car tax

[knocker]

hi guys & gals ...
i just wanted to know will the new car tax pricing affect us
thanks knocker

[dan_b]

Go here and put your car details in, this will tell you!

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/road-tax/

One reason for me buying my A2 was that my previous car, my A4 3.0 quattro is in the new tax band M, so my car tax was going to have gone up from £200 to £450 - more than I could cope with! Glad to see the A2 1.4TDi is still in band B, so very cheap.

[the grim reeper]

Why £5 less for one year ?

[SantfeKuss]

Just got my renewal thro for the end of this month, £35 again.

[dan_b]

Why £5 less for one year ?

So that Gordon Brown can claim that not all motorists will see increases next year.

[ULP]

In the short term, A2 TDI owners are on to a winner.

However, as people progressively move to lower CO2 cars over the next 5-10 years, Gruel-Gordon will ensure we all feel the pinch. Reducing tax revenues is not his game, so as cars under 120g/km become more prolific the bandings will change so that under 80g/km is zero, 100g/km is £80 (for example), under 120g/km is £200 and so on.

Gruel's speel to the BBC the other morning gave a useful insight into his arrogance and the general ignorance of real issues. We should all feel the threat which is very real.

It's one of the reasons why I will defend the owners of SUV's to the hilt; micro-management starts with their ostracision which has now become common culture, but moves into family cars (witness 2.0 Mondeo's seeing a 100% rise in car tax) and then it will be Focus sized cars, small cars and so on. I love my personal transport, prefer not to use it if I can (such as always walking to town, the local shops and so on) but it's part of me. End of.

[vkx245l]

Hopefully we might just see some sense in the next 5-10 years and actually tax cars on how they are used rather than just owning them.
Why is it they still don't realise that by taxing people fixed amounts it actually becomes cheaper the more you drive!

Cheers

Jonathan

[dan_b]

Don't worry, Brown won't be in power in 12 months time, and Labour won't be in power in 2 years time.

I personally would back more tax on petrol if they abolished VED - then it is purely "polluter pays" .

[ULP]

Don't worry, Brown won't be in power in 12 months time, and Labour won't be in power in 2 years time.

I hope so too - I am under no illussions the other shower will be equally as reprihensible but a change is as good as a holiday

I personally would back more tax on petrol if they abolished VED - then it is purely "polluter pays"

That's part of the problem though - the Government conveniently wrap this up in the environment agenda, but let's not be fooled this is purely about revenue raising. Car tax ensures they obtain a certain level of taxation regardless of how people use their cars, which would be at risk if it went on fuel duty and people used their cars less/ more economically.

I think you could argue the fuel escilator introduced by the Tories has already had the result of increasing tax revenue through petrol pricing so one wonders why we still pay VED... But don't wonder for too long as the answers is ball-crunchingly obvious...

[dan_b]

I hope so too - I am under no illussions the other shower will be equally as reprihensible but a change is as good as a holiday



That's part of the problem though - the Government conveniently wrap this up in the environment agenda, but let's not be fooled this is purely about revenue raising. Car tax ensures they obtain a certain level of taxation regardless of how people use their cars, which would be at risk if it went on fuel duty and people used their cars less/ more economically.

I think you could argue the fuel escilator introduced by the Tories has already had the result of increasing tax revenue through petrol pricing so one wonders why we still pay VED... But don't wonder for too long as the answers is ball-crunchingly obvious...


Before veering too far off topic and turning this thread into a political rant (!), my feeling is that the forthcoming by-election in Scotland will trigger a series of events that will see Brown's demise.


Back on-topic (!), one of the reasons I finally decided to seek out the A2 was the change in VED. Also, because of where I live (Richmond), I have to pay a parking permit to the council to park my car, and they changed the system last year so that the cost of the permit increases in relation to the VED - so again I was being taxed extra just for the right to own a bigger engined car, not to actually drive it. By going from Band M to Band B, I will be saving £600 a year just by reducing those two taxes . Frightening.

[davidu]

Oh dear, must everyone revert to type and have a good old British moan? And this from a group of people that Government policy has actually benefited!

It seems to me that if people are changing their 3.0 litre A4’s for 1.4 litre A2’s then the policy is working (shame that Audi abandoned any progressive approach and binned the A2 and brought out the Q7 behemoth! though i see they have brought out a 1.4 TFSI A3). I will certainly be bearing this in mind when I change my car next.

And if this is affecting so-called ‘family-cars’ then why not? If someone is persuaded to buy a smaller/cleaner-engined mondeo (or maybe even a focus!?), then how can this be a bad thing? I’m sure that ULP is right and that as cars in general get ‘greener’ there will be a gradual shift of the thresholds downwards, but that would all be in line with encouraging people to buy cleaner and cleaner cars.

The heady days of the free-market when people could do whatever they wanted without a second thought for how it affected everyone else are all over. Governments will have to make some uncomfortable decisions to be able to meet CO2 targets and that is going to affect us all.

I won’t be losing any sleep over poor maligned 4x4 drivers and their personal choices being trodden on. Lets face it, if someone can afford to shell out £40,000 on their Range Rover Sport with bling wheels (which don’t have a hope of ever actually taking them ‘off-road’!) , not to mention insure, service, AND put fuel in the thing, then they can probably afford to spend another few hundred quid to tax it too.

But hey, when the next ‘lot’ get in and they realise they have to start doing things we don’t much like we can always have a good moan about them and then kick them out too….safe in the knowledge that the next ‘lot’ are also going to let us down! In the meantime there is always the Daily Mail to help defend the downtrodden and over-taxed of middle England…

[spike]

Not all 4x4's are £40,000 Range Rovers! In addition to our A2, my wife has a 1300cc Daihatsu Terios and the tax on that is going up by £100.
The bit that most of us object to is the people this really affects are those who already own old cars because they cannot afford new, more economical models. It's not about middle England but the low income family man with a couple of kids who runs a 5 year old Mondeo or Vectra. Many people just dont have the spare cash for this retrospective increse in road tax on top of the added burden of escalating fuel costs.

Cheers Spike

[Skipton01]

Time to have a good old British moan!

Whilst I agree in proncipal with the incentives to get people into less polluting cars (mile for mile), I can't help thinking that even if EVERYONE in the UK gave up cars altogether, we would help to reduce world-wide CO2 outputs by less than one fifth of one percent!

Now, to quote a famous supermarket, every little helps, but rather than generate tax from the already overcharged British motorist, why not just stop the continual rot of the all pervasive nanny state and let people enjoy the freedom which we are all supposed to have?

Before long, only the rich will be able to afford to have motorised personal transport and we'll have regressed 100 years to the start of the last century.

What next - do we all bow and d'off out hats to the local lord (MP!)?

Cheers,

Mike

[davidu]

Yes, while it is true that this will retrospectively affect cars up to 7 years old I’m not sure that those on the very lowest incomes in the UK are adversely affected. Up to half of that group don’t run a car at all, and what proportion of those on the lowest incomes who have a car under 7 years old have one of the cars with a VED that is increasing? If we assume it is the 4 in 9 that has been mentioned in the media, that is still a relatively small number.

Of course there are many cheaper 4x4’s than Range Rovers, Q7’s etc but a higher VED may make people think twice when they are buying a second-hand car, maybe they will choose to buy something falling into a lower band? If not then that is personal choice but they will have to live with the (small) extra cost. That may be hard on those people who already own those cars, but they too then have a choice to make.

Any freedoms that we enjoy must surely be balanced against the cost to us all; there is precious little evidence that people make any such consideration when they buy a car (or a whole load of other things!), so there must be a role for governments to try and influence and change behaviour. One of the few ways they can do this is through taxing people more!

I don’t think that is being a nanny state, it is just that someone has to consider the collective good. In this case that is reducing our CO2 emissions and making sure through multilateral agreement that other countries do the same. India and China won’t be committing to reducing CO2 if countries like ours, who have had the good times of economic growth, aren’t showing a similar or perhaps greater commitment.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t for a minute think that curbing car use will solve anything on it’s own; there are a million and one things that people and in particular businesses (not to mention Government departments!) could do to use less energy and emit less CO2. The Government’s role is to encourage them to do it.

Right, my moan over…! Is good to have a proper bit of debate about these things though!?

Cheers

David

[chb]

Changing TAX bands on cars already made is pure, undiluted revenue generation. It has nothing to do with "green" plans.
These cars are already made and are sat on someones driveway/street.
They won't go away or be scrapped much sooner because of this tax. They will (have?) lose a chunk of their value. But for many lower-middle income families (£25,000 or less) then an 01 or 02 or 03 plate car will have just become afordable. To be taxed at stupid levels just for "owning" these cars is really sick and I hope Brown and his crew get booted out for it.
By all means tax fuel to the hilt to curb usage. By all means encourage new purchasers to buy smaller greener cars, but to retrospecively "stiff" people that have bought 5 year old cars is wrong in every way.

Personally I am OK.

I have a 1998 2 litre V40 as well as the A2. The volvo hardly gets used (just for trips with the kids and moving mountain bikes). But the reason I use it less is the price of fuel. If I had to pay £400 to tax it then I think it would be got rid of!

Anyone selling a Y plate 3 litre landcruiser?

[chb]

oh, and climate change is real.
Its happening and saying "well theres no point in doing x as it is only 0.00000001% of world emmisons is a lazy, badly guided answer".

I think it is true that we are probably too late to stop all climate change. The main factor that will stuff the planet is population growth, and increase in consumption per capita in china and india.

In the west (UK, Europe, US, Canada, Oz) we use way too much resources per person. This has to be reduced. I reckon it will be reduced more due to scarcicity and cost than to save the planet.
If you think of fuel...its only since the price of diesel doubled that the m62 round Brighouse has started flowing a little at 8am on a morning. People are using cars less.

So we do need to engineer solutions that allow us each to use a lot less resource. Whether this will "save" the planet, I have my doubts. But the fact is that without starting now we will hit a brick wall of price and scarcity of energy and materials.

[davidu]

I don’t think anybody is going to be taxed at ‘stupid’ levels for owning a relatively modest, and relatively modern car. Look at the kind of car that falls into the higher bands:-

[/URL][url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581444/Budget-2008-How-much-your-car-will-be-charged-under-the-new-tax-bands.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581444/Budget-2008-How-much-your-car-will-be-charged-under-the-new-tax-bands.html)

and this is from the Telegraph, who seem to be casting themselves as defenders of the poor (Lamborghini) driver.

We’ve had a system based on CO2 emissions since 2001 so why wouldn’t changes to VED affect cars made and bought since then? If it wasn’t retrospective then we would have a third system of charging in operation and people would complain about the Government over-complicating it all even further. Also don’t forget that retrospective changes have benefited A2 TDI owners.

Chb I agree with your second post but not with your first. I think people are using their cars less and that is probably largely to do with the cost of fuel. But to those who argue that it would be fairer to put all the tax on the fuel and do away with VED, this would be an even less fair system. Regressive or consumption taxes like VAT and Fuel Duty have a greater effect on those with less money; people still have to make the same journeys and buy the same goods to maintain their lifestyle, but someone with a lower income ends up spending a greater portion of their income on these things as the tax goes up.

[ULP]

Oh dear, must everyone revert to type and have a good old British moan? And this from a group of people that Government policy has actually benefited!

'Reverting to type'; Do me a favour. As for benefited, if you think that is a long-term benefit then relax and feel good; in a few years the pinch will come knocking.

And if this is affecting so-called ‘family-cars’ then why not? If someone is persuaded to buy a smaller/cleaner-engined mondeo (or maybe even a focus!?), then how can this be a bad thing? I’m sure that ULP is right and that as cars in general get ‘greener’ there will be a gradual shift of the thresholds downwards, but that would all be in line with encouraging people to buy cleaner and cleaner cars.

The encouragement needs to be in the form of a carott when buying a replacement car, not in the form of a stick to current owners. Perhaps you don't know the people I do, but there are plenty of people out there who drive a 6 year old Mondeo/ Vectra because it fits their varying needs (as opposed to wants, which is how you suggest anyone buying a car bigger than a supermini buys their car) and is what they can afford and do not have spare cash to change it straight away - especially as the value has been killed because of this barn-pot initiative and so they are less able to offload a car with no value left in it. To some people chopping in a car they have just lost a grand on for a newer car at £6-7K might be an easy decision - to others it is impossible.

Suggesting the owners of 4x4's can stomach it because their cars are £40K is beyond words - that takes only a small section of that group and generalises at will. I live in a reasonably rural area and know plenty of people who need 4x4's - in many cases it is not a choice, and they would prefer not to drive a truck.

In the meantime there is always the Daily Mail to help defend the downtrodden and over-taxed of middle England…

Don't believe it - the 'Daily Fascist' offers nothing but jingoistic toss rather than real debate - something that seems to have disappeared.

The heady days of the free-market when people could do whatever they wanted without a second thought for how it affected everyone else are all over. Governments will have to make some uncomfortable decisions to be able to meet CO2 targets and that is going to affect us all.

Indeed, as CO2 makes diesel cars more attractive people seem to conveniently forget that NOx (produced by diesels but not petrols), which is a major killer, is on a rampant increase. Still, at least the governments thinking is joined-up.

Perhaps we need to open up the real discussion - the worlds population is growing to dangerous levels and there is simply too-much consumption created by too-many people. The world won't die, but what will die is the environment that man needs; when we've screwed it up then something else will replace us.

[Adrian888]

Can somebody please explain why the climate only started changing on 1 May 1997 as a result of those selfish car drivers amongst us? Funny, but I thought the climate had been changing/evolving for the past umpteen million years of the planets existance? I didn't realise how wrong all that education in my school was, ie about the British isles having once been covered by jungle and inhabited by dinosaurs and that 3000 years ago crops were grown on the Shetland Isles that require a warmer climate than we have today....funny old world. All that archeological evidence turns out to be so wrong...

I don't suppose Al Gore will be publishing a book about how this years average global temperatures are lower than last year or the year before and its all because we drive our cars too much whilst he jets around the world lecturing everyone on the evils of air transport and the environmental damage it does.....The Al Gorists are becoming as bad as any religious fanatics with the way they will not allow objective scientific debate.

[alanm]

ostrich, head, sand - buried in.

[davidu]

ULP:

Well I don’t feel good about the tax band the A2 currently falls into! I don’t feel anything about it, that’s the point. And I dare say that in a few years time I won’t actually own an A2…

There is no evidence to suggest that the World’s resources can’t match the needs of the World’s populations either at current levels or in the future. There is a just a gross inequality on how those resources are distributed and gross over-consumption in the West; for people in rich countries like ours to moan about paying extra to tax their precious cars and reduce their carbon emissions is just a bit much when some people live (and die) on next to nothing at all.

We have the luxury of being able to exercise choice, an imperfect choice but choice nonetheless. So while it may be hard on those people who have previously bought a 2.0 litre mondeo or a vectra to see their secondhand value reduced further they do still retain some choice. (there is nothing new in the idea that cars cost money, both to run and in depreciation…and since when did mondeo’s or vectra’s or similar cars ever retain very much of their value after a few years?)

As for 4x4’s, it may well be true that some are ‘needed’ by their owners for the purposes of their work. There is no issue with this. The vast majority of 4x4’s however are bought as ‘family’ transport to squeeze around already overcrowded city streets (and car parks!). They use more resources to produce and to run than conventionally sized cars, not to mention being more dangerous for other car users, cyclists and pedestrians.

Oh and I was being ironic about the Daily Mail….i’m sorry but type is exactly what was being reverted to. I don’t see why someone can’t come on here and say something positive, or at least a little less doom-laden?

Adrian888:

You seem to be suggesting that climate change is some sort of confection that New Labour has dreamt up!? Well their powers of persuasion know no bounds! Seeing as virtually every country in the world has accepted scientific evidence that the climate is changing at unprecedented levels and this is largely man-made. Nobody is suggesting that the Earth hasn’t evolved and changed over millions of years, it is the speed of change and that the changes are man-made that presents the threat to the way we live our lives (not the future of the planet itself). Oh and I’ve never seen Al Gore’s film!

[ULP]

There is no evidence to suggest that the World’s resources can’t match the needs of the World’s populations either at current levels or in the future.

I think pictures from most of the central African continent may suggest otherwise, unless there is to be a large influx of food grown elsewhere

We have the luxury of being able to exercise choice, an imperfect choice but choice nonetheless. So while it may be hard on those people who have previously bought a 2.0 litre mondeo or a vectra to see their secondhand value reduced further they do still retain some choice. (there is nothing new in the idea that cars cost money, both to run and in depreciation…and since when did mondeo’s or vectra’s or similar cars ever retain very much of their value after a few years?)

Other than those who delight in bangernomics or are tight, such cars tend to be bought by people because they represent suitable transport for, say, £2,500. If they are devalued to £1,000 overnight because of the inequitable taxation system then finding money to buy a new car could well be impossible, especially if a Focus diesel gets more expensive due to the taxation system. If the taxation system were sensible, i.e. not retrospective, then the motivation for future purchases is clear (and manufacturers will respond, witness BMW's efficient dynamics, VAG bluemotion etc.) then delivering realistic long term reductions in carbon is perfectly feasible with the will (indeed support) of drivers due to the benefits of better fuel consumption.

I also have a personal view that consuming more raw materials (in an energy intensive process) to replace perfectly good automobiles smacks of plain stupidity - the most environmentally friendly car is probably a 1980's Mercedes W124 250D running on chip-fat; it'll last for ever and the carbon it produces is on a short cycle.

As for 4x4’s, it may well be true that some are ‘needed’ by their owners for the purposes of their work.

Only some...?

The vast majority of 4x4’s however are bought as ‘family’ transport to squeeze around already overcrowded city streets (and car parks!). They use more resources to produce and to run than conventionally sized cars, not to mention being more dangerous for other car users, cyclists and pedestrians.

Of sorts, but I'm not convinced. The safety element can't be disputed, they do represent an issue for other road users but the environment issue is minimal. Most family 4x4's do quite low mileages, so the difference in CO2 production doing 4,000 miles pa between a Mercedes ML320CDI and a Fiat Punto 1.4 is quite minimal. Sure it's there, but let's not overblow it. A friends wife drives a BMW X5 3.0 petrol but she does 6,000 miles pa, I'm more concerned about the rep using his Golf 1.9TDI for 30,000 miles pa selling useless tat to far-flung corners of his sales patch rather than teleconferencing or people using local suppliers. You might cut a few blocks of carbon if the X5 went for a smaller car, but you could probably make a more significant difference if Golf-chappie cuts his mileage by 70%.

Man-made climate change is a fact. However, personal travel is a small amount of that yet is the greatest focus, especially in the UK. I'd rather see everyone with a poorly-insulated house who chooses not to wear a jumper before turning their heating on taken to task first.

[Adrian888]

Man made global warming is NOT scientific fact. There are plenty of scientists who disagree. It is simply a scientific lead 'religion' hi-jacked by politicains as a way of controlling the masses and brainwashing/bullying anyone who dares disagree. It is fact amongst those scientists who otherwise would not get any government funding perhaps. We have only been accurately recording weather and climate for ' 300 YEARS AND HAVE ONLY HAD SATELLITES to record weather for 40 years so how can we say it is manmade climate change? FACT The ice coverage at the Antarctic increased when comparing winter 06/07 and 07/08 as recorded by satellite. FACT Many parts of middle east ( Isreal/Lebanon) and China had record snow falls and cold spells last winter. FACT Even this government agrees with the report published early this year which states the weather and temperatures over the next 10 years will not show any sign of temperature increase or unusual patterns.

And as for insulating my un-insulated home perhaps someone would like to show me how to go about insulating a 140 year old property built with solid walls? At least I am re-cycling! And i resent being accused of having my head in the sand simply because I question the validity of so-called scientific fact! Rant over and apologies for hi-jacking the thread and to anyone I have offended! I will now await the climate change thought police to arrest me.........

[richard-]

£40 for diesel cars next time need new tax? that is not so bad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4834480.stm

[dan_b]

@Richard, that article is 2 years out of date!

This is the latest one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7293011.stm

[dan_b]

@Adrian- I salute your clarion call for proper balanced debate please continue.

@Ulp - I completely agree with your point on the X5 driver who does 6k is less Carbon intensive than the Golf who does 30k - exactly where I was with my now-sold A4 V6 :(

[davidu]

Have already posted enough on this thread but just wanted to agree with ULP's idea about running an old Mercedes 250, i know people who do just this. Very solid reliable motoring in a car that has had it's environmental impact spread over many years. I'm as guilty as the best of them for having my head turned by the newest and latest shiny car, mobile etc. (a bloke in the Apple Shop was amazed the other day that i wasn't planning to upgrade to the new iPhone 3G, despite only getting the original one a few months ago!)

Older cars can be pretty cost effective and despite their lack of 'green credentials' in terms of emissions they will always have less of an impact on the environment than a newly produced car. My first car was a (leaky) 1972 Beetle which i sold for £250 more than i paid for it 2 years later! And then a lovely VW 1600 (Type 3) which again i got back what i paid for 2 years down the line. Both of course were tax-free!!

[dan_b]

The good ol' Dust-to-Dust arguement, which has a lot of sense behind it. Depending on whose figures you believe, between 50-90% of the total energy consumed by a car in its entire life cycle is expended during its manufacture, not to mention the incredible amount of R&D and testing new products are subjected to as well these days, and of course all the increassing sophistication of the technologies means more complex, energy-intensive and polluting manufacturing and global distribution of parts.

That's where the claims that the Jeep Cherokee is one of the least polluting cars you can buy from cradle to grave, whereas the so-called Green Prius is one of the absolute worst.

Anyway, I'm happy with my frugal little A2 now; you have to play the system.

[the_IT_bloke]

Funny

I thought the original reason we had road tax was to assist in the building and maintenance of the roads....
I have an A2 1.6FSi, so that equates to £120 - £125 road tax, but is reletively small and really light so has less effect on the road as my A3 1.9TDi which is bigger, heavier, took more resources to make, has more torque will disturb the road more and is only £35 road tax.

I agree with the comment that once road tax income goes down the rates will come up again.
Its the same with water meters, the water company has to generate a certain revenue to survive (yes and make a profit) but if everyone goes on a meter then the cost per gallon will go up to balance, we will just consume less...


I am all for going green and conserving the earths resources, regardless of if global warming is 'man made' or not, if we keep on going then we will run out of resources eventually and will be living on one big rubbish tip...


I have never really understood road tax, this seems to be a tax on owning a poluting car for a year rather than the amount a poluting car gets used and the polution it causes...
I know its unworkable and impossible, but the ideal solution would be a swipe card for your car with the details of the cars polution rating on the card. The tax you pay at the pump would then vary depending on the car.
Instant charging on the amount a poluted car is used and the polution it causes. Then scrap road tax altogether and save the time and expense managing and policing the system!
I know it would be open to abuse but it sounds great!