What does this taxation achieve?

--Tony--

404 wrote: »

: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!!?

:rolleyes: errr no!

As you well know you have simply falled foul of a something that was not really meant to hit classic car drivers (just bad luck), shame you car is not 4 years or more older, (like my 58 austin Healey) if it was you would pay zero road tax like me


oooops a little "a" in Austin, teacher can pop up again

404

--Tony-- wrote: »

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.

Are you for real !?!
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=7641105&postcount=1

shockingmoment

Motorists are the low hanging fruit. Gordo's left such a massive hole in the economy, Alastair darling has no option other than to tax and tax and tax - and this is the result.
We've got a 254gm CO2/km 4x4. Do about 5-6k pa. RFL will nearly double so..... we're just going to have to use it more to get the £/mile cost down.

--Tony--

404 wrote: »

Are you for real !?!
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=7641105&postcount=1

:rolleyes:
Errr what has a holiday got to do with tax you pay on a car

I have been called a "global warming expert" by the self-styled teacher but I'm not nor do I claim to be one.

I'm only defending a legit tax, as I also defend the tax they brought in for air flights, all fine. Oh and btw I fly 2-3 times a year and pay my tax for doing it.

I love it when people have to resort to digging through old posts to try and find some amo, its so sad :rotfl: and shows how rattled you are.

Cardelia

--Tony-- wrote: »

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.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/display.var.1109695.0.club_owner_injured_in_crash.php

Given I know for a fact the car was new (no, I wasn't the owner ) it didn't even reach 50,000 miles. What was that about head in sand...?

If two cars are driven for the same number of miles and one is more economical than the other, then yes, one will be less polluting than the other. But in the real world, not all cars are driven for the same number of miles before they're scrapped. Therefore, it's not as simple as you like to suggest. I also note that you make no effort to quantify the amount of energy needed to build (and also scrap) different cars which has a substantial effect on the total amount of CO2 produced over the lifetime of a car. Care to comment on that Mr I've-not-got-my-head-in-the-sand?

PS - you may like to read this story. Note the "official" mpg figures given by Toyota and also note the real world result:

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/used_car_reviews/article3552994.ece

PPS - if you really don't know the difference between CO2 and CO, just say so. I'd be more than happy to tell you, given you seemed to have adopted me as your teacher.

--Tony--

Cardelia wrote: »

PPS - if you really don't know the difference between CO2 and CO, just say so. I'd be more than happy to tell you, given you seemed to have adopted me as your teacher.

Trust me I have forgotten more than you will ever know on carbon dioxide an monoxide so will pass on your kind offer.

anewman

--Tony-- wrote: »

I'm only defending a legit tax, as I also defend the tax they brought in for air flights, all fine. Oh and btw I fly 2-3 times a year and pay my tax for doing it.

Taxes for flights are p*ss poor compared to the amount of CO2 a plane makes for a journey per person flying. The Government taxes the motorist because they know they can get away with it, motorists will just pay up. If they tax flights more, there would be a big backlash from the air lines who'll be scared sh!tless that people will stop flying.

Not trying to say those who fly should be guilty, I'm saying the Government shouldn't victimise the motorist so much.

I don't have any figures, but I imagine that per gram of CO2 the motorist pays the most in tax.

404

--Tony-- wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Errr what has a holiday got to do with tax you pay on a car

Erm... you where the one who brought pollution into this.

It does not change the fact that a polluting car over its lifetime will cause more damage than a non polluting one,

I just hope you're taking a few trees to plant while you're out there!

PS have a nice holiday. :cool:

Cardelia

--Tony-- wrote: »

Trust me I have forgotten more than you will ever know on carbon dioxide an monoxide so will pass on your kind offer.

Do you really want to get into a willy-waving contest on who has the better PhD in chemistry?

--Tony--

Cardelia wrote: »

Do you really want to get into a willy-waving contest

No ta, doubt you would make a draft