4x4's
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,493
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Yes it's stupid - although I hate it, at least the tax on fuel is proportionate to the amount you drive, the fuel you use, and therefore the amount you pollute.
I really object to paying hundreds of pounds because my car is a "polluter" when it spends a good proprotion of its life sitting on the road not harming anything.
I really object to paying hundreds of pounds because my car is a "polluter" when it spends a good proprotion of its life sitting on the road not harming anything.
Former Moderator
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 24,771
Likes: 311
From: Stanmore
Originally Posted by Starlight,Jan 14 2010, 10:56 AM
And its a totally arbitrary and rubbish tax based on its current format.
If they truly wanted to tax people for CO2 emissions then the CO2 output must be tied to the actual mileage done to have any meaning at all.
You might have a sports car or 4x4 with a high CO2 figure but if its only a weekend toy or occasional use vehicle how can it have a higher CO2 tax then a reps car with a better CO2 rating but huge mileage making for a higher polluting vehicle
Either tie the tax to the MOT where a mileage check can be carried out to determine the tax level the vehicle needs to pay for the mileage done that year. Clearly then those that do very high mileage would have an incentive to get a very CO2 efficient vehicle to reduce their tax burden.
Makes sense to me
If they truly wanted to tax people for CO2 emissions then the CO2 output must be tied to the actual mileage done to have any meaning at all.
You might have a sports car or 4x4 with a high CO2 figure but if its only a weekend toy or occasional use vehicle how can it have a higher CO2 tax then a reps car with a better CO2 rating but huge mileage making for a higher polluting vehicle
Either tie the tax to the MOT where a mileage check can be carried out to determine the tax level the vehicle needs to pay for the mileage done that year. Clearly then those that do very high mileage would have an incentive to get a very CO2 efficient vehicle to reduce their tax burden.
Makes sense to me
I guess the real taxation for most lies in the tax on fuel.
IMO It'd make much more sense to increase fuel duty and reduce/remove road tax altogether, although there are issues with regard to insurance/MOT etc.
I'd also hapily see road charging introduced as I don't drive at peak times, so it'd save me a lot of money.
Another random thought is to tax vehicles by weight, as it's weight that damages road surfaces, and road tax is spent on on the roads (oh, hang on, you mean it isn't?
)Still, that way, 4x4s would cop it as well.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,493
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
I have a vague recollection tax based on weight is part of how they do it in the Netherlands?
And I agree about road tax etc. - put a little bit more on fuel and bin road tax completely. We know the tax doesn't go to the roads, it removes the infrstructure (and therefore cost) associated with maintaining a tax system, and it means people pay as they drive (and therefore pay for as much they "damage" the road)
And I agree about road tax etc. - put a little bit more on fuel and bin road tax completely. We know the tax doesn't go to the roads, it removes the infrstructure (and therefore cost) associated with maintaining a tax system, and it means people pay as they drive (and therefore pay for as much they "damage" the road)
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,181
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
Originally Posted by MarkB,Jan 14 2010, 09:04 AM
That's the point.
It's nothing to do with 'pollution' (Google 'climategate' if you want the ins and outs) and everything to do with taxing the 'rich', all part of the government's f**ked up mixture of socialism and capitalism.
If you can afford a newer 4x4 you can afford lots of tax, if you can afford to run an older 4x4 you can still afford some tax. They don't want them off the road, but as with everything they want to tax, they have to demonize it first, so incite a bit of climate hatred of the Chelsea tractor drivers, then use it as a populist excuse to take more money off them (never a vote loser with the core labour voter) ergo 4x4=bad=tax.
It's nothing to do with 'pollution' (Google 'climategate' if you want the ins and outs) and everything to do with taxing the 'rich', all part of the government's f**ked up mixture of socialism and capitalism.
If you can afford a newer 4x4 you can afford lots of tax, if you can afford to run an older 4x4 you can still afford some tax. They don't want them off the road, but as with everything they want to tax, they have to demonize it first, so incite a bit of climate hatred of the Chelsea tractor drivers, then use it as a populist excuse to take more money off them (never a vote loser with the core labour voter) ergo 4x4=bad=tax.
I've got a better idea; let people buy daft cars if they please to and let's tax politiciunts out of existence - especially the embittered, commie ones.
I love the 'climategate' term, BTW!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 20,788
Likes: 8
From: location, location
Originally Posted by lovegroova,Jan 14 2010, 11:28 AM
It just so happens that a significant amount of cars with high CO2/km figures are heavy 4x4s (as well as ligh S2000s) and so it becomes a media feeding frenzy.
.
Former Moderator
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 24,771
Likes: 311
From: Stanmore
Originally Posted by eSeM,Jan 14 2010, 11:39 AM
My CRV weighs 1500kg, which isn't exactly heavy.
And someone driving a diesel powered "proper" 4x4 would definitely pay more, and not less, in accordance wit the increased road wear they cause.
Former Moderator
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 24,771
Likes: 311
From: Stanmore
Originally Posted by Irvatron,Jan 14 2010, 12:13 PM
Agreed, so i either get rid of my cheap 4*4 or pay £10-15k on a newer 4x4 (possibly less capable) with a small amount reduced in tax. Looks like I'll get it and get bummed by tax or not try to go into work and be a lazy c kwunt .
.
Banned
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,739
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
all tax will increase - the bigger the engine/CO2 emission - the greater the rise
you can get a 118D now with acceptable performance, 60mpg and £35pa VED
and you can bet that in ten years, when most people have the equivalent as a daily runabout, the tax on those will be up too
all you can do is make the best of a bad situation
you can get a 118D now with acceptable performance, 60mpg and £35pa VED
and you can bet that in ten years, when most people have the equivalent as a daily runabout, the tax on those will be up too
all you can do is make the best of a bad situation
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,493
Likes: 0
From: Surrey
Originally Posted by lovegroova,Jan 14 2010, 01:42 PM
It weighs more than my S2000, which means that a CRV owner would pay more road tax than me, as opposed to the curent situation where they would pay less.
And someone driving a diesel powered "proper" 4x4 would definitely pay more, and not less, in accordance wit the increased road wear they cause.
And someone driving a diesel powered "proper" 4x4 would definitely pay more, and not less, in accordance wit the increased road wear they cause.