New goverment car tax rules from April 2017. Your thoughts?

AdrianC

Richard53 wrote: »

And of course the elderly Jag driven 500 miles a year pays far more in tax than a small rep car driven flat out for 50,000, even though the emissions will be a fraction of the newer car in total.

Except it doesn't.

The Jag would cost £235 (40yo-2001), £295 (2001-2006) or at most £515 (2006-2017) for VED plus 77p/litre for fuel. At 20mpg, that'd be £86 plus the VED, £600 at absolute most.
The repmobile would cost £0 (yr1 <130g/km) plus 77p/litre for fuel. At 50mpg, that'd be £3,465 total.

So the repmobile has paid nearly six times as much tax.

Put the VED equivalent on fuel so it is revenue-neutral (I think I've seen it estimated at 6-7p per litre, could be wrong)

I worked this out a bit ago, and IIRC it came out at about 11p/litre. Another £500 for that repmobile, another £12 for the Jag - so a saving of £500 for the 2006-on Jag.

and massive polluters pay massively

Yep, they do. And those "massive polluters" would be business users, who would have to pass it on to customers. Exempt those HGVs and vans and business-use cars, even to some extent, and it loads the surcharge for Joe Average. It'd particularly hit the rural poor, where public transport is not an option and fuel prices are already higher (so more VAT element per litre). It'd also encourage fuel smuggling, especially across the land border between Eire and NI, and in the SE. Many foreign HGVs have massive ranges, with belly tanks under the trailers, so you'd be further penalising the UK haulage industry.

And it puts an end to the 'cyclists don't pay road tax' debate.

There is no debate. All there is is a handful of hard-core idiots who rant it every now and then. It'd still be ranted, because cyclists still wouldn't pay it, whether it was VED or on fuel.

Strider590

gilberto wrote: »

Please see link below for all you need to know for the 2017 Road Tax rules:
https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/ved-road-tax-from-2017-0182-2060


I personally think it is unfair to tax cars costing £40,000 but not tax cars <£40,000 even though both emit zero co2 emissions!
Just another government ploy to tax the rich...

That's exactly what VED was supposed to be, a tax on wealth and social status.

When it first started to apply to emissions, the big luxury car manufacturers were all building big thirsty high polluting vehicles, the govt didn't seem to predict that they would change that and start producing low emission vehicles. It was only a matter of time before it had to change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax

Herzlos

AdrianC wrote: »

Except it doesn't.

The Jag would cost £235 (40yo-2001), £295 (2001-2006) or at most £515 (2006-2017) for VED plus 77p/litre for fuel. At 20mpg, that'd be £86 plus the VED, £600 at absolute most.
The repmobile would cost £0 (yr1 <130g/km) plus 77p/litre for fuel. At 50mpg, that'd be £3,465 total.

So the repmobile has paid nearly six times as much tax.

Despite doing 100 times more mileage. The jag is costing about 15 times as much in tax, per mile, than the repmobile.

AdrianC

Herzlos wrote: »

Despite doing 100 times more mileage. The jag is costing about 15 times as much in tax, per mile, than the repmobile.

Yep, probably. Even more if you take the MOT, insurance, servicing, tyre cost into account.

Them's the breaks when you choose to have an expensive luxury sat around idle.

Don't forget to factor in that, if both were doing the same mileage, the Jag would probably still cost three times as much as the repmobile - so that difference is actually only about 5x when you start comparing apples with apples.

Nasqueron

Does anyone know what specifically they are going to use the new money for? I know GO said it would be for "strategic roads" which I would assume to mean stuff like the managed motorway upgrades etc rather than the local roads which will presumably still be repaired by the council?

I don't doubt all the angry types will start claiming they pay to use the road next year as they drive along in their 2016 & earlier car which is not subject to the new band and thus cyclists shouldn't be on it but I pay my £25 VED dagnammit!

Herzlos

It just goes into a pot, so probably parliamentary expenses.

peter_the_piper

I don't get this thread. Lots of people on here are always complaining that rich people don't pay enough tax. As as the rich people are most likely to buy the expensive cars I see it as a win Win.

Nasqueron

Herzlos wrote: »

It just goes into a pot, so probably parliamentary expenses.

Probably yes but it was meant to be specifically done as a road fund and parliamentary expenses, like MP salaries, really don't cost anything like what people imagine they do, vastly less than VED raises

Nick_C

Seems mad to me that "zero emissions" vehicles will pay no VED.

You can use a fashionable electric car, charging it it home using electricity from a power station that burns coal or gas, imported from thousands of miles away. How is that zero emissions?

And if people to switch to electric cars in large numbers, where is the government going to raise the money lost through zero VED?

AdrianC

Nick_C wrote: »

Seems mad to me that "zero emissions" vehicles will pay no VED.

There are currently a wide range of cars that are zero VED, all the way up to and including 330bhp 3.0 v6 petrol Mercedes S-classes and 375bhp 3.0 v6 Porsche Cayennes. Even if you ignore hybrids, how about a shiny new Jaguar XE or Volvo S60? Don't want diesel? Then how about a petrol Focus, Golf or Cactus?

If you look at just the first year being zero VED, then the list of cars widens massively. Everything under 130g/km is zero VED for the first year - and the average new car sold in the UK in 2015 is well within that - 121g...