Of All The Half Baked Daft Ideas..

[Slim]

We pay sales tax on new cars too. So why can I buy a new Ford Focus 1.6 Ghia 5 dr from an authorised Ford dealer in France, for £2,900 less than an authorised Ford dealer in the UK... and £3,600 less than the authorised Ford dealership on the Island? Taking the piss? You're not wrong!

 

Well that's typical rip off uk

 

The france sales tax scales up with engine size is the difference.

[Slim]

. I personally think vehicles should be taxed based upon the mileage they do each year.

 

They are already, fuel tax. This is in addition as a way of encouraging people to drive smaller, more efficient cars. There are exceptions, but in the main this is the best and simplest solution.

[Utah 01]

Stu, your'e absolutely right. The mentality displayed by some of the posters to this thread is disturbing and sadly reflective of the 'social envy' and 'environmental fanataticism' that 10 years of Bliar liberalism has instilled. And as for Slim......I give up. Don't forget, this is the Island where there is the Freedom to Flourish. What a joke! This Island is supposedly proud of its independence from the UK yet every time a brainfart blows from across the water the deadheads in the Civil Service bend over. suck it up there nether region and before you know it out it comes at a parish council meeting - ooops, aired on the floor of the House. The 'Green' lunatics are in charge of the asylum and nobody dares to kick their arses out, preferably on the end of a 7 litre V12 powered boot.

[ai_Droid]

Don't even get me started on Toyota - "look at us, we're oh-so-green". Well, unfortunately, they're not really - they just have a good marketing department and created the right sort of hype at the right time.

 

 

Which survey 2007

 

Which? Car Awards 2007

Reliability: Honda

Best Manufacturer: Toyota

Safety: Toyota Auris/Ford Galaxy

Green: Toyota

Ownership: Lexus

Road Testers: BMW

Wooden Spoon: Dodge/Jeep

 

No VW group at all? Must all be marketing and not shit hot performance, right?

[Lonan3]

My family car is a 1.3 litre Hyundai. It is more than adequate for the purpose and has been totally reliable. My last two vehicles used as taxis have been a 1.9 litre Galaxy TDi and a 1.9 litre Mondeo - both more than adequate and both with sufficient power and room inside to do the job.

In my opinion, any car over 2.5 litres is a luxury item (i.e. status symbol for dummies) and should be taxed accordingly.

[Cambon]

My family car is a 1.3 litre Hyundai. It is more than adequate for the purpose and has been totally reliable. My last two vehicles used as taxis have been a 1.9 litre Galaxy TDi and a 1.9 litre Mondeo - both more than adequate and both with sufficient power and room inside to do the job.

In my opinion, any car over 2.5 litres is a luxury item (i.e. status symbol for dummies) and should be taxed accordingly.

 

The answer is simple. Road tax should be scrapped and petrol put up by a couple of P per litre. That way you pay upon useage and by environmental impact (MGP). Most of all, you cannot drive without paying it.

 

Increasing road tax WILL mean that more people will drive without tax and insurance. More people WILL take that risk, just like they do in the UK. By increasing the tax on petrol the government will make more money than they will from road tax.

[ian rush]

My car is knocking on 20years old (85,000 miles or so) with a 2.9 litre engine.

 

Given my limited mileage in it - say 3k a year and then mainly out of town at weekends - I query how much environmental harm I'm doing by continuing to run it, repair and service it as opposed to a) binning it for scrap with the environmental impact that has and b ) picking up *another* car.

 

Doesn't that other car, even if it runs a bit more efficiently than my current car create a considerable indirect demand for the materials that will - further up the car food chain - in theory bring a new vehicle onto the roads?

[ai_Droid]

My car is knocking on 20years old (85,000 miles or so) with a 2.9 litre engine.

Given my limited mileage in it - say 3k a year and then mainly out of town at weekends - I query how much environmental harm I'm doing by continuing to run it, repair and service it as opposed to a) binning it for scrap with the environmental impact that has and b ) picking up *another* car.

Doesn't that other car, even if it runs a bit more efficiently than my current car create a considerable indirect demand for the materials that will - further up the car food chain - in theory bring a new vehicle onto the roads?

 

When you plot the impact over the life of the car into the future, and then apply that to everyone not just a single individual, it makes a huge difference.

[Cambon]

When you plot the impact over the life of the car into the future, and then apply that to everyone not just a single individual, it makes a huge difference.

 

Compared to what? The average person who replaces their car every 5 years? That would be 4 cars to build and deliver across the world, 4 cars to provide parts for and 4 cars to dispose of!

 

20 year old car wins hand down!

[ian rush]

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/travel/s...1949055,00.html

 

There is a cost and an environmental balance to be struck between retaining and scrapping and right now retaining is *way* ahead on grounds of cost and probably in the balance on environment. I have considered thie issue and read try and read tree-hugger sections of my weekend broadsheet.

 

Back to the direct point of this thread: increasing road tax is a blunt instrument for discouraging CO2 emissions. The mechanism should look at mileage and emissions, although I suspect the technology to run this (probably a bit like a reverse of bin / waste disposal smart cards if it is operated via petrol stations or yet more satellite tracking) may be a little way off for the IoM just yet.

 

I broadly agree with Stu and the (self-styled) petrolheads on this one, even if I disagee with them on speed limits.

[Albert Tatlock]

People forget a very fundamental issue here - that cars have drivers - and drivers are people.

 

It's funny isn't it that many so called 'green' organisations like FOE, Greenpeace, and the Green Party etc. don't advocate population control - probably because most of their middle class supporters don't like to be told to restrict the number of children they have. A child born in a western country has an environmantal impact far higher than one born in Africa and much of the developing world.

 

The answer is quite simple - introduce the 'right to self replacement': severely tax families with more than two children, don't provide benefits for a third child, and actively encourage steralisation/vasectomies (with payments) after families have had two children. That way we can all drive 4X4's, have a much better quality of life, and not ruin the planet.

 

People need to wake up to the fact that until we address and reduce/stabilise the population - this problem will never have a solution - and only the penalties for damaging the environment will get more severe - until finally chavs dominate the world, and there are so many humans that we pollute the planet to the level of extinction.

[ai_Droid]

The answer is quite simple - introduce the 'right to self replacement': severely tax families with more than two children, don't provide benefits for a third child, and actively encourage steralisation/vasectomies (with payments) after families have had two children. That way we can all drive 4X4's, have a much better quality of life, and not ruin the planet.

 

Globally your correct, but overpopulation isn't an issue in most of the west. The TER rate in the UK is around 1.7, and is dropping from a high in the mid 60's of 3 children per woman. Taxing children in the UK really wouldn't have the environmental impact you're after, it's just not a problem here.

[ai_Droid]

Compared to what? The average person who replaces their car every 5 years? That would be 4 cars to build and deliver across the world, 4 cars to provide parts for and 4 cars to dispose of!

20 year old car wins hand down!

 

What your saying would be true if that new car was desposed of every 5 years. It isn't, it's sold and used 2nd hand. There's definately a balance to be struck in terms of efficiency and emissions (which we've ignored so far) vs the production costs of a new car, but then cars generally aren't scrapped until they're dead anyway.

 

I'd say a reaonable balance would be to run a smaller more efficient car for 10 years is far more preferable to running your oily old gassbag 20 years.

[Albert Tatlock]

The answer is quite simple - introduce the 'right to self replacement': severely tax families with more than two children, don't provide benefits for a third child, and actively encourage steralisation/vasectomies (with payments) after families have had two children. That way we can all drive 4X4's, have a much better quality of life, and not ruin the planet.

 

Globally your correct, but overpopulation isn't an issue in most of the west. The TER rate in the UK is around 1.7, and is dropping from a high in the mid 60's of 3 children per woman. Taxing children in the UK really wouldn't have the environmental impact you're after, it's just not a problem here.

I do mean globally. Though, if the UK insists on taxing the problems and wishes to 'demonstrate by example' (as we are constantly told in the justification for various environmental tax rises) then the UK/EU could/should encourage worldwide adoption of such a policy (China have already done this).

 

According to National Statistics Office "in 2003 the UK was home to 59.6 million people. This was an 18 per cent increase from 50.3 million in 1951, and a 3.2 per cent increase over the last decade (1993 to 2003)". An increase of 10 million people since 1951.

 

Whether this is down to natural growth or purely immigration is irrelevant, when all that matters is that there are another 10 million people living a 'high level pollution' lifestyle. Even with a UK TER of 1.7 it takes around 6-10 people living in developing countries to produce the same amount of pollution. Put into context, the world's population increases each year by around 80 million people.

 

A first stage would be to produce population targets for each continent/country. There would be many complicated factors in doing so, but until population control is seen as the only true way of reducing future emissions - and whilst the almighty $ and £ get in the way of finding true solutions - we are all 'pissing in the wind' on this one.

[ai_Droid]

I do mean globally. Though, if the UK insists on taxing the problems and wishes to 'demonstrate by example' (as we are constantly told in the justification for various environmental tax rises) then the UK/EU could/should encourage worldwide adoption of such a policy (China have already done this).

 

I really don't see how any other country would be impacted by the UK taxing more than 2 kids.

 

Whether this is down to natural growth or purely immigration is irrelevant, when all that matters is that there are another 10 million people living a 'high level pollution' lifestyle. Even with a UK TER of 1.7 it takes around 6-10 people living in developing countries to produce the

same amount of pollution. Put into context, the world's population increases each year by around 80 million people.

 

I don't disagree that population has a massive impact on the environment. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discourage other environmental initiatives while we deal with the population, it means we should do both. So I dont really get your point of hijacking this thread with overpopulation rants.

 

A first stage would be to produce population targets for each continent/country. There would be many complicated factors in doing so, but until population control is seen as the only true way of reducing future emissions - and whilst the almighty $ and £ get in the way of finding true solutions - we are all 'pissing in the wind' on this one.

 

Not at all, small changes applied nationally make a big difference.