What does this taxation achieve?

piggeh

wolvoman wrote: »

Absolute rubbish, it's not the vehicle that causes emissions, it's the driving of it. And vehicle excise duty takes no account of usage.

My example, I have 2 cars. One that I use mostly for fun at weekends that emits 254g/km and I have done 5000 miles in this in the last year.
My other car I use a lot for work and have done 18,000 miles since I got it less than a year ago - it's very low on emissions (119g/km)

So Car 1 total emissions: 2043 kg of CO2 Road Tax: £400
2nd car total emissions: 3447 kg of CO2 Road Tax: £35

Tell me again that bit about these taxes being done to save the environment.....?

errr - surely that actually proves why higher emission cars should be taxed more? your business has been given an incentive to use lower emission vehicles, hence they'd only be emitting 3447kg as opposed to 7357kg if there was no different in tax. you are also givne an incentive in that your BIK tax is lower etc.. dont see what peoples problem is tbh.

dementedhousewife

Its just to one fact...
We have given up all our luxurys to pay the goverment tax's.
Increased Car Tax but no extra public transport.. And i would not get on a bus for thought on of being attacked walking on my own late at night returning from work.
Train prices have increased and when everyone gives up their cars.. will there be a seat on them anyway? a clean one?

talksalot81

banger9365 wrote: »

3 average cars and two sporty cars
tax prices taken from parker guild www.parkers.co.uk/cars/road-tax/
looks like your arguments are not valid to me
this one will upset a lot,my mates car vectra 3.0 v6 cdti (05)is only £210
so give me the sporty car any time,little old cars cost to much(gone on cars in my family)

I guess much depends on your definition of sporty!! I dont want a car that is not uncommon to boy racers and I want the choice to buy a car which depreciates as little as possible. So I choose a 2nd hand porsche. Alternatively I spend the same money on a new car such as that you mention, I lose twice as much in deprecation and am out of pocket come the end of 3 years inspite of having paid the extra tax on the porsche! Again I suggest, maybe if the government made it worth my while to not spend my money, I would not be so inclined!

piggeh wrote: »

errr - surely that actually proves why higher emission cars should be taxed more? your business has been given an incentive to use lower emission vehicles, hence they'd only be emitting 3447kg as opposed to 7357kg if there was no different in tax. you are also givne an incentive in that your BIK tax is lower etc.. dont see what peoples problem is tbh.

No, you miss the point. You could have one persson doing relatively few miles in a polluting car and another doing many in a 'clean' car. The one in the clean car creates more CO2 so surely should be paying more tax? You cant do this sum on equal mileage because that is not a good boundary condition for your integral.

molerat

The new tax bands are purely a revenue raising exercise. They have nothing to do with reducing pollution. The biggest total revenue increase is going to come from the average motorist with the average car. As others have said the new bands are based on the potential to pollute not the actual amount of pollution produced by the particular vehicle. The fairest way would be to increase duty on petrol so the polluters pay. The amount of increase could be easily calculated but more petrol duty in the current climate would be a vote loser.

--Tony--

talksalot81 wrote: »

No, you miss the point. You could have one persson doing relatively few miles in a polluting car and another doing many in a 'clean' car. The one in the clean car creates more CO2 so surely should be paying more tax? You cant do this sum on equal mileage because that is not a good boundary condition for your integral.

I think you miss the point, they measure in co/km for a very good reason, its the amount of damage you do to travel 1km, your annual millage is irrelevant.

As far as the government is concerned they are only interested in how much co everyone in the UK produces through vehicles and how they reduce the amount, your individual mileage is irrelevant to them.

talksalot81

So you are saying that the mileage is irrelevant. If your car produces 100 g/km and you do 10000 km, mine does 200g/km and I do 5000km.... mine is the one that has done more damage?

Or are you being intentionally sarcastic...!?

--Tony--

talksalot81 wrote: »

So you are saying that the mileage is irrelevant. If your car produces 100 g/km and you do 10000 km, mine does 200g/km and I do 5000km.... mine is the one that has done more damage?

Or are you being intentionally sarcastic...!?

YES I am & NO I'm not!

Millage is totally irrelevant, in your example your car causes twice the damage as mine, over their lifetime they will probably do the same miles before they die but when that time comes your has done twice the damage.

They have not increased tax on the worst vehicles vehicles nearly enough yet and I hope lots more increases are on the way.

Cardelia

--Tony-- wrote: »

I think you miss the point, they measure in co/km for a very good reason, its the amount of damage you do to travel 1km, your annual millage is irrelevant.

As far as the government is concerned they are only interested in how much co everyone in the UK produces through vehicles and how they reduce the amount, your individual mileage is irrelevant to them.

1) You mean CO2. Capital C, capital O, subscript 2. Unfortunately it's not possible to do the subscript on this board but you could at least make the effort to put the 2 in. Missing it off is actually fairly important because it shows you don't understand what you're talking about. CO is carbon monoxide, a completely different gas to carbon dioxide. It's something which really winds me up about self-styled global warming "experts"; if you can't even get the chemical formula for CO2 correct, it just goes to show your understanding of basic science is so poor you don't have a clue about the issue at hand, so why should I listen to anything you have to say?

2) The amount of CO2 you produce from your vehicle is directly linked to the number of miles you drive. If you don't drive many miles, your vehicle doesn't produce much CO2. It's quite simple, surely you can understand that? The reason cars are rated in grams CO2/km is to provide an objective measure of their polluting capabilities. But the actual amount of CO2 your vehicle produces is dependent on the number of miles you drive. Unfortunately, the government aren't psychic and they can't tell how many miles a car will do before it goes to the great scrapheap in the sky. Some will do 50,000, some will do 200,000. So a Porsche 911 which gets totalled after 50,000 miles will have emitted less CO2 in its lifetime than a Prius which reaches 200,000 miles.

If the government were truly intent on being green, they'd remove vehicle excise duty completely and add 10p/litre to the cost of petrol. This way, if you drive a lot of miles you pay more, if you don't drive many miles you pay less. Those who drive a lot of miles will be encouraged to get economical cars (hence less CO2 is emitted) and those who drive a small number of miles won't care because their cars don't produce much CO2 in the first place.

404

--Tony-- wrote: »

YES I am & NO I'm not!

Millage is totally irrelevant, in your example your car causes twice the damage as mine, over their lifetime they will probably do the same miles before they die but when that time comes your has done twice the damage.

They have not increased tax on the worst vehicles vehicles nearly enough yet and I hope lots more increases are on the way.

:rolleyes:

So I have two cars, one is a classic 1977 car and spends 6 months of the year off the road, locked up in a garage.... so am I contributing to "The End of World as we know it" then!!?

--Tony--

Cardelia wrote: »

It's something which really winds me up about self-styled global warming "experts.......
......so why should I listen to anything you have to say?

And self-styled perfectionists wind me up.

When you distort fact (sure the 911 will get totalled after 50,000 miles) why should I listen to your nonsense.

Go stick your head well back in the sand and keep saying it and you will keep believing it!

It does not change the fact that a polluting car over its lifetime will cause more damage than a non polluting one, we can all come out with nonsense like "I only use it a few miles at the weekend" or "it might get written young"

The lifetime damage these vehicles cause warrant the increased tax end-of.