Of All The Half Baked Daft Ideas..

[Cret]

I've scrapped the rangey because it no longer was in a fit state to be used on the road anyway, and too costly to run for my purposes. This proves my earlier point about your comment being nonsense in relation to "if you can buy one and put fuel in you can afford the big tax etc". The diesel disco with a 1 litre smaller engine is its replacement.

I couldn't afford to run it, but someone buying one new - ie putting the machine on the roads in the first place (and ultimately providing what will be around for many years as a second hand vehicle) probably can afford to pay a big tax for the privilege of adding it to the environmental loop. It makes perfect sense. If it discourages them from buying it in the first place and there are a few less around that's a much better environmental benefit than the government getting a few extra bob from other people after they are already in the loop and polluting for years.

 

And as I say you didn't disagree with any of my other comments so I'm assuming you agree with them?

 

Sorry - I thought you said focus. My mistake.

[Cret]

(Oh .. and how many boats have you got to require a Disco and a Rangy to tow? Seems excessive to me)

 

I have one 17ft boat which gets launched from the beach and up steep slips meaning using a 2wd car results in either sinking in sand or wheelspinning/clutch destroying aggro.

 

It's not excessive. Yes it would be physically possible to tow it with a tiny suzuki jeep but as I've said twice now I got the rangey because it was offered to me for £30, and the disco I swapped for my motocross bike so it cost me nothing, and I often have a lot of stuff in the back that would no way fit in a smaller vehicle.

 

You didn't anwser the question about the engine size in your mondeo by the way. A quick Google and I think it's either a 1.8 or 2L engine. I'm guessing the car weighs about 1.5 tons to mine weighing over 2.25 tons, and 1.8L/2L engine compared to 2.5L engine which the maths says YOU are the one with the excessively large engine to move the weight of the car, by quite a margin. So your argument was what again?

[The Old Git]

(Oh .. and how many boats have you got to require a Disco and a Rangy to tow? Seems excessive to me)

 

I had a fairly average size RIB. Towing on the road behind a medium sized car is no problem but after getting bogged down on Port Erin beach a few times and knackering the clutch on Peel slipway a Land Rover with a low box and 4x4 seemed a very good idea.

[trostagh]

Rather than engine capacity, surely the number of miles per gallon ought be the deciding factor. If, for example you own a 1.7 diesel which does 65mpg does it make sense to tax this more than, say, a fiesta with a 1.1 engine that does 40mpg?

 

Manufacturers supply this data with new cars so surely a banding system based on mpg would be more sensible. Or is that too sensible?

[Cret]

Doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

 

*edit* Actually that still would catch out people like me who don't normally use the larger vehicles but still have a need for them when required.

 

Perhaps what would be better would be to scrap the tax and add a touch more on fuel taxes. Lets face it, it's always on the up anyway so one extra little hike would make it so the more you use the more 'car tax' you are paying. That might encourage people to make more effort to do things like carshare etc. After all, the end objective is surely ultimately not to penalise people for having big engines but for people who affect the environment the most by way of using the most fuel/creating the most emissions?

 

What's the downside to it? I'm not saying there isn't, just I can't be arsed trying to think of it.

[Albert Tatlock]

I think more MF members should stand for Tynwald.

[Stu Peters]

My supercharged Jag does around 12mpg around town, so I already pay quite enough in tax on petrol and exhorbitant road tax, thank you. Having two cars and a bike, I can only use one at a time, so I'm paying for two to sit in the garage and NOT on the roads - fact is, I'm a petrolhead and it's my hobby so I have to put up with it.

 

And before Boredom chimes in, I need all that power to carry an enormous willy - big enough to fill three prams anyway.

[Cret]

My supercharged Jag does around 12mpg around town,

 

Best keep it on the open road then eh Stu?

[Frances]

The Island tax for a 598cc Smart will still be £10pa more than the UK tax ! (assuming Smart is less than 5yrs old otherwise the UK has a £105 tax as the manufacturer didn't specify emission standards pre this date) - however at 12-14miles/litre it is quite economic (well suited to Manx roads - and perfectly capable of doing 1500 to 2000 miles in a two week holiday (with two onboard).

[Cret]

Coo - I must admit I was always under the impression that all manx cartax was considerably cheaper than the equivalent cost in the UK. Maybe they charge more here to go towards improving the (off)roads here?

 

No, thought not.

[WTF]

tax on vehicles should be based on BHP only, that way the old big engine classics with not a lot of power are cheaper than you evo 7's.

[WilDDog]

Maybe they charge more here to go towards improving the (off)roads here?

 

No, thought not.

 

Good point that cret, what exactly are they going to do with the proceeds of this more expensive tax. Does anyone think it'll go towards fixing the roads properly or will it be siphoned away on the pretense of doing something for the environment.

[Cret]

That's the thing. If dearer tax dissuades people from buying monstrous cars then great, it's sort of done the job as there's (generally) less fossil fuel waste and less sky wrecking etc, but let's assume that everyone just grits their teeth and coughs up the extra (seeing as that's what happens indirectly with fuel tax) and just as many big cars are bought. Where does that extra cash go?

 

Surely it should be used to try and offset the effects of the extra air crud if it's failed to put people off. I'm no hippy bio scientist but I would guess perhaps it might involve getting more trees on the go to soak up the muck with the proceeds, and perhaps towards research towards genuinely efficient forms of propulsion, or something of the like. Might be a bit idealistic I suppose but you get what I mean hopefully.

[lectro]

Scrap all road taxes and load the tax on fuel instead. That way the amount of tax you pay will be proportional to the amount of miles you drive and the mpg of your vechicle. Want to pay less tax? Drive less or get a less thirsty car.

[Cret]

Scrap all road taxes and load the tax on fuel instead. That way the amount of tax you pay will be proportional to the amount of miles you drive and the mpg of your vechicle. Want to pay less tax? Drive less or get a less thirsty car.

 

See - it's not just me that thinks this is logical/fair.