Thanks George Osborne !

[NOMONEYBUTAMERC]

As of April 1, 2014 , cars registered before January 1, 1974 will qualify for free VED . Thereafter the age related exemption will be revised annually. SORN declarations will now be open ended , no need to renew it on an annual basis.
Must say I am pleased my car will qualify for the tax exemption, but wonder why it is not a "rolling" exemption for 40 year old vehicles .

 

[pipmk]

It really is an odd situation. Most cars of this period have poor mpg compared with modern cars, they lack safety features and in the event of an accident offer significantly less protection. But and it is a big but,they represent a significant saving in energy costs over their lifetime.
I guess the actual numbers involved is not economically significant, a gesture which costs little but might create some good feeling.

 

[W2--]

It really is an odd situation. Most cars of this period have poor mpg compared with modern cars, they lack safety features and in the event of an accident offer significantly less protection. But and it is a big but,they represent a significant saving in energy costs over their lifetime.
I guess the actual numbers involved is not economically significant, a gesture which costs little but might create some good feeling.

Well not many classic car owners will do more than 2k miles each year in their classic.

 

[PXW]

It was originally a rolling exemption for cars as they turned 25...but Gordon Brown did for that and froze it at 1973 in the 1998 budget. A rolling 40 year exemption would fit just as well, I guess, though the value of my MGB (specifically bought because it was just within the exemption) might now get slightly diluted as younger vehicles come into range.

Self interest aside, I approve of this. There are relatively few older classics on the road and they do very little mileage (mine, fairly typically, does less than 1000 miles a year). If I had to pay £250 or so per annum for the privilege, I'm not sure I would bother - it would virtually double my running costs. So the environmental arguments aren't terribly compelling, but the heritage arguments are.

 

[clk208]

Having classic cars on the road makes a huge amount of sense for the taxman.

The money that's forked out to specialist businesses to repair and maintain the cars (even if it is just a bit of servicing and welding), VAT on parts, tyres etc, fuel duty for little trips out that probably wouldn't be made if you didn't have the classic etc.

A rolling exemption would be a little gesture of goodwill and possibly help keep this going as well as the heritage arguments.

 

[NOMONEYBUTAMERC]

Must admit I usually only tax mine for 6 months of the year as i do not do many miles , and will probably spend the savings from VED on more fuel , and gain the benefit of any decent weather during the months when it would not normally be taxed. With regards to safety i reckon (airbags aside) that the 450 would suffer less damage in most scenarios than my 11 plate Ford Focus daily driver.

 

[grober]

Must admit I usually only tax mine for 6 months of the year as i do not do many miles , and will probably spend the savings from VED on more fuel , and gain the benefit of any decent weather during the months when it would not normally be taxed. With regards to safety i reckon (airbags aside) that the 450 would suffer less damage in most scenarios than my 11 plate Ford Focus daily driver.

I think the evidence shows that with these older cars the vehicle is quite likely to survive quite well being very robust in construction---however the occupants are more likely to end up as strawberry jam inside being subjected to unsurvivable de-acceleration loads in comparison to modern body construction. This scenario may depend on what you hit of course but that 5th gear crash between the volvo and the renault illustrated how much things have moved on.
[YOUTUBE]qBDyeWofcLY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Charles Morgan]

Having classic cars on the road makes a huge amount of sense for the taxman.

The money that's forked out to specialist businesses to repair and maintain the cars (even if it is just a bit of servicing and welding), VAT on parts, tyres etc, fuel duty for little trips out that probably wouldn't be made if you didn't have the classic etc.

A rolling exemption would be a little gesture of goodwill and possibly help keep this going as well as the heritage arguments.

The classic car industry is a significant part of the economy and well worth encouraging. The amount I've spent over the last two years horrifies me...

Remember all classic car owners, this Sunday coming 21st April is Drive it Day. I am trying to get out in my Allard as much as possible this week, the sun helping a lot!

 

[pipmk]

Well not many classic car owners will do more than 2k miles each year in their classic.

Good point.

Apparently there are about half a million cars in the UK which on age are classified as classic,set against 40 million which are not. Interesting figures and I am surprised it is that high.

 

[Charles Morgan]

The number is growing, but for every one capable of being driven, there's probably another one being restored or going rotten waiting to be restored. My mileage last year in the Allard (which needed a new engine and gearbox) was under 100 miles, the Citroen SM about 600. This year I hope do a bit more, but frankly there is a limit to how often you can take them out anyway. That and the fact that you are constantly on guard for some idiot doing something stupid - yesterday a Porsche Cayenne driver decided to force me into the side of the road because she wouldn't pull over as cars were parked in her lane. I launched a torrent at her, but I'd prefer to live to fight another day, ditto my car.

 

[johnfromstaffs]

It really is an odd situation. Most cars of this period have poor mpg compared with modern cars, they lack safety features and in the event of an accident offer significantly less protection. But and it is a big but,they represent a significant saving in energy costs over their lifetime.
I guess the actual numbers involved is not economically significant, a gesture which costs little but might create some good feeling.

What does the energy use of classic cars have to do with the availability of a free VED?

Those of us who choose to use pre 1974 or whatever cars would probably do so regardless, purely to be seen driving something different from the grey porridge most people have. As far as safety goes, old cars are decidedly unsafe, mine has no seat belts, and a lot of tree wood designed to kneecap you if you hit anything assuming you have survived the assegai steering column aimed right at your chest. The other problem is the chance of being hit from behind by modern cars with inferior brakes.

 

[sjmaxwell]

Isn't most of the energy costs blown in the actual construction of the car hence older cars being "greener" the more years they are driven on the road - I did hear that Land Rovers are supposed to be very green in that respect as such a high percentage of them are still on the road!

 

[pipmk]

What does the energy use of classic cars have to do with the availability of a free VED?

Those of us who choose to use pre 1974 or whatever cars would probably do so regardless, purely to be seen driving something different from the grey porridge most people have. As far as safety goes, old cars are decidedly unsafe, mine has no seat belts, and a lot of tree wood designed to kneecap you if you hit anything assuming you have survived the assegai steering column aimed right at your chest. The other problem is the chance of being hit from behind by modern cars with inferior brakes.

The point was that to encourage the use of very old inefficient cars which probably pollute more than their modern counterparts and to do so by use of taxation levers seems an odd choice by government.

It was neither a comment against classics or for them, it just seemed odd. however given the average mileage I guess as I said it was a gesture without cost or consequence.

Obviously todays "grey porridge" are tomorrows "classics" so I wouldn't get too sniffy about them as time will prove you to have been foolish.

 

[m1br]

Modern cars with inferior brakes?

REALLY?

 

[johnfromstaffs]

The point was that to encourage the use of very old inefficient cars which probably pollute more than their modern counterparts and to do so by use of taxation levers seems an odd choice by government.

It was neither a comment against classics or for them, it just seemed odd. however given the average mileage I guess as I said it was a gesture without cost or consequence.

Obviously todays "grey porridge" are tomorrows "classics" so I wouldn't get too sniffy about them as time will prove you to have been foolish.

Modern cars with inferior brakes?

REALLY?

Today's grey porridge will remain grey porridge however long it lasts, and I include my grey porridge C-class in that. The comment on inferior brakes, my Bentley has mechanically powered drum brakes which are designed to stop two tons of car from over 100 mph. There are no electronic gizmos or vacuum servoes in the system, and therefore very little to go wrong. The only area where modern braking systems are the equal of the Rolls-Royce system is their resistance to fade, but in 29 years of ownership of the car, I have yet to be troubled by it.

 

[MarriedBlonde]

Is it aprils fools day?

J.