Big cars and taxation

[glojo]

Is this toooo political or is it car based and very relevant?

Let us PLEASE try to NOT make this a banned thread.

First off
I fear that bigger engined cars might be singled out on today's budget and cannot help wondering what the long term effects might be.

If we see a tax on new bigger cars then that might not be too bad, but what is a big car? Is a 3.2ltr engine a big car? Is a 3.2ltr CDI less economical than some 2ltr petrol powered alternatives. Is a more sensible cut-off 4ltr?

If there is a showroom type tax then fair enough, but what happens if this is put onto the annual taxation??

If this happens then am I correct in suggesting that we might see the demise of our luxury end of motoring?

I am no Hawk20 and I love my big cars and would be saddened to see this event happen but my concern is simple.

If the yearly tax on a 5ltr car is raised to £1000 a year then I am certain that people that buy a £70,000 car can afford this, but in three or four years time........ can the prospective buyer of this now second-hand vehicle afford this? ...........................................

If the answer is no, then what has happened to the second-hand market? If this market dries up, then who is going to spend £70,000 on a car only to see it become unsellable a few years down the line?

Will the answer be putting smaller engines in bigger cars? Read the thread regarding the 560SEC and the installation of a diesel engine

Is this going to be the year we see the decline of the big car?

Just remember our Minister's will have big petrol Jaguar's with gas guzzling V8 Range Rover's containing protection officers to escort them the short distance from downing Street to the Palace of Westminster (House of Commons)

Do as I do!!!!

I think not.

Taxing binge drinking really appeals to my sense of humour, great idea to increase the revenue, but am I stupid to suggest it might not stop the objectionable behaviour we witness most evenings in our Town Centre's

regards
John

 

[verytalldave]

What ever happens in the budget obviously only affects this country, so even IF large engined cars are taxed into oblivion, this wont mean the end of the genre. The rest of the world will carry on down the reasonable path so the large cars will continue to be built and available - even if they dont make economic sense in the UK. I cant ever see a point in history where the USA makes large engined cars untenable. They love their big blocks and long may they continue unpersecuted.
I can see the UK becoming a land of Prius drivers soon unless there is a quantum shift in government policy. Normal cars will be priced out of existance.

 

[Benzowner]

Some interesting topics there John, I don't think they will specifically target engine sizes, they will purley look at CO emmissions regardless of engine size. As regards the second hand market for large cars, I do think there will be a problem there, as you say who could afford such a high tax payment if it were to rise as much as you say, but I think governments do think and realise that if the taxation goes too high, they will loose the income in the long run if no one buys these cars. That would be self defeating. They will, I feel, pitch it at an affordable level, getting the most out of us, a bit like poker betting

 

[jamesmc]

[FONT=&quot]I am convinced that what happens in the UK budget is watched by other governments in the EU. Some less developed southern EU countries get their silly ideas based on what they see the likes of the Northern EU countries doing.

For example, cars in Portugal now pay road tax based on CO2 output.. Not something the Portuguese dreamed up themselves for sure. Any major penalties introduced on bigger cars in the UK will gradually filter down into other EU countries in one form or another.
In Lisbon they are trailing Speed Cameras. They now have a safety slogan.. Speed Kills! Sound familiar?

I feel the UK government, along with the likes of 'Red Ken' is doing more harm EU wide than many members of this Forum may be aware of.

.....................
I can see the UK becoming a land of Prius drivers soon unless there is a quantum shift in government policy. Normal cars will be priced out of existance.

The 'quantum shift' can only be brought about the the people that elect the government. If the people don't object, by changing their voting pattern, then the government can only assume it is doing the right thing.[/FONT]

 

[Alfie]

.................................................................

If there is a showroom type tax then fair enough, but what happens if this is put onto the annual taxation??

......................................................
Taxing binge drinking really appeals to my sense of humour, great idea to increase the revenue, but am I stupid to suggest it might not stop the objectionable behaviour we witness most evenings in our Town Centre's

regards
John

It wasnt that long ago that Car Tax (the tax on new cars) was abolished. I fear its coming back now under a new guise!

As for the alcopop tax, it will do nothing to stop kids from buying alcohol. They will simply move onto another form of alcohol if they cant afford an alcopop. I am convinced that part of the root problem of the anti social behaviour we see is alcohol, the other part is lack of parental responsibility and discipline.

Public consumption of alcohol should be banned and the age to purchase it raised to 21. The penalties for being found drunk, selling alcohol to underage kids, drinking under age or in public should be far more harsh. Couple this with a repeal of the ridiculous 24 hour drinking law and things might start to improve. IMHO

 

[Howard]

Do cars in India and China pay tax on CO2 output ?

When the economies of these countries start to make a difference to their emissions, i'll sit up and take notice ....

The government is going to tax us out of existance , while those countries just blithely carry on regardless ...

Like the amount of CO2 generated in the UK is going to make a difference

 

[imadoofus]

I'm afraid that I think a 'useage' tax is the only reasonable solution. Pay per mile, if you like.

In other words, increase the tax on fuel, and remove Road Tax (or whatever it's now called).

It then becomes a genuine choice for the man in the street to drive whatever he likes. Nobody can dodge the liability (such as the ministerial cars mentioned by John), and it won't kill the sales of new or used luxury cars. Bear in mind they carry non-recoverable VAT, so any government that significantly reduced sales of expensive new cars could be considered short-sighted.

Then, if I want a seven litre behemoth for high days and holidays, I'll pay through the nose when I use it (at the time when it's actually damaging the environment) and I won't pay to keep it in the garage, where I can look at it without hurting anybody at all.

Bleeding hearts and mooers would all chant loudly if fuel tax were increased by such a large mount, but since when has any government listened to what people think anyway?

PJ

 

[glojo]

I'm afraid that I think a 'useage' tax is the only reasonable solution. Pay per mile, if you like.

I'm all in favour of doing away with road tax as to me this is just a cynical way of improving the employment figures? I wonder how many folks are employed solely in relation to the running of this department and how much fraud is committed by people avoiding this tax? f the fuel price is increased then hey presto, no fraud.

The problem with a tax on fuel is that it punishes those that do not have access to public transport. Our whole system is devised by folks that live in the glass bubble of the capital, or larger cities. It annoys me to hear how we need to encourage people to use public transport and get out of their cars.

Shout mode...

WE HAVE NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT in most rural areas.

John

 

[verytalldave]

My ex-wife lives in a small village in North Norfolk. They have about 8 buses a day Monday to Saturday and only 4 on a Sunday. There is a railway station about 3-4 miles walk where an occasional train runs somewhere only slightly less remote.

 

[moakesr]

I agree 100% with imadoofus, I can't help feel that this is the only fair solution, however I would add one caveat, in that a significant proportion of this tax is used to improve public transport in rural areas.

I used to live in a village on Dartmoor and one bus in and one bus out a day is a poor excuse for public transport and needs to be improved dramatically.

Richard

I'm afraid that I think a 'useage' tax is the only reasonable solution. Pay per mile, if you like.

In other words, increase the tax on fuel, and remove Road Tax (or whatever it's now called).

It then becomes a genuine choice for the man in the street to drive whatever he likes. Nobody can dodge the liability (such as the ministerial cars mentioned by John), and it won't kill the sales of new or used luxury cars. Bear in mind they carry non-recoverable VAT, so any government that significantly reduced sales of expensive new cars could be considered short-sighted.

Then, if I want a seven litre behemoth for high days and holidays, I'll pay through the nose when I use it (at the time when it's actually damaging the environment) and I won't pay to keep it in the garage, where I can look at it without hurting anybody at all.

Bleeding hearts and mooers would all chant loudly if fuel tax were increased by such a large mount, but since when has any government listened to what people think anyway?

PJ

 

[imadoofus]

I agree with both John's and Richard's comments regarding public transport and the need to improve it.

However, the money is theoretically already there to improve it, but because it's all been privatised, the government have been able to wash their hands of responsibility.


PJ

 

[Matt45]

I think the whole Road Tax thing is FUBAR anyway. My 3.7 Ltr first registered before mar 06 demands £205 where the newer more efficient 3.5 Ltr producing lower imissions costs £300. Not that I'm complaining, I just feel they change the rules to squeeze more and more out of the motorist each year under more complicate rules. Much older cars are exempt all together - they must be more inefficient, proving it has nothing to do with the environment and all to do with the pensions of politicians. Tax, tax and more tax.

 

[moakesr]

And there we have the problem, public transport isn't public any more is it?

If the government is serious about getting us out of our cars, then train and buses need to be back in public ownership, not run for a profit, and so cheap and plentiful it makes no sense to use a private car unless you can afford to, or choose to do otherwise.

I agree with both John's and Richard's comments regarding public transport and the need to improve it.

However, the money is theoretically already there to improve it, but because it's all been privatised, the government have been able to wash their hands of responsibility.


PJ

 

[BTB 500]

I also agree 100% with imadoofus.

I've travelled to work by public transport every day for 25 years. My 5 litre SL averages 2k miles a year and hence emits far less actual CO2 than a 1.6 litre Focus doing 15k miles a year. It's the high-mileage drivers that should be targetted.

 

[glojo]

I also agree 100% with imadoofus.

I've travelled to work by public transport every day for 25 years. My 5 litre SL averages 2k miles a year and hence emits far less actual CO2 than a 1.6 litre Focus doing 15k miles a year. It's the high-mileage drivers that should be targetted.

Hi Bill
How would you feel if you had NO public transport and had to use your car?

regards
John

 

[verytalldave]

My answer to that question would be that I wouldnt live there. I would never live anywhere that had little or no public transport. We all have a degree of choice where we live within financial constraints of course.
I would rather live in a small 3 bed terraced home that was well served by public transport than in a 5/6 bedroomed detatched home that wasnt.

 

[glojo]

My answer to that question would be that I wouldnt live there. I would never live anywhere that had little or no public transport. We all have a degree of choice where we live within financial constraints of course.
I would rather live in a small 3 bed terraced home that was well served by public transport than in a 5/6 bedroomed detatched home that wasnt.

I accept that but what about if you are born in a village, grew up in that village then what? These folks had a bus service, they grew up with a bus service, they grew used to this service and when they got too old to drive or perhaps could not drive, or even afford to drive; they are now stuck, and to say tough....... MOVE! Is perhaps not being fair?

I personally would like to see subsidised tarnsport that would be obliged to supply a regular service to villages\hamlets with a population above a certain figure. Towns or urban areas should also all have a decent service whereby a bus stop should always be within a reasonable walking distance and not where we are obliged to walk over a mile and a half to get to a bus. It is very apparant there is a huge difference between our towns\cities etc and that is not what we should be about.



John

 

[BTB 500]

How would you feel if you had NO public transport and had to use your car?

As verytalldave mentions, to some extent that's a lifestyle choice. We only looked at houses near a rail link into London, rather than considering bigger properties (for the same money) out in the country ... where using a car to commute might be a neccessity.

But if I did have to commute by car it wouldn't be in a 5 litre petrol V8!

 

[verytalldave]

I accept that but what about if you are born in a village, grew up in that village then what? These folks had a bus service, they grew up with a bus service, they grew used to this service and when they got too old to drive or perhaps could not drive, or even afford to drive; they are now stuck, and to say tough....... MOVE! Is perhaps not being fair?............................

John

Good point well made. And I dont know the answer. Easy to say move, but its not as easy as that as you say.
But its not just public transport that has deteriorated over the years. Post offices have closed in their thousands. Other shops have closed due to the "supermarket" effect. Postal services are reduced. Milk and bread deliveries are less frequent and now very expensive.
Again, easy to dismiss all that with the phrase "its the way things are now". Try telling that to a housebound low income 80 year old who has to rely on his friends and neighbours for all help.
It is a problem and short of the unlikely chance of government funded assistance, there is no obvious answer.

 

[glojo]

As verytalldave mentions, to some extent that's a lifestyle choice. We only looked at houses near a rail link into London, rather than considering bigger properties (for the same money) out in the country ... where using a car to commute might be a neccessity.

But if I did have to commute by car it wouldn't be in a 5 litre petrol V8!

I accept that is your individual choice but I am talking about those that do not have this very fortunate option. It is so easy to think about our own circumstances and give it the old, 'I'm alright jack' type answer.

I'm thinking about villages where folks have had a public bus service all their lives, they have grown old in their village and now all of a sudden this service has ceased. It is not about choice, it is not about life-style. The elderly in a village do not have either a choice, or a voice.

Lifestyle is a very good point and I feel this is what is killing these villages. Folks with cars move into the nice villages, but they then commute outside the village to work; plus they drive into the local town to do their shopping. This gradually upsets the balance and slowly the village community dies, can't alter that but it has nothing to do with the older residents of these communities that become stranded.

I'm alright, I have my own chaffuer, live in a nice town and have no axe to grind regarding this issue....... BUT

We should look at our villages and see for ourselves how they are being treated as third class citizens. It is wrong and sad.

John