lived most of my life in relatively deprived, rural, areas (generally made worse by large retired, semi-retired and holiday home populations who have made their money elsewhere and tend not to spend it locally). The simple fact is that the rest of the country has no concept at all of how life is in those areas and no interest in having it explained to them. That's the insulting part

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The insult isn't in the extra cost, it's in the fact that whenever this sort of thing is discussed the fact that this large group of people exist at all is either ignored / denied or glossed over and the effects on them are considered trivial.

Believe it or not there are plenty of working people in these areas who would genuinely struggle to find that "just a fiver" at the same time as buying a replacement car (probably closer to £10 - £15 because of the cars concerned) despite being on full time hours. That idea is no doubt so foreign to you that you won't believe, but it's true nonetheless.

I've lived most of my life in relatively deprived, rural, areas (generally made worse by large retired, semi-retired and holiday home populations who have made their money elsewhere and tend not to spend it locally). The simple fact is that the rest of the country has no concept at all of how life is in those areas and no interest in having it explained to them. That's the insulting part

Well presumably they'll do as they always have done - given previously you could only claim back full months anyway.

AND also the trick would be - as has been stated many times - to change your car at the end of the month to maximise the value from the month you cant claim.

Also, lower VED cars are readily available in many sizes and prices to suit. IF its a big issue to find the money to tax it, then look for a car with lower VED.

You seem to be linking together an awful long string just to justify your reaction

IF they are on NMW
AND they HAVE to own a car
AND there is poor public transport
AND they can only afford something at £500
AND they have to change the car regularly because it breaks down
AND its a high VED car they chose
AND they happen to have had a breakdown at the start of the month
THEN they're out an extra £5 over and above what they might be
IF the process was different

:rolleyes:

And again, surely the being able to pay monthly is bound to be a big plus for this "unvoiced majority" that you you've found...

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I've lived most of my life in relatively deprived, rural, areas (generally made worse by large retired, semi-retired and holiday home populations who have made their money elsewhere and tend not to spend it locally). The simple fact is that the rest of the country has no concept at all of how life is in those areas and no interest in having it explained to them. That's the insulting part

I would have thought if you live in a deprived area, you would have much bigger fish to fry in terms of resolving problems than being upset about this, of which a change would most likely result in a corresponding increase in VED anyway.

If you'd all the other big social and economic issues resolved for your area you could well find this issue is no longer a problem.

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

You seem to be linking together an awful long string just to justify your reaction

IF they are on NMW
AND they HAVE to own a car
AND there is poor public transport
AND they can only afford something at £500
AND they have to change the car regularly because it breaks down
AND its a high VED car they chose
AND they happen to have had a breakdown at the start of the month
THEN they're out an extra £5 over and above what they might be
IF the process was different

:rolleyes:

And again, surely the being able to pay monthly is bound to be a big plus for this "unvoiced majority" that you you've found...

You see, that's exactly the problem. You see that as "an awful long string" when, in fact, it's normal reality for a lot of people.

You may find that hard to believe but, when you live in an area that has 3 buses a day (minimum fare £5 single) or (like the village I grew up in) two buses a week except in the summer, no local employment and NMW as the norm if you travel any reasonable distance, then it's simply fact, whether you believe it or not.

You also tend to have property prices above the national average because they're all being sold as retirement / holiday homes, above average rents because of the resultant lack of rental property (and winter lets only on many of them because they're let out to holidaymakers in the summer), no supermarkets within maybe 10 - 20 miles so high shopping bills, and high utility prices because the local infrastructure as to cope with a summer population explosion while being paid for by the permanent residents.

All of these things add up and, while the new car tax rules may only be a small additional factor, it's one that could have been easily prevented by the simple method I suggested earlier.

Incidentally, as for "low tax cars available for all budgets" - that's simply not the case where people are still keeping "old" reg cars going because that's what they can afford. Drive down the A38 in South Devon west of about Ashburton sometime during rush hour - you won't believe that many W reg and older cars still exist, let alone are being used for daily commutes!

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

You see, that's exactly the problem. You see that as "an awful long string" when, in fact, it's normal reality for a lot of people.

But you're missing my point - theres a lot of bigger problems that could and should be addressed in your local economy that would make bigger improvements than the off chance that people "might" end up paying a fiver more than they need to IF there was a different system in place.

Bearing in mind

(a) they could change their car at the end of a month
(b) you can now pay it monthly which must be a benefit for people who are on a budget.

Also, i notice that the income tax bands changed so more low paid people now dont pay tax and, in fact, we're all a few pounds better off. Would you rather the government had focused their efforts on sorting out this car tax "problem", or increasing the level at which the low paid start to pay tax?

Joe_Horner wrote: »

You may find that hard to believe but, when you live in an area that has 3 buses a day (minimum fare £5 single) or (like the village I grew up in) two buses a week except in the summer, no local employment and NMW as the norm if you travel any reasonable distance, then it's simply fact, whether you believe it or not.

Not wishing to get into a willy waving contest as to how poor or remote our respective local villages are, but where i live the nearest shop is a bus or car journey of at least 5 miles in any direction, and there isnt even a bus service through the village, you have to walk to the main road which is a mile from the village centre. 90% of the village cant even get broad band. The only reason we can get it is because we live beside the primary school and thus we can "tap off" the line that was put in for them. If we lived on the other side of the primary school we couldnt get it as we'd be too far from the BT sub-whatever-they-call-it.

The nearest ASDA or Tesco is 15+ miles away.

My previous job role meant a 90 mile return commute each day into the city as that was the nearest place where i could get a job with my skills. And i did that commute in a £300 Fiat Stilo 1.9JTD for the first 3 months.

So yes, i'm well aware of the problem facing rural areas.

But conversely, i dont think "fixing" this tax problem would make a blind bit of difference to the local area, though i could name 100 things that could.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

All of these things add up and, while the new car tax rules may only be a small additional factor, it's one that could have been easily prevented by the simple method I suggested earlier.

They're not NEW car tax rules - its the same as its ever been - you could never claim back the current month!!!!

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Incidentally, as for "low tax cars available for all budgets" - that's simply not the case where people are still keeping "old" reg cars going because that's what they can afford. Drive down the A38 in South Devon west of about Ashburton sometime during rush hour - you won't believe that many W reg and older cars still exist, let alone are being used for daily commutes!

Yes. And as long as they keep them, then they wont face this massive "problem" of being "done" out of maybe £5.

And when they do change they can make sure they look at costs that will impact them - depreciation, fuel costs, maintenance, road tax, and decide accordingly.

Car_54

I hesitate to get back into this debate, but ...

I am obviously a bloated plutocrat, living as I do in
Surrey, and driving around in a gas-guzzling limo (Vauxhall Zafira, £180 p.a.)

The next time I change cars, I shall rejoice knowing that the (perhaps) £10 I lose in tax is going to alleviate the abject poverty detailed above.

Joe_Horner

Fair comments, Motorguy, except that:

(1) I agree there are other things that could be done. But this simple "fix" is something that would be visible, cost effectively nothing, and show an awareness by those in power of the problems others face.

(2) If you are, indeed, aware of the problems thanks to your background ten you must also be aware that:

(a) people in these situations typically bought cars with some tax left which they now can't do, and the cost of the cars has not reduced by the amount lost.

(b) The whole "taking low paid out of tax" is a completely meaningless publicity stunt that makes effectively zero difference to the money that the low paid have. If you honestly understand the issues then you'll know why that's so. If you don't understand then please do feel free to ask and I'll explain if for you.

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Fair comments, Motorguy, except that:

(1) I agree there are other things that could be done. But this simple "fix" is something that would be visible, cost effectively nothing, and show an awareness by those in power of the problems others face.

Its all swings and roundabouts and i dont see why you dont get that. It could require a massive IT change to make it happen, and say they are down £20 million in revenue because of it, what are they going to put up to recoup that?

There are ways to avoid it if its really a problem, and ultimately it still represents a tiny fraction of a percentage of the costs of changing a car.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

(2) If you are, indeed, aware of the problems thanks to your background ten you must also be aware that:

(a) people in these situations typically bought cars with some tax left which they now can't do, and the cost of the cars has not reduced by the amount lost.

Ah right, then you're into a whole new realm of buying a car that previously had tax on it too - i'll add this to your list of ANDs above. You're really going a long way out of your way to be offended :eek:

And dont forget the seller would previously have been under no obligation to "give" you the remaining road tax - moreoften it was reclaimed OR added to the price of the car.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

(b) The whole "taking low paid out of tax" is a completely meaningless publicity stunt that makes effectively zero difference to the money that the low paid have. If you honestly understand the issues then you'll know why that's so. If you don't understand then please do feel free to ask and I'll explain if for you.

Ultimately its a few hundred more before which you have to pay tax. THUS anyone on that or more than that are a few pounds better off.

I'm not sure whether you really cant see the bigger picture or you just like arguing on the internet. Either way, no matter how many times I or others explain it to you, its clear you're not going to - or dont want to - "get it".

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

Ultimately its a few hundred more before which you have to pay tax. THUS anyone on that or more than that are a few pounds better off.

No it's not. People in tis situation are almost invariably also in receipt of some housing benefit, council tax benefit and (possibly) tax credits.

All of these are recalculated if their take-home pay changes. In the case of housing and council tax benefit, they "lose" 85 pence for every £1 their pay increases - 60p housing benefit and 25p council tax.

So, with the current NMW of £6.50 per hour, a person working 30 hours / week (the level they've pledged to take out of income tax - not even full time!) will have gross pay of £10140. Wit the new imporoved NMW from October, that will rise to £10452.

With a personal allowance of £10600 for 2015, they're already outside tax. So that's a completely meaningless pledge - literally nothing but feel-good electioneering soundbites.

For a person on 40 hours at the "new" rate of £6.70, their gross pay will be £13936 and they'll pay tax on £1336 of that. At a 20% basic rate, they will pay £267.20 tax each year, or £5.14 per week. After NI contributions as well, their take home pay will be £240.75 per week.

Assuming the "best" case of a single person, no disabilities or other enhanced allowances, in a one bedroom privately rented flat @ £120 per week (typical for this area, your area may vary), they will receive £25.39 per week housing benefit towards their rent

But if the pledge to remove NMW workers from tax was extended to cover them, which would save them £5.14 per week, their housing benefit will be reduced by 60% of that so their real gain will be £2.06 per week.

For most cases, where there are partners or children involved, there will also be council tax benefit involved and the total reduction will be 85%, giving a net increase of 77 pence per week.

That's how out of touch people who really believe these measures are helpful are - it's nothing but smoke and mirrors, and I for one don't believe for a second that the government don't know that!

Incidentally, my partner and I aren't in this situation, but we're well aware of how many people are and we'd rather be paying a little more ourselves than have people subjected to this sort of life in a supposedly modern society!