Bad News For Motorists..

[Chutney]

QUOTE(Amadeus @ Nov 20 2006, 08:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Triple for 4x4s/SUVs

 

 

QUOTE(simonquine @ Nov 20 2006, 09:31 PM)

 

Well that's certainly a good thing!!

 

 

Thats not quite so straight forward. I certainly agree with those people who drive around in the larger 4 x 4 with no use for it other than A - B.

 

I own a small boat in Peel harbour where they are about to put in a new pontoon system like Douglas. If i leave my boat in the water my harbour dues are going to go up from £60 per year to £600.

I anticipation of this i have invested in an old Frontera and boat trailer.

 

I have a legitimate and good reason for a 4 x 4, and i dont think i should be penalised for that.

[ai_Droid]

At least quote his whole post, which includes a suggested alternative.

 

I'm in favour of both measures.

[BigDave]

The current road tax system is unfair, and the proposals to tax larger vehicles more is even more unfair. If someone owns a 4x4 to use once a week to tow their boat clocking up maybe 1,000 miles a year, why should that person pay more than someone who drives a Fiesta 18,000 miles a year? Does the 4x4 pollute more in 1,000 miles than a smaller car does in 18,000 miles?

 

I've always thought that the fairest way to collect road tax is to put the extra on top of fuel. That way the less fuel you burn, the less pollution you produce and the less you pay - regardless of what vehicle you're actually driving.

[ai_Droid]

Now, do you really think lowering annual road tax is encouraging people to buy smaller cars?

 

Yes.

 

Are you sure it is that and not the enormous saving that 40mpg has over 30mpg? That is a 33.33% saving in petrol costs. The difference between the £50pa on a recycled beer can and the £96pa for a better, more comfortable, safer car is £40 or roughly 2/3 of a Mondeo tank of petrol, or a few hundred miles driving, which ever way you want to look at it. A real incentive? Low tax isn't! It is bollocks. Road tax is nothing but a cash cow. Always has been and will be until a fair method of taxing motorists on a pay as you go basis is achieved.

 

They're both effective, but for different reasons. Look at the USA where fuel tax is low, they all have big cars, so a fuel tax is definately effective in keeping cars smaller, but a vehicle license incentive won't harm either, as an obvious reminder to your pocket that a smaller car will cost you less.

 

It's definately a shame that this has coincided with a tax rise, rather than a tax cut for smaller cars, I agree with Juan there.

[ai_Droid]

The current road tax system is unfair, and the proposals to tax larger vehicles more is even more unfair. If someone owns a 4x4 to use once a week to tow their boat clocking up maybe 1,000 miles a year, why should that person pay more than someone who drives a Fiesta 18,000 miles a year? Does the 4x4 pollute more in 1,000 miles than a smaller car does in 18,000 miles?

 

They wont, the fiesta driver will pay more tax when you combine the tax he's paid on his petrol and his vehicle tax.

 

I've always thought that the fairest way to collect road tax is to put the extra on top of fuel. That way the less fuel you burn, the less pollution you produce and the less you pay - regardless of what vehicle you're actually driving.

 

It is, but an extra incentive in the annual vehicle tax can't harm can it?

[Cambon]

They're both effective, but for different reasons. Look at the USA where fuel tax is low, they all have big cars, so a fuel tax is definately effective in keeping cars smaller, but a vehicle license incentive won't harm either, as an obvious reminder to your pocket that a smaller car will cost you less.

 

It's definately a shame that this has coincided with a tax rise, rather than a tax cut for smaller cars, I agree with Juan there.

 

So, as an example, if you were to but a Peugeot 107 (recycled beer can) costs £5995+delivery, the road tax is £60pa, pretty much spot on 1% of vehicle cost (just over). By comparison, if I buy a BMW318iES with a list price of £19,995, the road tax is £140 or 0.7% of the cost of the car. So in effect the tax is less percentage wise on the bigger car then the smaller one. If someone has the money to but a £20,000 car, is the cost of a meal out with the wife going to put them off? I don't think so.

[ai_Droid]

So, as an example, if you were to but a Peugeot 107 (recycled beer can) costs £5995+delivery, the road tax is £60pa, pretty much spot on 1% of vehicle cost (just over). By comparison, if I buy a BMW318iES with a list price of £19,995, the road tax is £140 or 0.7% of the cost of the car. So in effect the tax is less percentage wise on the bigger car then the smaller one. If someone has the money to but a £20,000 car, is the cost of a meal out with the wife going to put them off? I don't think so.

 

You get taxed on the value with VAT already, but if this is being presented as a green initiaitve, the value is irrelivant. You should be comparing a modern efficient citroen c1 with a shitey old 4ltr jag worth a few hundred quid to show where the tax might be more effective.

 

The tax will impace the rich less than the poor? Well news at ten, the rich can afford it, so what?

[BigDave]

They wont, the fiesta driver will pay more tax when you combine the tax he's paid on his petrol and his vehicle tax.

I'm just talking about road fund licence, not the existing fuel duty. In my example the Fiesta driver would pay in the region of £50-£60 per year in road tax, whereas the 4x4 driver, who uses it for a specific purpose and probably in addition to a modest daily drive car, would pay in excess of £300 (with the current ideas floating around) and effectively pollute less and cause less wear and tear on the roads in the process.

 

The "extra incentive" of a reduced tax for smaller cars/increased tax on larger cars is a load of bollocks when it's banded about as an environmental issue as all it does is penalise those with larger vehicles with no consideration of the real impact of these vehicles.

 

It's not the size that counts, but how you use it.

[ai_Droid]

They wont, the fiesta driver will pay more tax when you combine the tax he's paid on his petrol and his vehicle tax.

I'm just talking about road fund licence, not the existing fuel duty. In my example the Fiesta driver would pay in the region of £50-£60 per year in road tax, whereas the 4x4 driver, who uses it for a specific purpose and probably in addition to a modest daily drive car, would pay in excess of £300 (with the current ideas floating around) and effectively pollute less and cause less wear and tear on the roads in the process.

The "extra incentive" of a reduced tax for smaller cars/increased tax on larger cars is a load of bollocks when it's banded about as an environmental issue as all it does is penalise those with larger vehicles with no consideration of the real impact of these vehicles.

It's not the size that counts, but how you use it.

 

You can't simply ignore fuel tax just to make your point! This is a blanket tax, there will be a few exceptions that are unfair, but then if you must have a huge lump of metal and oil sat around for when you fancy a play in your toy boat, then be prepared to pay for it.

[BigDave]

I can ignore it. I'm talking about proposed taxes in addition to those which already exist.

 

It's not just the one or two people who have 4x4s for towing their boat, it's everyone. The increase is proposed as an environmental tax, yet it bears no relation to how much pollution is produced in real terms.

[Cambon]

You get taxed on the value with VAT already, but if this is being presented as a green initiaitve, the value is irrelivant. You should be comparing a modern efficient citroen c1 with a shitey old 4ltr jag worth a few hundred quid to show where the tax might be more effective.

 

The tax will impace the rich less than the poor? Well news at ten, the rich can afford it, so what?

 

So, what you are saying is that a brand new C1 at £6600 and £60 per year insurance is a better overall package than a 15 year old XJ6 4.0 at say £500 and £250pa tax?

 

Lets say you keep the cars for 5 years. The C1 has to be serviced by the Citroen garage for the first 3 years (warranty), and if nothing goes wrong, then it will cost £540 for 3 years, after which a non franchise service will cost around£100 per time, so £740 for servicing alone. Add to that road tax £300 (assuming it does not go up). so £1040 + petrol running costs.

 

The Jag will cost £500 servicing plus around £1250 road tax, so £1750, plus £250 as something is bound to go wrong over and above the standard, so £2000 plus petrol running costs.

 

According to What Car, the C1 gets just short of 3 times the MPG of the Jag. In fact over 5 years (40,000 miles) the C1 will consume 678 gallons, the Jag 1818 for the same distance. So for the Jag (at £4.50 per gallon) add £8181 costs to the £2000+£500 giving a total running cost over 5 years of £10681. For the C1 it is £3051+£1040+£6600 giving a total of £10691.

 

There are however two differences. The C1 is likely to have a slightly better residual value. The other difference is the Jag is loaded with safety equipment and luxuries that the C1 can only dream of. I know which I would rather be in during a collision!

 

So now ask yourself which is really cheaper.

 

Edited to add - if you get an even older Jag from the early 80s or before it will have no road tax!

[ai_Droid]

It's not just the one or two people who have 4x4s for towing their boat, it's everyone. The increase is proposed as an environmental tax, yet it bears no relation to how much pollution is produced in real terms.

 

Of course it does. Bigger cars, in general, mean higher emissions and mpg. So if everyone drives smaller costs, there's a positive environmental effect.

 

Even if you have a 4x4 you use infrequently, a fiesta used infrequently uses less fuel.

[ai_Droid]

So now ask yourself which is really cheaper.

 

No contest, the citroen has used 1/3 of the fuel, for the same cost? That's a bargain in my book.

 

Oh you've also omitted the extra running costs for the Jag like insurance, oil and tyres. There's no jag under insurance group 19, where the citroen is group 1. Makes quite a significant difference to your figures.

 

I'm actually not interested in the price, I'm interested in the impact of burning fossil fuels.

[TerryMcCann]

To add my two penneth.

 

I drive a car that with a heavy right foot will scrape 16 mpg and throw out a lot of CO2.

 

If the road tax on my car increases I will NOT be trading it in for a Nissan Micra and I very much doubt many other people will do either.

 

This whole green tax bollocks is a pure money making exercise. If they really had honorable intentions this increased tax would go directly towards environmental projects rather than into the general pot.

 

Stuff them. I think I'll go and buy a Hummer

[WilDDog]

It's not just the one or two people who have 4x4s for towing their boat, it's everyone. The increase is proposed as an environmental tax, yet it bears no relation to how much pollution is produced in real terms.

 

Exactly it's not just people who have 4 x 4s for towing their boat it is most people with families nowadays and the Government know it. Saving the environment is just another excuse for them to fleece us.