Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Feb 03, 2026 12:31

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 08:16 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Daily Mail

Quote:
'Gas guzzlers should pay £1,800 a year car tax'
By JANE MERRICK, Daily Mail
23:38pm 6th August 2006

Motorists who drive 'gas guzzling' vehicles should pay a staggering £1,800 a year in car tax, according to a committee of MPs.

The controversial step would see vehicle excise duty for 4x4s - already £210 a year - rocket by a massive eight times.

Even mid-range family cars like Ford Mondeos would face a £1,500 annual tax - while a Vauxhall Vectra would also be over £1,000.

A report by the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee claimed the move would encourage people to choose more environmentally friendly cars.

But even drivers of 'hybrid' cars which are part-run on electricity would see a seven-fold increase in tax, from £40 to £300.

The report, Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport, also called for a lowering of the 70 mph speed limit.

Critics condemned the nine Labour, five Conservative and two LibDem MPs on the committee as 'out of touch'.

Their plan does not even recommend some sort of trade-off in return, such as lowering petrol duty.

The MPs endorsed a proposal by the Sustainable Development Commission, an environmental watchdog set up by Tony Blair, which suggested a £300 gap between each band.

The lowest Band A would be zero, as it is at present. But each band would rise dramatically by £300, with the top Band G rising dramatically to £1800 a year.

It would be a further blow to motorists, who are already being punished by rising fuel prices as a result of instability in the Middle East.

Although the suggestions were made by a committee of MPs, there are fears the proposals could be adopted by Government.

Vehicle excise duty currently raises around £5 billion for the taxman. But the committee's plans would rake in an estimated £5 billion extra for the Treasury.

MPs said Gordon Brown deserved praise for scrapping vehicle excise duty on the cars with minimum carbon dioxide emissions in this year's Budget.

But it added: 'Reforms to vehicle excise duty, however, have been much less impressive.

'Tax differentials between higher and lower carbon cars must be made much wider if they are to drive market transformation.'

Duty on cars in Band F, such as the Ford Mondeo, would rise from £190 to £1500, while tax on a Vauxhall Vectra, in Band E, would increase from £150 to £1200.

Band D tax, for a Vauxhall Astra, would soar from £125 to £900, while Band C, including the Renault Clio, would increase from £100 to £600.

Duty on the hybrid Toyota Prius, which runs on electricity and only switches to fuel at high speeds, which is classed as Band B, would increase from £40 to £300.

The Band A rate would remain at zero.

The committee's chairman, Conservative former minister Tim Yeo, admitted the plans were controversial.

Mr Yeo drives a BMW 5 series, which would be hit by the top £1800 tax rate. But he insisted he bought the car in 1996 and would buy a more environmentally friendly car when it needed replacing.

He added: 'The point of the report is to encourage people to make environmentally sensitive choices by giving them tax incentives to do so.

'Manufacturers would produce much greener cars and if the tax system encourages them to do so.'

But Paul Watters, head of roads and transport at the AA Motoring Trust, said: 'This report makes very difficult reading for motorists.

'It is out of touch on where the problems lie. We are already seeing record levels of fuel duty. To place a punitive tax on car ownership in this way will do nothing to help the environment.

'Some people may be encouraged to buy more environmentally friendly cars, but many families need larger cars to get around.

'The only thing this would do is raise billions more for the Treasury. The last thing we need are astronomical levels of VED, which is going to damage a lot of ordinary people's lives.'

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 08:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 22:43
Posts: 37
GMTV also reported this morning on possibly lowering the 70 mph speed limit. Image

We'll just spend longer on the roads completing our journeys then. Where's the logic in this (apart from more fines as they said it would be more 'rigorously' enforced...only one way that can be done then)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 09:31 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
Its all b*llocks. The more fuel you use the more tax you pay....end of.

Why should you pay additional tax just for owning a "high" emissions vehicle.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 09:34 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
I would urge everyone to email their MP and point out what a great vote-winner this won't be for them! (As this particular group of cretins is drawn from all parties, no-one need feel left out!)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 09:37 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 00:45
Posts: 1016
Location: Mighty Tamworth
So what about road pricing, they will not be happy untill they bring this conutry to it's kneess by crippling taxation. No one will be able to afford to go to work.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
This has the potential for the entire stability of the country. There would be demonstrations the like of which have never been seen in our country.
To cripple the average wage-earner in this way and prevent some people being able to afford to travel to work, and the crippling effects on business costs in international terms would cause an UK recession. Government is still, in the end, by the consent of the people and the milloions of vehicle users simply won't accept this. There will be mass protests and a movement to challenge the car-tax system by simply not taxing cars, just as the Poll Tax was ignored and protesters dragged to court until the system achieved 'melt-down'. The levels of car tax will make the Poll Tax problems pale into insignificance with civil disobediance so widespread that it would be uncontainable.
People can and will only take so much. These proposals come from those who can afford to pay, what about Mr. Average who can only afford a second-hand, 4 to 5 year old family car. He is a traditional Labout voter, but for how much longer. OK, so the report is cross-party, but which party will have the nerve to impliment it, bearing-in-mind that it could bring down a gov't.
Just fight it along these lines and it will go away.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
New report by the 'Environmental Audit Committee':

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /981-i.pdf

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 981-ii.pdf

(I haven't looked yet)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:17 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
What we need is to print a calender for safe speed with all last years daft anti motorist policies so that the public can see just how anti car the government is

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
I was just speaking to a good friend of mine who runs a car and van rental business. He said that with over 200 vehicles of all types, as his vehicles have to be taxed 'up-front' and prior to receiving any revenues from them, this has the potential of stripping £250,000 out of his cash flow which he simply could not afford unless the vehicle manufacturers from whom the vehicles are obtained helped with this by taxing them and deferring the cost until later in his keeping/renting period. This additional cast could be passed on to renters by increased hire charges to business and holiday users.
If not deferred in this way, he says he might as well programme for calling in the receivers as soon as such legislation is promulgated.
Fleet leasing for all businesses might be the way to go, although the inflationary pressures will just reflect in higher sales prices to add to the misery of owner-drivers who will be paying twice over in practice. Then the additional costs would be wholly allowable against business taxation with the residual costs being recovered from higher sales charges. Of course, this would hit our ability to export to countries not facing this level of transportation costs.
It just can't work, can it?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:23 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
If it applies to older cars then I face financial ruin. I wouldn't be able to sell them for anything if tax was suddenly £1800 each. That's £5400 for the 4 cars I own assuming they leave the classic car exemption in place. I only do about 6000 miles a year max anyway which is what is so damn galling.

I can really see some poor person with a mondeo worth £200 forking out £1500.It is disgusting. My other half will have to quit work as he is on minimum wage. He is already in debt due to being made redundant 3 times. He'll lose his house. I wouldn't be able to afford to keep even one car and him if they tax people at such obscene rates. Keep the tax on fuel where it belongs and leave people alone. Road tax is an utter lie as they don't spend it on roads. There is already a serious issue with non registration of vehicles and that is going to be 10x worse. I could just declare SORN on mine and stick false plates on with someone else's paid up reg. Keep the car the same and how are they going to know exactly?

As for riots? What riots. Unless Big Brother was banned the masses don't give a rats as they always think other people are going to be the ones affected.

Pity the poor prius owners who are going to be faced with £300 bill :twisted:

If they do this then the economy will collapse. People will not give up their cars so a lot will end up further in debt to keep a car to get to work. A recent survey said most people would pay £13 a gallon for fuel before they would consider doing without. Inflation would go through the roof as these costs were added on to every delivery company.

I suspect the plan is to outrage and then say, well we can not do this but you have to have petrol at £10 a gallon and everyone will sigh with relief. :x


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
teabelly wrote:
If it applies to older cars then I face financial ruin. I wouldn't be able to sell them for anything if tax was suddenly £1800 each. That's £5400 for the 4 cars I own assuming they leave the classic car exemption in place. I only do about 6000 miles a year max anyway which is what is so damn galling.


If we got £299 life membership from 1% of motorists who might be affected we'd have about £100m which would very likely be sufficient to bring down the government (and would CERTAINLY be sufficient to bring down road safety policy).

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 17:41 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
One important point about this is that while there are cars with very low CO2 emissions figures, they are in general very small vehicles of limited usefulness.

You'd be hard pressed to find a petrol engined car capable of carrying five adults and luggage on long journeys in reasonable comfort below Band E - which would attract a £1200 a year charge.

That wouldn't go down very well, to say the least.

It's interesting to see that the transport minister Stephen Ladyman has quickly distanced himself from this nonsense today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5253444.stm

Quote:
Mr Ladyman said the government did not "rule out doing more in the future" on the tax levels.

But he was not sure that measure would deter people from buying gas guzzlers when they were already prepared to pay thousands of pounds for extra fuel.

He also argued that the speed limit should be based on safety and was not a cost effective way of tackling pollution.

The last point in particular needed to be said.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 17:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
This badly thought out scheme also does not think about the implications for second hand car prices if it were introduced. Saying people could go buy a more efficient car may not be possible, prices of those in the lowest bands would sky rocket while those in the higher bands were plummet. Lots of people would be left with a car they couldn't sell, that they couldn't afford to run and which they couldn't afford to replace with one in a lower band.

I think cars with poor acceleration are actually dangerous. Having had the misfortune to be in a 900cc Cinq it made me realise just how much road you'd need to just over take a 20 mph tractor! The more time you have to be on the wrong side of the road the more a potential accident could occur.

Joining motorways is also much harder if you don't have decent acceleration, ditto lane switching if the outer lane is moving much faster. I notice how much more aggressive a slow car can make you as you know you are stuck behind the muppets. At least in a fast car you can wait and then overtake them.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 17:57 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
So if we dig thorigh the "gas guzzler" spin, what they are really saying is ALL road tax should go up by about eight times.

Quote:
MPs said Gordon Brown deserved praise for scrapping vehicle excise duty on the cars with minimum carbon dioxide emissions in this year's Budget.


Didn't it turn out that there are no cars currently available that fit in that band?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 18:29 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
Zamzara wrote:
Didn't it turn out that there are no cars currently available that fit in that band?


VCAcarfueldata seems to agree with you...

Quote:
Search Results
VED Band: A CO2: Up to 100 Fuel: Diesel

Sorry, no manufacturers were found in the selected VED Band.


Quote:
Search Results
VED Band: A CO2: Up to 100 Fuel: Petrol

Sorry, no manufacturers were found in the selected VED Band.


Quote:
Search Results
VED Band: A CO2: Up to 100 Fuel: Alternative

Sorry, no manufacturers were found in the selected VED Band.



Hmm, so even the DfT's own site realises the choice of band A vehicles is, shall we say, somewhat limited... Let's accept a 250 quid hike in VED and go looking at band B instead - ah yes, MUCH better, now we've got the choice of exciting and practical cars like Corsas, Fiestas, 206's, Smart FourTwo's, and Prius or Civic Hybrids. Just what the average 2.4 family needs to get around :roll:



What I'd like to know is - how long would it take to bring down government if all the cabbies in London (let alone the rest of the country) blockaded Westminster... Not suggesting anything, just hypothesising you understand :scratchchin: I mean, it's bad enough cabbies are being hit in the pocket with rising fuel prices, if they then have to also fork out an extra grand/grand and a half each year in VED then it could push some of them over the edge financially.

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 18:35 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
teabelly wrote:
This badly thought out scheme also does not think about the implications for second hand car prices if it were introduced. Saying people could go buy a more efficient car may not be possible, prices of those in the lowest bands would sky rocket while those in the higher bands were plummet.


Ah, but if they plummeted far enough, then it might compensate for the increase in VED - instead of paying an extra 5-6 grand up front for the car, just pay it off over 3-4 years :D Not that this in any way justifies the prospect of such massive hikes in VED, that's simply an idea of the highest order of muppetry and deserves to be roundly condemned as A Very Bad Idea.

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 19:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 20:19
Posts: 306
Location: Crewe
I think the basic point to make is that the members of this committee can only be described as stark, staring bonkers; there can surely be no other description,when one realises that even a 1.2 litre Renault Clio would be wacked for £600 per annum. Yes, folks a 1.2 lite car is a gas-guzzler !!

A car with nil ful consumption would, of course, pay no tax, but then it would be unable to move unless a horse were coupled up. Maybew this is the intention of the committee, to bring back horse-drawn transport.

They would be a laughing stock if it wasn't their positions as MPs

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 18:24 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Don't let the MP title stand in your way!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 23:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 16:24
Posts: 322
Of course, you'll still get the environment minister driving around london in a gas-guzzling Jag, for security reasons. Of course, a big-engined and sized Jag is going to outrun an assasin much better than an ultra-compact Smart ForTwo.

It's hypocracy.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 07:48 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Yes, I need my X5 for security reasons as well. :)

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.031s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off ]