Supertax On Gas Guzzlers

[hawk20]

Alistair Darling planning a purchase tax on most polluting vehicles.

Chancellor Alistair Darling is planning to introduce a "purchase tax" of up to £2,000 on the most polluting vehicles, it has been claimed.
The idea is set out in a leaked Treasury paper ahead of Mr Darling's forthcoming Pre-Budget Report, according to The Sunday Times.
As well as the one-off charge at the point of purchase, so-called gas guzzlers would also be subject to higher road tax.
More fuel-efficient cars would be eligible for a £2,000 rebate, under the proposals.

Officials apparently acknowledge in the leaked document that the measures would be "presentationally difficult" but argue that they would also "strengthen the environmental signal".
The proposals bear a remarkable similarity to those contained in the Tories' Quality Of Life policy report, which was unveiled by David Cameron this week.
Under the Tory plans - none of which have yet been formally incorporated into party policy - there would be a new purchase tax on cars of up to 10% depending on emissions.
There would also be a sliding VAT scale between 5% and 17.5% and a new top band of vehicle excise duty of £500 - with the owners of "super-polluters" paying the most.
The Treasury declined to comment on the Sunday Times claims, a spokeswoman saying: "We never comment on leaks."

 

[miro]

I would have made it £10,000. That is about the cost to the health system.

Enhancement of allergic inflammation by the interaction between diesel exhaust particles and the immune system

There is growing evidence that fossil fuel combustion products act as adjuvants in the immune system and may lead to enhancement of allergic inflammation. Through this mechanism, particulate air pollutants may be an important contributor to the increased prevalence and morbidity of asthma and allergic rhinitis. In this communication we focus on the role of diesel exhaust particles (DEPs) in skewing the immune response towards IgE production and induction of allergic inflammation. We review experimental studies in animals and humans showing that DEPs enhance IgE production by a variety of mechanisms, including effects on cytokine and chemokine production, as well as activation of macrophages and other mucosal cell types. We discuss metabolic and cellular activation pathways linked to chemicals such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contained in DEPs and demonstrate how these molecular events may impact cytokine, chemokine, and accessory molecule expression in the immune system.

The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology

 

[verytalldave]

While I acknowledge the theory that "every little helps", I fail to see how ANYTHING we do in the UK can effectively do much to bring about a change in pollution levels worldwide. We are such a small contributor to the problems that even if the UK became completely pollution free, it would make almost no measurable difference when compared to the big three of the USA, China and Russia. There are many other countries in the world that are far worse than us and yet they don't seem to have crippling taxation burdens levelled upon them in the name of pollution. While I appreciate that SOMETHING has to be done, taxing the the British people until it hurts is not the way forward to make a sustainable long term pollution free world. I am sorry to say that I see it as yet another way of raising taxation. I see no evidence that the extra "pollution tax" revenue being collected is being used for the purposes it should be being used for. Instead its just going into the big box in the treasury and being used as a top-up to all other forms of taxation. I don't know the exact figures, but I think only about 10% of road tax actually gets spent on the roads. I see the same scenario with "pollution tax" money. Lottery money is now being used for things it was never originally intended for. Profits from the lottery were meant to be used to help charities and other non-public funded organisations. Since when has the Olympics come under either of those 2 headings?
Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, once that extra taxation money has been put into the chancellors pocket, it will get lost and mixed in with all the other monies and there will be no benefit to man nor beast.
Its just yet ANOTHER revenue raising scam. And all parties seem hell bent to inflict these tax rises upon us.

 

[jamesmc]

Very Tall Dave

Well said!

 

[miro]

While I acknowledge the theory that "every little helps", I fail to see how ANYTHING we do in the UK can effectively do much to bring about a change in pollution levels worldwide. We are such a small contributor to the problems that even if the UK became completely pollution free, it would make almost no measurable difference when compared to the big three of the USA, China and Russia.

They said the same thing about sewer pipes. It only took 100 years to get them installed. As an experiment we can remove your waste management and see if your insiginficant global contribution doesnt destroy your life in a matter of weeks.

The problem is not global pollution but what you are living in right now.

Short of having another fire which wipes out London or another war there will never be any visible signs of change no matter what the tax rate is. The money is used to employ people, add welfare and maintain the system. Almost nothing is spent on new things or high profile things. The museums are pretty empty as it is, you hardly need more museums. The trains dont exactly overflow, you dont need more trains. What exactly are you taxes supposed to do ? How do politicians know it needs to be done ? Did you tell them ?

 

[Dieselman]

miro
can you please check where the information you have posted came from as it appears to resemble a very old study carried out on rats and mice where they were forced to breath fumes so dense that they were literally choking to death.
Not surprising that they suffered some lung tissue inflammation as a result.

The HSE has carried out a 50 year investigation into diesel fumes in the workplace and found no link to any respiratory problems.

 

[R2e]

They said the same thing about sewer pipes. It only took 100 years to get them installed. As an experiment we can remove your waste management and see if your insiginficant global contribution doesnt destroy your life in a matter of weeks.

The problem is not global pollution but what you are living in right now.

Short of having another fire which wipes out London or another war there will never be any visible signs of change no matter what the tax rate is. The money is used to employ people, add welfare and maintain the system. Almost nothing is spent on new things or high profile things. The museums are pretty empty as it is, you hardly need more museums. The trains dont exactly overflow, you dont need more trains. What exactly are you taxes supposed to do ? How do politicians know it needs to be done ? Did you tell them ?

And fairies live at the bottom of my garden, there are pink pigs flying past my window at this very moment, and Elvis is alive and living in a caravan on Bodmin moor. Oh, and we really are responsible for global warming.....

 

[navin]

A tax on the rich, nothing more, nothing less!

 

[Dieselman]

While I acknowledge the theory that "every little helps", I fail to see how ANYTHING we do in the UK can effectively do much to bring about a change in pollution levels worldwide. We are such a small contributor to the problems that even if the UK became completely pollution free, it would make almost no measurable difference when compared to the big three of the USA, China and Russia.

Wow, if we have any more of these old chestnuts we'll be able to have MBClub conkers tournament.

What an easy get-out. Just ignoring the problem and blaming someone else isn't the answer here.

Do you have any figures to substantiate your claim of us being such a small pollution contributor.
Last time I posted figures it showed we are the worst polluter per head in Europe and only worsened by Australia and the USA.
I'd say that lays the blame squarely at our doorstep.

Why is it such a hardship to not drive a gross polluting car?
This is an easy tax to avoid, just buy a lesser polluting car and obtain a tax rebate. Or am I missing something?

 

[pammy]

Wow, if we have any more of these old chestnuts we'll be able to have MBClub conkers tournament.

What an easy get-out. Just ignoring the problem and blaming someone else isn't the answer here.
.....................?

I agree entirely. Talk about I'm not playing unless so and so's playing. Change has to start somewhere and this country is often a trend setter. How many Americans are now driving smaller cars. How many have the environment on their agenda. Russia and China may well be further behind but if someone doesn't set an example, when will anything change?

As for Miro's comment on trains being hardy full and us not needing more - when did you last use the trains on a regular basis! All our trains are very busy and often when getting trains out of London it's a bun fight for a seat. Yes there are times when they are less busy and towards the end of the line they are almost empty as there's not many left to get off, but believe me, the routes I use need more, not less.

For me this is not just about cutting pollution, but also about trying to control the number of big cars on our roads. There are far too many huge beasts driven usually by women for running the kids around and doing the shopping.

A purchase tax gives you a choice you can either pay it or buy something else.

 

[R2e]

Wow, if we have any more of these old chestnuts we'll be able to have MBClub conkers tournament.

What an easy get-out. Just ignoring the problem and blaming someone else isn't the answer here.

Do you have any figures to substantiate your claim of us being such a small pollution contributor.
Last time I posted figures it showed we are the worst polluter per head in Europe and only worsened by Australia and the USA.
I'd say that lays the blame squarely at our doorstep.

Why is it such a hardship to not drive a gross polluting car?
This is an easy tax to avoid, just buy a lesser polluting car and obtain a tax rebate. Or am I missing something?

The question is Dieselman, whether this should be a personal choice, or whether it should be the subject of Government 'Social Engineering' via the tax system which causes a great deal of hardship to the worse off in our society. To those with plenty of money, they'll pay the tax, what the hell. To those with an older car which they're struggling to keep on the road, the end result will be decimated second hand prices so they can't afford to sell, can't afford to keep the car and run it.

When you say the blame lays squarely at our doorstep, can I ask - the blame for what? What is the ultimate sin of pollution other than polluting? I fear it is becoming more and more politically correct to rail against pollution and global warming (otherwise our politicians wouldn't be doing it!) to the extent where it becomes a sin in itself and nothing practical gets done about it. Firstly convince the more than 50% of the UK population (the immoral majority?) who do not believe we are responsible for global warming. For me, I find the science unconvincing over our responsibility for global warming.

 

[rogkildare]

Totally agree...just like the stealth tax also called the Lottery it's all to do with jumping on any bandwagon to fill the kitty, as there are people out there who still believe the 40 billion taken of motorists each year in tax are spent on the roads!

 

[Dieselman]

The question is Dieselman, whether this should be a personal choice, or whether it should be the subject of Government 'Social Engineering' via the tax system which causes a great deal of hardship to the worse off in our society.

Quite why this disadvantages the worse off in our society is beyond me. Surely they are the least likely people to be buying new "gross polluting" cars.

The additional deprecation argument is exactly why it will affect even moderately wealthy people.

As far as personal choice that method has been tried and so far isn't working. If all the people who say "it's not happening" and "Look the other way", acted instead of procrastinating, then the Government wouldn't have to introduce the extra tax. As it is they do have to to force some action.

For me, I find the science unconvincing over our responsibility for global warming.

To what depth have you studied it?

My understanding is that there appears to be clear links between the amount of fossil fuel burnt and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which then appears to link directly to temperature rises, which then promote undesirable results.

Take a look at the information provided by the Hadley Centre, you may find it interesting.

Even without the issue of global warming it seems a little selfish for us to burn all the available oil up in 150 years. It took 10 Million years for that to form.

 

[Dieselman]

Totally agree...

Not directly aimed at you Rogkildare, but what suggestion do all the "Look the other way" brigade have to combat the problem?

 

[Benzowner]

Quite why this disadvantages the worse off in our society is beyond me. Surely they are the least likely people to be buying new "gross polluting" cars.

They may be the least likely to buy the "new gross polluting" cars but they are certainly the ones who will buy the old and probably even worse polluting cars.

 

[verytalldave]

Just had a quick scout round to try to find some RELIABLE figures for global CO2 quantities per country. The most up to date comparisons I could find were compiled in 2002. Assuming the status quo remains the same as in 2002 (which of course it hasnt - particularily for China) then what we have is this............
The UK contributes roughly 2.5% of TOTAL worldwide CO2 emissions.
Germany is the highest EU contributer by far.
For reference, follow this link..... http://timeforchange.org/CO2-emissions-by-country

Comparison of results on a per capita basis gives a table which throws up some strange results.
For example, while China is one of the 3 highest TOTAL CO2 contributers, it figures low down on a per capita basis as there are so many Chinese. Same goes for India. Yet countries like the Trinidad and Tobago are near the top of the table because of the energy they consume, but have a relatively low population.

Until the "big 3" contributers change their ways - which is very unlikely - and will probably get significantly worse - then anything we do here in the UK will make NO measureable difference to the worlds plight. Sorry, but taxing us 100% isnt going to make one jot of difference.
I still say "green" taxation in the UK is nothing more than good old plain and simple revenue raising.

 

[hawk20]

Not directly aimed at you Rogkildare, but what suggestion do all the "Look the other way" brigade have to combat the problem?

My suggestion is: - Stop pretending that this tiny island can solve the world's problems. We are only 1% of world population. We should encourage, persuade and do all we can to get the big countries and Europe together to act. But punishing ourselves on our own is stupid.

Setting an example? This is back to CND and unilateralism. Rarely if ever works. You disarm first and you don't even get invited to the talks.

 

[hawk20]

Think about it logically. A tax on bigger engines in the UK will probably cut world pollution by 0.00001%

Meanwhile we watch as the world population grows at a rate that has seen it rise from 1 billion when Thatcher was born to 6 billion now. All in one lifetime. Ignore that problem and everything else you do is a childish tokenistic waste of time.

 

[R2e]

Quite why this disadvantages the worse off in our society is beyond me. Surely they are the least likely people to be buying new "gross polluting" cars.

The additional deprecation argument is exactly why it will affect even moderately wealthy people.

As far as personal choice that method has been tried and so far isn't working. If all the people who say "it's not happening" and "Look the other way", acted instead of procrastinating, then the Government wouldn't have to introduce the extra tax. As it is they do have to to force some action.

As I pointed out, it is the owners of second hand gas guzzlers, often the poorer section of our society, who will find themselves with cars they can't sell as they become, as a group, less attractive due to the imposition of higher taxes. There is undoubtedly a knock on effect. When the government knocked down new car prices a few years back, I subsequently found myself with a three year old car which was not worth the residuals I had to pay for it.

Also, I believed we were a democracy. Why is the government ignoring the views of the majority? What gives them the sheer arrogance to assume they know better than the rest of us? Shades of Mr Blair........

To what depth have you studied it?

My understanding is that there appears to be clear links between the amount of fossil fuel burnt and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which then appears to link directly to temperature rises, which then promote undesirable results.

Take a look at the information provided by the Hadley Centre, you may find it interesting.

Even without the issue of global warming it seems a little selfish for us to burn all the available oil up in 150 years. It took 10 Million years for that to form.

Maybe it is selfish, but that is the human way, we have always used the resources available.

Unfortunately the link between CO2 and temperature which is that CO2 levels rise after temperature, seem to fly in the face of the theory that we are responsible for global warming. The Hadley Centre in fact only state their belief that human CO2 output is enhancing global warming effect (note, not causing), but do have plenty of caveats about scientific controversy and climate change being a complex subject. And lest we forget, Galileo was imprisoned for suggesting the earth went round the sun. History, if it teaches us anything, shows that the majority of scientists are usually wrong on any new theory, it is the voice crying in the wilderness which is correct.

And we are talking the Met Office which struggle to get a correct forecast two or three days ahead telling us "The bottom line is that current models enable us to attribute the causes of past climate change and predict the main features of the future climate with a high degree of confidence"

The quantity of pink pigs flying past my window is increasing by the minute

 

[Dieselman]

They may be the least likely to buy the "new gross polluting" cars but they are certainly the ones who will buy the old and probably even worse polluting cars.

So they wouldn't have to pay it then as it's a "New Car" tax.