Selling car - new road tax thievery rules??
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Exactly. In the past, selling a oldish high co2 vehicle that had a fair amount of tax on it, it was a nightmare. You advertised the car and built in say £300 for the remaining tax, and you got no takers. You advertised just the car without building in the tax value and the new buyer offered the price but wanted tax thrown in.
The new system does away with all that.
If people wish to see this as a "stealth tax" or a "rip off" then so be it. It's not worth arguing over because you won't change anyone's mind. Some people like being angry and getting worked up about stuff like this and no amount of rational discussion will change it. This is no different to the "rip off insurance" threads.The new system does away with all that.
The whole VED is a mess anyway. Now VEHICLE excise duty is assigned to a person, not a car...
Abolish it and put it on fuel. High-consumption older cars would pay more which is, ironically, the inverse of what happens now - my E36 328i is probably 'dirtier' than my Focus ST was, yet the ST is pretty much double the VED. Admittedly this problem will start to decline as more cars fall under the 'post-2001' date and older, pre-2001 cars are no longer on the road.
What I object to, overall though, is the use of something like a car to extract enormous sums of money from people. Most of us who don't live in London need our cars to do things like 'getting to work to earn money to pay income tax, council tax, value added tax, stamp duty, tax on savings interest' etc. VED should be ditched, just be honest about calling a tax a tax.
Adding it to fuel would also ensure foreigners paid for the wear and tear they put on our roads as well as emissions too as they would be part-funding it through fuel. It would also be a progressive tax as it would be based on a) the type of car one chooses to drive (eg. thirstier) and b) the mileage driven.
Why should a supercar that's used for a couple of thousand miles a year pay more VED than a repmobile that does 25,000? It's bonkers.
Abolish it and put it on fuel. High-consumption older cars would pay more which is, ironically, the inverse of what happens now - my E36 328i is probably 'dirtier' than my Focus ST was, yet the ST is pretty much double the VED. Admittedly this problem will start to decline as more cars fall under the 'post-2001' date and older, pre-2001 cars are no longer on the road.
What I object to, overall though, is the use of something like a car to extract enormous sums of money from people. Most of us who don't live in London need our cars to do things like 'getting to work to earn money to pay income tax, council tax, value added tax, stamp duty, tax on savings interest' etc. VED should be ditched, just be honest about calling a tax a tax.
Adding it to fuel would also ensure foreigners paid for the wear and tear they put on our roads as well as emissions too as they would be part-funding it through fuel. It would also be a progressive tax as it would be based on a) the type of car one chooses to drive (eg. thirstier) and b) the mileage driven.
Why should a supercar that's used for a couple of thousand miles a year pay more VED than a repmobile that does 25,000? It's bonkers.
Funk said:
The whole VED is a mess anyway. Now VEHICLE excise duty is assigned to a person, not a car...
Abolish it and put it on fuel. High-consumption older cars would pay more which is, ironically, the inverse of what happens now - my E36 328i is probably 'dirtier' than my Focus ST was, yet the ST is pretty much double the VED. Admittedly this problem will start to decline as more cars fall under the 'post-2001' date and older, pre-2001 cars are no longer on the road.
What I object to, overall though, is the use of something like a car to extract enormous sums of money from people. Most of us who don't live in London need our cars to do things like 'getting to work to earn money to pay income tax, council tax, value added tax, stamp duty, tax on savings interest' etc. VED should be ditched, just be honest about calling a tax a tax.
Adding it to fuel would also ensure foreigners paid for the wear and tear they put on our roads as well as emissions too as they would be part-funding it through fuel. It would also be a progressive tax as it would be based on a) the type of car one chooses to drive (eg. thirstier) and b) the mileage driven.
Why should a supercar that's used for a couple of thousand miles a year pay more VED than a repmobile that does 25,000? It's bonkers.
Haulage industry? Public transport? You've just sunk the transport of the majority of goods round the country. Abolish it and put it on fuel. High-consumption older cars would pay more which is, ironically, the inverse of what happens now - my E36 328i is probably 'dirtier' than my Focus ST was, yet the ST is pretty much double the VED. Admittedly this problem will start to decline as more cars fall under the 'post-2001' date and older, pre-2001 cars are no longer on the road.
What I object to, overall though, is the use of something like a car to extract enormous sums of money from people. Most of us who don't live in London need our cars to do things like 'getting to work to earn money to pay income tax, council tax, value added tax, stamp duty, tax on savings interest' etc. VED should be ditched, just be honest about calling a tax a tax.
Adding it to fuel would also ensure foreigners paid for the wear and tear they put on our roads as well as emissions too as they would be part-funding it through fuel. It would also be a progressive tax as it would be based on a) the type of car one chooses to drive (eg. thirstier) and b) the mileage driven.
Why should a supercar that's used for a couple of thousand miles a year pay more VED than a repmobile that does 25,000? It's bonkers.
Funk said:
Now VEHICLE excise duty is assigned to a person, not a car...
Oh, cool. So I only need pay it once, and it covers me for any of our five vehicles? I'd missed that...Funk said:
Abolish it and put it on fuel.
It'd need to be about 12p/litre. Think about what that'd do businesses, especially the haulage industry.Funk said:
Adding it to fuel would also ensure foreigners paid for the wear and tear they put on our roads
Apart from it wouldn't, because many trucks arrive on this island with all the fuel they need for the period they'll be here. Oh, and just think about how much cross-border filling-up there'll be (of varying legitimacy...) around the Channel or the border to NI...Funk said:
High-consumption older cars would pay more which is, ironically, the inverse of what happens now - my E36 328i is probably 'dirtier' than my Focus ST was, yet the ST is pretty much double the VED. Admittedly this problem will start to decline as more cars fall under the 'post-2001' date and older, pre-2001 cars are no longer on the road.
Pre-01 cars are already out of almost all regular use, in case you hadn't noticed. There's not much further for their numbers to fall before all that's left is the "cherished" fleet.Funk said:
VED should be ditched, just be honest about calling a tax a tax.
They already do - via two of the three words in the name. So what would you rather the tax was raised on?as well as emissions too as they would be part-funding it through fuel. It would also be a progressive tax as it would be based on a) the type of car one chooses to drive (eg. thirstier) and b) the mileage driven.
Why should a supercar that's used for a couple of thousand miles a year pay more VED than a repmobile that does 25,000? It's bonkers.
Devil2575 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Exactly. In the past, selling a oldish high co2 vehicle that had a fair amount of tax on it, it was a nightmare. You advertised the car and built in say £300 for the remaining tax, and you got no takers. You advertised just the car without building in the tax value and the new buyer offered the price but wanted tax thrown in.
The new system does away with all that.
If people wish to see this as a "stealth tax" or a "rip off" then so be it. It's not worth arguing over because you won't change anyone's mind. Some people like being angry and getting worked up about stuff like this and no amount of rational discussion will change it. This is no different to the "rip off insurance" threads.The new system does away with all that.
Devil2575 said:
If people wish to see this as a "stealth tax" or a "rip off" then so be it. It's not worth arguing over because you won't change anyone's mind. Some people like being angry and getting worked up about stuff like this and no amount of rational discussion will change it. This is no different to the "rip off insurance" threads.
This is precisely what is wrong with the internet.A couple of people having a perfectly pleasant chat about a subject, each giving their thoughts and taking on board the thoughts of the other and then along comes you.
No one is angry, no one is being irrational, no one is even arguing. We were having a perfectly rational discussion on both sides until you showed up with your nonsense.
Sit down and be quiet, the grown ups are taking.
Twig, I do see the advantages of the new system. Level playing field, increased revenues, reduced costs. These are all lovely, of course. My gripe is that there are ways of achieving these worthy aims without causing the same car to be taxed twice. The people who came up with the system we now have also thought of those plans, but they rejected them. The only reason I can think of that they would reject those plans is because they didn't raise quite as much money for the treasury.
As I say, I don't object to HMRC making a buck, it just might be nice if it wasn't in quite such a naff way.
As is mentioned every 5 minutes on here, the real way to do it is to lump a shilling on the cost of a gallon of 4-Star (am I out of date?). We are, between us, in agreement that the money saving element of the new system is pretty much it's greatest strength. Imagine the extra savings if we did away with the whole system altogether.
Simon.
ferrariF50lover said:
Devil2575 said:
If people wish to see this as a "stealth tax" or a "rip off" then so be it. It's not worth arguing over because you won't change anyone's mind. Some people like being angry and getting worked up about stuff like this and no amount of rational discussion will change it. This is no different to the "rip off insurance" threads.
This is precisely what is wrong with the internet.A couple of people having a perfectly pleasant chat about a subject, each giving their thoughts and taking on board the thoughts of the other and then along comes you.
No one is angry, no one is being irrational, no one is even arguing. We were having a perfectly rational discussion on both sides until you showed up with your nonsense.
Sit down and be quiet, the grown ups are taking.
Twig, I do see the advantages of the new system. Level playing field, increased revenues, reduced costs. These are all lovely, of course. My gripe is that there are ways of achieving these worthy aims without causing the same car to be taxed twice. The people who came up with the system we now have also thought of those plans, but they rejected them. The only reason I can think of that they would reject those plans is because they didn't raise quite as much money for the treasury.
As I say, I don't object to HMRC making a buck, it just might be nice if it wasn't in quite such a naff way.
As is mentioned every 5 minutes on here, the real way to do it is to lump a shilling on the cost of a gallon of 4-Star (am I out of date?). We are, between us, in agreement that the money saving element of the new system is pretty much it's greatest strength. Imagine the extra savings if we did away with the whole system altogether.
Simon.
As for scrapping VED and adding a surcharge on fuel, that sounds ok but you have a major problem with lorries, that can put in 1200 litres every couple of days. This would have a massive knock on effect on prices, as most goods are delivered by road.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Spot on. people don't like change, and like to see everything that alters as some giant scam. Conspiracy theory mentality, tin foil hat loonies. In 6 months time no one will remember what all the fuss was about.
The DVLA will admit it may be "revenue positive" if you push them, but point out the decision as to whether to offer part refunds or not is a decision of HM Treasury and not them.ferrariF50lover said:
As is mentioned every 5 minutes on here, the real way to do it is to lump a shilling on the cost of a gallon of 4-Star (am I out of date?). We are, between us, in agreement that the money saving element of the new system is pretty much it's greatest strength. Imagine the extra savings if we did away with the whole system altogether.
Simon.
Not good for the revenue as they will lose out to all the vehicles that have to be taxed for at least 6 months to be used about twice in that period. The day that something actually gets done to the benefit of the motorist will not happen in our lifetime... Simon.
TooMany2cvs said:
Funk said:
Now VEHICLE excise duty is assigned to a person, not a car...
Oh, cool. So I only need pay it once, and it covers me for any of our five vehicles? I'd missed that...TooMany2cvs said:
Funk said:
Abolish it and put it on fuel.
It'd need to be about 12p/litre. Think about what that'd do businesses, especially the haulage industry.TooMany2cvs said:
Funk said:
Adding it to fuel would also ensure foreigners paid for the wear and tear they put on our roads
Apart from it wouldn't, because many trucks arrive on this island with all the fuel they need for the period they'll be here. Oh, and just think about how much cross-border filling-up there'll be (of varying legitimacy...) around the Channel or the border to NI...TooMany2cvs said:
Funk said:
High-consumption older cars would pay more which is, ironically, the inverse of what happens now - my E36 328i is probably 'dirtier' than my Focus ST was, yet the ST is pretty much double the VED. Admittedly this problem will start to decline as more cars fall under the 'post-2001' date and older, pre-2001 cars are no longer on the road.
Pre-01 cars are already out of almost all regular use, in case you hadn't noticed. There's not much further for their numbers to fall before all that's left is the "cherished" fleet.TooMany2cvs said:
Funk said:
VED should be ditched, just be honest about calling a tax a tax.
They already do - via two of the three words in the name. So what would you rather the tax was raised on?aww999 said:
I mentioned this about five years ago. The government requires £Xm per year from motorists to prop up its finances. You can rush to buy a crappy 1.0L tin box on wheels to save a few quid at the expense of your motoring happiness, but as soon as everyone else does it the tax/duty/road-charging rates for that 1.0L tin box will be whacked right up so you are paying the same as you ever were. The government still gets its £Xm per year, but you are in a crappier car along with everyone else. Result!
It is not 1.0l tin boxes. A 180bhp 320d Auto m-Sport has free road tax. I reckon a very high percentage of new cars registered have zero or £30 tax rates.When you factor in the average age of a car is about 7-8 years they will either have to dramatically increase VED for these cars or abolish it.
TooMany2cvs said:
Funk said:
Abolish it and put it on fuel.
It'd need to be about 12p/litre. Think about what that'd do businesses, especially the haulage industry.TooMany2cvs said:
Funk said:
Adding it to fuel would also ensure foreigners paid for the wear and tear they put on our roads
Apart from it wouldn't, because many trucks arrive on this island with all the fuel they need for the period they'll be here. Oh, and just think about how much cross-border filling-up there'll be (of varying legitimacy...) around the Channel or the border to NI...ferrariF50lover said:
This is precisely what is wrong with the internet.
A couple of people having a perfectly pleasant chat about a subject, each giving their thoughts and taking on board the thoughts of the other and then along comes you.
No one is angry, no one is being irrational, no one is even arguing. We were having a perfectly rational discussion on both sides until you showed up with your nonsense.
Sit down and be quiet, the grown ups are taking.
Grown ups?A couple of people having a perfectly pleasant chat about a subject, each giving their thoughts and taking on board the thoughts of the other and then along comes you.
No one is angry, no one is being irrational, no one is even arguing. We were having a perfectly rational discussion on both sides until you showed up with your nonsense.
Sit down and be quiet, the grown ups are taking.
Fools more like.
This is a pubic forum. Someone starts a thread and I comment as I am entitled too.
You may not happen to like my comments but that's life i'm afraid.
People may not physically be angry but their use of language suggests they are more than a bit annoyed about the situation. I could spend ages pointing out the flaws in people's arguments, like Twig is doing but to be honest I grow weary of it because people are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of any facts and nothing will change that.
If me pointing this out upsets you then I suggest you stop posting on PH.
Wow, looks like I've stirred up quite a hornets nest.
The theme of the past 20-odd years of UK motoring is rising cost. The problem is that public transport is nowhere near viable for vast areas of the UK. Transport is a necessity.
Let's say the average motorist does 5000 miles, and the average tax bracket is £100. 100/5000=2p per mile. Not unreasonable at all.
For example, as a car enthusiast I like to change my car every 8-12 months. I've always bought and sold my cars with some remainder of road tax. Now, every time I want to change I have to get a refund on the previous VED, get new VED on the new car, and both of these transactions will inevitably result in the loss of time and money (for the double-paid month).
As for the road delivery network, surely their contribution to the national emissions are every bit as important! If the VED system is there to discourage emissions. With everything going digital, it's not difficult to have a different fuel price for haulage, if this is ta big issue.
I expect a lot of cars to be scrapped instead of sold, particularly those under £500, as the new system puts a high premium on buyers from the outset. These cars should be kept on the road because we all know the environmental cost of building a car is far higher than the difference in their running environmental footprint.
Devil2575 said:
If people wish to see this as a "stealth tax" or a "rip off" then so be it. It's not worth arguing over because you won't change anyone's mind. Some people like being angry and getting worked up about stuff like this and no amount of rational discussion will change it. This is no different to the "rip off insurance" threads.
Please explain how either the VED system or the insurance system represent good value for money. There is FAR too much overhead and profiteering particularly in the insurance system. We are all paying through the teeth for the scammers and false personal injury claims. The theme of the past 20-odd years of UK motoring is rising cost. The problem is that public transport is nowhere near viable for vast areas of the UK. Transport is a necessity.
TooMany2cvs said:
...
You've missed so many points. It's attached to the person and the car - it can't be transferred between people. Let's say the average motorist does 5000 miles, and the average tax bracket is £100. 100/5000=2p per mile. Not unreasonable at all.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm not sure the debate has been rational. The title calls it thievery. Others have suggested that it's a money making scam. Both of these claims are nonsense. Yes, they might make a bit of money, but that wasn't the raison d'etre of the change. It's not some giant money making scam. That's complete tripe.
As for scrapping VED and adding a surcharge on fuel, that sounds ok but you have a major problem with lorries, that can put in 1200 litres every couple of days. This would have a massive knock on effect on prices, as most goods are delivered by road.
I called it thievery because it increases our costs (both time and money) without having any additional benefits. Digital systems should be easier to use and cheaper, not increase our cost (time). As for scrapping VED and adding a surcharge on fuel, that sounds ok but you have a major problem with lorries, that can put in 1200 litres every couple of days. This would have a massive knock on effect on prices, as most goods are delivered by road.
For example, as a car enthusiast I like to change my car every 8-12 months. I've always bought and sold my cars with some remainder of road tax. Now, every time I want to change I have to get a refund on the previous VED, get new VED on the new car, and both of these transactions will inevitably result in the loss of time and money (for the double-paid month).
As for the road delivery network, surely their contribution to the national emissions are every bit as important! If the VED system is there to discourage emissions. With everything going digital, it's not difficult to have a different fuel price for haulage, if this is ta big issue.
I expect a lot of cars to be scrapped instead of sold, particularly those under £500, as the new system puts a high premium on buyers from the outset. These cars should be kept on the road because we all know the environmental cost of building a car is far higher than the difference in their running environmental footprint.
motoroller said:
Devil2575 said:
If people wish to see this as a "stealth tax" or a "rip off" then so be it. It's not worth arguing over because you won't change anyone's mind. Some people like being angry and getting worked up about stuff like this and no amount of rational discussion will change it. This is no different to the "rip off insurance" threads.
Please explain how either the VED system or the insurance system represent good value for money. There is FAR too much overhead and profiteering particularly in the insurance system. We are all paying through the teeth for the scammers and false personal injury claims. The theme of the past 20-odd years of UK motoring is rising cost. The problem is that public transport is nowhere near viable for vast areas of the UK. Transport is a necessity.
Your 'profiteering' accusation is odd, suggesting insurance companies are making a killing and then saying it's down to scammers - you do know that paying out to scammers reduces what the insurance companies get to keep?
Anyway, profiteering - at a recent conference the UK CEO of a large insurer stated their combined operating ratio (claims paid against premiums collected) was (in recent years) 106%; e.g. they collected £100m and paid out £106m in claims and business costs.
motoroller said:
I called it thievery because it increases our costs (both time and money) without having any additional benefits.
So by that definition, every time there's a price increase in anything, it's thievery. because you're paying more for no additional benefits.Remember that next time you increase your charges for your services.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff