What does this taxation achieve?

dementedhousewife

I tend to disagree... but hey we are all aloud to have our opinions

Wig

dementedhousewife wrote: »

Toyota Auris
I would fit in this..
A double pram
2x moses baskets..
clothes for hubby & me
baby clothes x2
their bouncers..

We regulary go to Leeds to visit family..
would i get all this into a small car?
i think not

I suggest you at least leave the bouncers at home, hardly a neccessary item. dunno wot a Moses is, did they survive in the 60s without them?
double pram & clothes I don't see why not. After all, the person I know with a Honda Civic and twins manages to travel accross country with luggage and a pram.

Bottom line is if you want all your creature comforts you should have to pay significantly extra tax to pay for the extra fuel you want to burn in order to have them. Because this (apart from legislation - which is coming after 2012 btw) is the only way to make people think really hard if they have to burn that extra fuel or not.

The one thing I will say apart from showroom tax, i think this increasing VED and all these complicated bands is just plain stupid. All that is needed is an extra 10p -15p on top of a litre of fuel and scrap the whole VED system completely

rattla

Wig wrote: »

.......

Still the point is that a Honda Civic is directly comparable with those cars listed in the previous post (Zafira 308, C3) and I would say it was bigger and better than them too....

lol, not sure how you can say a Civic can compare directly to a Zafira, especially size wise! :rotfl:

Wig

dementedhousewife wrote: »

I tend to disagree... but hey we are all aloud to have our opinions

Well how about telling us what you have decided will protect your family? A Challenger tank maybe

zeon999

dementedhousewife wrote: »

So if i was in one of these with my kids.. and i got hit at 70mph buy a lorry or van, it would survive the crash,,
would it?

LOL what do you drive currently a tank?

A lorry or van should not even be doing 70mph anyways.

If you want to have something larger and not so eco freindly no body is stopping you it is simpley going to cost you more to run the vehicle, so its your choice.

Also dont assume vehicle size is the most important thing when is comes to driving in safety.

All I here is excuse after excuse as to why people think they are so important they have to have a big un eco freindly car and people crying cos to run these big un eco freindly cars is going to cost even more money than they already do.

You talk about your kids safety do you not think actually having a planet to live on is not a good idea?

The way things are going we are all going to have to massivly change our ways with anything with is harming our enviroment.

As time goes on things are only going to get even more strict with things like this, our council and many others now forces all house owners to recycle all there rubish, giving out new bins for different things and reducing the amount of times they come for normal rubish and even inspecting whats in the normal rubish.

Over the last few years everything which can damage the enviroment has been targeted, and to be honest I think they have been very slow at targetting cars and other road vehicles, this is something which should have happened long ago and we should be even tougher on vehicles which are kicking out the most emmissions.

EDIT

Wig wrote: »

Well how about telling us what you have decided will protect your family? A Challenger tank maybe

Lol I was just writing pretty much the same thing in my post.

404

What happens to cars registered before 1 March 2001?

Wig

404 wrote: »

What happens to cars registered before 1 March 2001?

They have gone up by £5

talksalot81

Wig wrote: »

How can the net cost to you be nothing? If you are keeping the gas guzzler your annual VED has risen, so you are choosing to increase your annual VED.
EDIT: ok so you are saying you will no longer have to pay the VED for the smaller car because you will sell it. A good thing as far as I can see, because you will no longer be a 2 car household (apparently unneccesarily) most cars are parked on the highway, if your experience is a common reaction then it will do a lot to free up a lot of roadspace. Selling your car will also put one more car onto the used car market which should have a corriolis effect on allowing one car to be scrapped, or stop someone else from buying a new car.

The purpose of the tax rises is obvious, encourage people to ditch guzzlers in favour of cheaper cars. If I were you I'd be keeping the economic car and ditch the guzzler, you'd be saving money.

I dont think you follow. I use a cheap and nasty economical car for running around. I have a more expensive and thirsty car for fun. Yes it is potentially one less car owned, but it does not change the number of cars on the road. It will never stop someone buying a new car because of its age.

Selling the good car is not an option because I would lose so much money doing so. With the cash from sale, saving in small old car tax, insurance, service and MOT, I can drive the good car (same number of miles) for the next 3 years at no additional cost than had I been being green and using the run around for the majority of my miles. The result is that I will be doing 7k miles plus polluting at nearly 300 g/km. Over 3 years this means about 10k tons of CO2. Had the tax not had this chance, I would have done 2k at 300g/km (3k tons) and 5k at 140 g/km (3.5k tons). So the tax cut means that I will be contributing an EXTRA 3500 kg of CO2 over the next 3 years. To maintain my present (moderately green) position, would cost nearly £750.

It is all well and good to try and encourage people to ditch the thirsty cars, but ultimately it is flawed because, by the time one considers the loss inherent with selling, it probably is cheaper to keep the polluting car and just pay the higher tax!

thescouselander

Wig wrote: »

Like towing a caravan is anything to be encouraged
I don't think any modern car would struggle to go up a steep incline whilst loaded within its limits.

Unfortunately I have had the misfortune to drive cars that have struggled to get up hills with just me in there. I once hired a Citroen C3 in Spain that had a top speed of 120 km/h. When I encountered a slope on the autoroute that reduced to under 100 km/h - any sort of overtaking, whether on a hill or not, was impossible which meant I got stuck behind the wagons that were limited to 55 mph.

thescouselander

Wig wrote: »

I
Bottom line is if you want all your creature comforts you should have to pay significantly extra tax to pay for the extra fuel you want to burn in order to have them. Because this (apart from legislation - which is coming after 2012 btw) is the only way to make people think really hard if they have to burn that extra fuel or not.

The trouble is that we already pay more tax with the more fuel we burn because the majority of the cost of fuel is in fact tax.

To be honest I think the whole green agenda is about raising taxes and not about saving the world.