Car tax when buying on last day of month
Discussion
LeoSayer said:
The current situation, whether logical or not is politically acceptable. They would be mad to change it.
I totally disagree. For me and I'm sure many right-of-centre PH types, the current policy of basing road tax on emissions is politically unacceptable.I am happy to pay tax on usage. I use the roads and so expect to contribute to the building maintenance and upkeep (yes I know that the cash derived from road tax has no actual correllation to road spending). But from a political point of view, I'm happy to pay for what I use.
If I owned a Range Rover, but used it once a year for a jolly to the races, then £505 on road tax is totally disproportionate.
It's nothing more than a tax on owning something nice. 'If it's nice then you can afford it, so lets tax it.'
My idea of taxing based on consumption would appease the greenies. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more efficient engines and reduction on environmental impact, but let's be fair about it. Tax on use not on ownership.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Would you be so glib in they were driving for one day without insurance?
Jesus!!! What a ludicrous comparison. That's like me telling someone not to worry about doing 31mph in a 30, and you saying "you wouldn't be so glib if they were driving whilst over the drink drive limit."Two completely different offences, a 2 entirely different levels of seriousness and irresponsibility.
FFS!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jesus!!! What a ludicrous comparison. That's like me telling someone not to worry about doing 31mph in a 30, and you saying "you wouldn't be so glib if they were driving whilst over the drink drive limit."
Two completely different offences, a 2 entirely different levels of seriousness and irresponsibility.
FFS!
Drink driving is dangerous and the chances of an accident are significantly increase. Driving without road tax or insurance does not, so are comparable.Two completely different offences, a 2 entirely different levels of seriousness and irresponsibility.
FFS!
PurpleMoonlight said:
LoonR1 said:
Grow up, there is no comparison.
I would be just as glib for one day without an MOT, which is far more comparable.
There isn't?I would be just as glib for one day without an MOT, which is far more comparable.
Both are a legal requirement are they not?
Or do you often choose which laws to comply to?
One involves potentially leaving innocent drivers, pedestrians and others facing unnecessary difficulty in receiving compensation. It also leaves the driver open to large fines, points on his licence amd even potentially a ban.
The other opens him up to a £100 min endorseable fine (and that is extremely unlikely). There is zero impact on others and negligible in him.
Twig's example was a good one. I've answered your question now do us the courtesy of explaining why you see doing 1mph over a speed limit the same as drink driving.
julianm said:
Why they can`t `tax` a vehicle from any specific day is something I find irritating. Surely the DVLA computers can count?
The double hit on the changeover month is just an admin charge.They could probably do it daily, but then they'd make a separate admin charge. Some would gain, some would lose. The losers (everyone with a PH worthy car) would moan about it.
LoonR1 said:
There is a world of difference as Twig has pointed out.
One involves potentially leaving innocent drivers, pedestrians and others facing unnecessary difficulty in receiving compensation. It also leaves the driver open to large fines, points on his licence amd even potentially a ban.
The other opens him up to a £100 min endorseable fine (and that is extremely unlikely). There is zero impact on others and negligible in him.
Twig's example was a good one. I've answered your question now do us the courtesy of explaining why you see doing 1mph over a speed limit the same as drink driving.
Ahhh, I get it.One involves potentially leaving innocent drivers, pedestrians and others facing unnecessary difficulty in receiving compensation. It also leaves the driver open to large fines, points on his licence amd even potentially a ban.
The other opens him up to a £100 min endorseable fine (and that is extremely unlikely). There is zero impact on others and negligible in him.
Twig's example was a good one. I've answered your question now do us the courtesy of explaining why you see doing 1mph over a speed limit the same as drink driving.
Complying with the Law, or not, is dependent on the possible consequences of not complying.
If I am ever in Court, I'll remember that one.
PurpleMoonlight said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jesus!!! What a ludicrous comparison. That's like me telling someone not to worry about doing 31mph in a 30, and you saying "you wouldn't be so glib if they were driving whilst over the drink drive limit."
Two completely different offences, a 2 entirely different levels of seriousness and irresponsibility.
FFS!
Drink driving is dangerous and the chances of an accident are significantly increase. Driving without road tax or insurance does not, so are comparable.Two completely different offences, a 2 entirely different levels of seriousness and irresponsibility.
FFS!
The reason being is that if you intentionally drive without insurance, it shows you're a selfish ignorant
who doesn't give a fk about anyone else on the road apart from themselves. And believe it or not, those kinds of people tend not to make considerate and careful drivers. PurpleMoonlight said:
Ahhh, I get it.
Complying with the Law, or not, is dependent on the possible consequences of not complying.
Absolutely spot on. I might break the speed limit occasionally, but I won't commit murder. I'd quite like to commit murder in a few cases, but the possible consequences should I get caught, are too severe. Complying with the Law, or not, is dependent on the possible consequences of not complying.
Really, this isn't difficult.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Absolutely spot on. I might break the speed limit occasionally, but I won't commit murder. I'd quite like to commit murder in a few cases, but the possible consequences should I get caught, are too severe.
Really, this isn't difficult.
But does that give you the right to abuse someone who doesn't want to risk the penalties for speeding so doesn't exceed the limit, as Loon did to the OP because he is going to pay for one days road tax?Really, this isn't difficult.
PurpleMoonlight said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Absolutely spot on. I might break the speed limit occasionally, but I won't commit murder. I'd quite like to commit murder in a few cases, but the possible consequences should I get caught, are too severe.
Really, this isn't difficult.
But does that give you the right to abuse someone who doesn't want to risk the penalties for speeding so doesn't exceed the limit, as Loon did to the OP because he is going to pay for one days road tax?Really, this isn't difficult.
PurpleMoonlight said:
But does that give you the right to abuse someone who doesn't want to risk the penalties for speeding so doesn't exceed the limit, as Loon did to the OP because he is going to pay for one days road tax?
oh diddums. I pointed out that he was being overly compliant IMO with a rule that few agree with. I wonder if he's equally compliant with other rules / laws. My view is exactly the same as Twig's on compliance. I'll obey some laws and not others, the penalties for non-compliance are often the deciding factor.
geoffreythestag said:
Thanks everyone.
I think I'll be safer to suck it up and lose 1 months tax to keep everything perfectly legal. If I didn't tax it until the following day part of me would be expecting a fine from the DVLA when they found a discrepancy between the change of ownership date and the tax renewal date.
That's disappointing.I think I'll be safer to suck it up and lose 1 months tax to keep everything perfectly legal. If I didn't tax it until the following day part of me would be expecting a fine from the DVLA when they found a discrepancy between the change of ownership date and the tax renewal date.
LoonR1 said:
Jim1556 said:
Apologies Loon, that was more of a 'long day at work' rant, than aimed specifically at you...
But, as I said, it's the principle! I know a daily system would be stupidly complicated, plagued with errors, ridiculously expensive to implement and above all, it'd explode anyway!
The DVLA have just found modern technology and stopped using paper as much (quite a large saving), but instead of leaving the liability dates as they were, they've now forced a change so they get double tax for a month? I'm sorry, but that takes the fking piss!
Again, whether it's £50 or not, it's theft!
It's not theft. No matter how excited you get about it, it's not theft. But, as I said, it's the principle! I know a daily system would be stupidly complicated, plagued with errors, ridiculously expensive to implement and above all, it'd explode anyway!
The DVLA have just found modern technology and stopped using paper as much (quite a large saving), but instead of leaving the liability dates as they were, they've now forced a change so they get double tax for a month? I'm sorry, but that takes the f
king piss!Again, whether it's £50 or not, it's theft!
The DVLA will not refund that person a part month tax, instead keeping it for them selves.
They then demand that another person pays the same amount to tax the same car for that same month.
Obtaining / keeping money for a service not provided, that may not be theft, but it's not exactly honest either.
And on a case by case basis it may be "only a few quid" but it must add up given all the car sales over the course of a year.
Hackney said:
Someone has paid to tax a car to month end.
The DVLA will not refund that person a part month tax, instead keeping it for them selves.
They then demand that another person pays the same amount to tax the same car for that same month.
Obtaining / keeping money for a service not provided, that may not be theft, but it's not exactly honest either.
And on a case by case basis it may be "only a few quid" but it must add up given all the car sales over the course of a year.
As has already been pointed out there is a much higher tax to get annoyed about. It's called Council Tax. Have a look at how that works then get annoyed. The DVLA will not refund that person a part month tax, instead keeping it for them selves.
They then demand that another person pays the same amount to tax the same car for that same month.
Obtaining / keeping money for a service not provided, that may not be theft, but it's not exactly honest either.
And on a case by case basis it may be "only a few quid" but it must add up given all the car sales over the course of a year.
LoonR1 said:
As has already been pointed out there is a much higher tax to get annoyed about. It's called Council Tax. Have a look at how that works then get annoyed.
Council tax is levied on a direct apportionment I believe if you move part way through the fiscal year. Therefore, no double charging as with road tax.I found myself in a very similar scenario, and I, too, paid the tax (and then cancelled it), thus effectively paying a month's tax for a day's use.
Would I have got away with having not done so? I'd say almost certainly. But what you're talking about here is similar to saying you'll drive a car home without insuring it, because you're covered under your fully comp policy to drive someone else's car, and it's not had the paperwork go through to say it's changed ownership yet.
For me, it was worth the minimal amount of money involved (on the car concerned, something like £13 for a month's tax) to play it straight. I completely agree that the system is a bit cheeky (they should either let people tax on an exact day, or allow the existing tax to run out the current month when cancelled), but it is what it is.
Would I have got away with having not done so? I'd say almost certainly. But what you're talking about here is similar to saying you'll drive a car home without insuring it, because you're covered under your fully comp policy to drive someone else's car, and it's not had the paperwork go through to say it's changed ownership yet.
For me, it was worth the minimal amount of money involved (on the car concerned, something like £13 for a month's tax) to play it straight. I completely agree that the system is a bit cheeky (they should either let people tax on an exact day, or allow the existing tax to run out the current month when cancelled), but it is what it is.
It's not similar to no insurance. Having no insurance has the potential to affect other innocent parties. Having no tax for a day is of no consequence to anything, really.
The DVLA would take longer than that to notice (or care) about it, and we're talking about a discrepancy of a single day here. People go on holiday and their tax expires while they're gone, etc, no one cares and the world keeps turning.
If you want to be absolutely pedantic - yes it's a crime and yes you should pay for that extra day (month), but you'd be foolish to in my opinion.
The DVLA would take longer than that to notice (or care) about it, and we're talking about a discrepancy of a single day here. People go on holiday and their tax expires while they're gone, etc, no one cares and the world keeps turning.
If you want to be absolutely pedantic - yes it's a crime and yes you should pay for that extra day (month), but you'd be foolish to in my opinion.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff