Higher tax on larger vehicles
Discussion
I read that the Chancer of the Exchequer wishes to
raise the amount of tax paid by drivers of larger vehicles.
As larger cars are usually safer cars, this is a tax on safety. The Insurance Institute of America has estimated that since the CAFE laws came into force to encourage the use of smaller cars, 46,000 extra people have died on the roads in the USA but would have been alive today if they had been driving a bigger car with more survival space.
Thanks a lot, Gordon.
raise the amount of tax paid by drivers of larger vehicles.
As larger cars are usually safer cars, this is a tax on safety. The Insurance Institute of America has estimated that since the CAFE laws came into force to encourage the use of smaller cars, 46,000 extra people have died on the roads in the USA but would have been alive today if they had been driving a bigger car with more survival space.
Thanks a lot, Gordon.
Presumably they'd also still be alive had they been paying attention to the road whilst driving?
Personaly I reckon driving a smaller, noisier car tends to make you feel more vulnerable and hence take more care. If you around in an SUV (spit) you can happily trundle around half asleep knowing that it's much more likely for other people to get hurt if you hit them.
Personaly I reckon driving a smaller, noisier car tends to make you feel more vulnerable and hence take more care. If you around in an SUV (spit) you can happily trundle around half asleep knowing that it's much more likely for other people to get hurt if you hit them.
Tafia said:
I read that the Chancer of the Exchequer wishes to raise the amount of tax paid by drivers of larger vehicles.
I hope that you are correct, but I believe that you are wrong. AIUI, he is going to increase the tax on larger engines.
Coming back your the original point, it's about bloody time he related road tax to the 'footprint' size of the vehicle. These effing SUVs use huge quantities of roadspace.
Mr2Mike said:
Presumably they'd also still be alive had they been paying attention to the road whilst driving?
Personaly I reckon driving a smaller, noisier car tends to make you feel more vulnerable and hence take more care. If you around in an SUV (spit) you can happily trundle around half asleep knowing that it's much more likely for other people to get hurt if you hit them.
I heard the same dumb argument used to suppport the removal of white lines in the centre of the road. "It makes drivers feel more vulnerable and takes away their sense of 'ownership' of their side of the road."
Why not remove traffic lights and stop signs too. Then we would all be really scared --- and much safer, of course.
jeffreyarcher said:
I read that the Chancer of the Exchequer wishes to raise the amount of tax paid by drivers of larger vehicles.
I hope that you are correct, but I believe that you are wrong. AIUI, he is going to increase the tax on larger engines.
Coming back your the original point, it's about bloody time he related road tax to the 'footprint' size of the vehicle. These effing SUVs use huge quantities of roadspace.
Sono molto dispiacente. You are absolutely correct, but since larger vehicles usually have larger engines..........
BTW, the footprint of an SUV is no greater than a large saloon and may even be less. No boot!
yeah but with the drag coef of a billboard I bet you burn more fuel 
Someone raised a good point about larger engined vehicles being able to pull a taller gear on motorways so smaller engined cars would burn more fuel than a large one.
I think the whole thing is a crock anyway, what I would like to know is where is all the money going? we are taxed to hell and back in this country and Labour seem to get away with it with impunity, I want some accountability for the actions of government.
If the teachers, hospitals, police etc have to deliver proof of performance how come the people who run the country get away with it?
Someone raised a good point about larger engined vehicles being able to pull a taller gear on motorways so smaller engined cars would burn more fuel than a large one. I think the whole thing is a crock anyway, what I would like to know is where is all the money going? we are taxed to hell and back in this country and Labour seem to get away with it with impunity, I want some accountability for the actions of government.
If the teachers, hospitals, police etc have to deliver proof of performance how come the people who run the country get away with it?
In the Euro NCAP tests, many of the SUVs didn't perform too well. The Discovery and the Cherokee were particularly bad IIRC? So I'm not sure they are any safer unless you hit something a lot smaller.
I must admit to having a personal dislike of SUVs ( but I'm not trying to have a go at anyone!) Having said that, many of the reasons I dislike them could be equally levelled at sportscars
I supposed my main problem with them is that they block off so much of your view and generally make the roads less safe for drivers of smaller vehicles.
I for one, would not have a problem with taxing bigger vehicles at a higher rate, though I could quite understand why owners of such cars would feel hard done by should such a thing ever happen.
I must admit to having a personal dislike of SUVs ( but I'm not trying to have a go at anyone!) Having said that, many of the reasons I dislike them could be equally levelled at sportscars
I supposed my main problem with them is that they block off so much of your view and generally make the roads less safe for drivers of smaller vehicles.
I for one, would not have a problem with taxing bigger vehicles at a higher rate, though I could quite understand why owners of such cars would feel hard done by should such a thing ever happen.
danhay said:
I for one, would not have a problem with taxing bigger vehicles at a higher rate, though I could quite understand why owners of such cars would feel hard done by should such a thing ever happen.
They are already taxed higher it's called fuel duty. An effective "Tax on Use", cheap to administer from a tax collection perspective, impossible to get around and the more you use your motorcar the more tax you pay.
What we have here with the proposed higher price tax disc, is an increased "Tax on Ownership". It has nothing to do with use, pollution or congestion. It is an opportunity for the government of the day to appease many of their commie supporters by beating up the rich
. An "Envy Tax" really. The government have got to be careful, in that they may lose an absolute fortune from lost VAT on high value car sales as consumers say
the new Range Rover. I'll buy a Smartcar and extend the holiday home on the Algarve in readiness for the escape. DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Sunday 19th October 21:39
dazren said:
It is an opportunity for the government of the day to appease many of their commie supporters by beating up the rich
Daz, I'm referring to SUV type things, as opposed to large engined vehicles. In which case, this tax would simply encourage the rich to buy a sports car rather than an SUV...no bad thing surely?
dazren said:As I've said, I have a personal dislike of SUVs, so this really wouldn't be a problem for me, as long as they bought a sportscar instead.
The government have got to be careful, in that they may lose an absolute fortune from lost VAT on high value car sales as consumers say
Now I can understand that you might want a Sportscar AND an SUV. However, there are plenty of luxurious estates that offer the same load carrying capacity and general feeling of wellbeing without causing a local eclipse!
danhay said:
As I've said, I have a personal dislike of SUVs, so this really wouldn't be a problem for me, as long as they bought a sportscar instead.
I hate the dammed SUV's too
In particular I hate anything with the word Rover in it. I hate being behind one, as it blocks your view of the road ahead.
Dan, as I've read about this in the papers (probably misreported) the charge would be on engine size. Not specificly on large Offroaders. I do not believe we should be allowing the governemnt to discrimiate against those who have them for whatever reason(eg large families, live in the countryside or enjoying country pursuits). Tax their use which we already have via the fuel tax. Do not discriminatarily tax their ownership, it is an unfair tax.
What next?
"New research has shown a disproportionate number of sports motorcyclists have bad accidents. To combat this abuse of the NHS the government are looking at taxing motorcycles with a power to weight ratio above XYZ £10,000 per year.
DAZ
(I'll declare an interest. I only do about 5k miles a year in my merc s-class. I do not see why I should pay a lot more in "ownership tax" than some rep doing 50k miles a year in some compact car.)
What next?
"New research has shown a disproportionate number of sports motorcyclists have bad accidents. To combat this abuse of the NHS the government are looking at taxing motorcycles with a power to weight ratio above XYZ £10,000 per year.
DAZ
(I'll declare an interest. I only do about 5k miles a year in my merc s-class. I do not see why I should pay a lot more in "ownership tax" than some rep doing 50k miles a year in some compact car.)
I have 1x 5.0 V8 and 1x 5.7 V8 so read these stories with interest. It seems the tax rates will be based on CO2 emissions and are therefore only likely to apply to new vehicles. We can only hope that the the tax for "less poluting" vehicles will be reduced so the average revenue stays the same, but what are the chances of that? It's a bit silly really - us "gas guzzers" already choose to pay more tax when filling up, so what's the point of piling on more charges?
Gareth
Gareth
Tafia said:
Presumably they'd also still be alive had they been paying attention to the road whilst driving?
Personaly I reckon driving a smaller, noisier car tends to make you feel more vulnerable and hence take more care. If you around in an SUV (spit) you can happily trundle around half asleep knowing that it's much more likely for other people to get hurt if you hit them.
I heard the same dumb argument used to suppport the removal of white lines in the centre of the road. "It makes drivers feel more vulnerable and takes away their sense of 'ownership' of their side of the road."
Why not remove traffic lights and stop signs too. Then we would all be really scared --- and much safer, of course.
Well, not sure about you, but I feel that traffic lights, stop signs and road marking in general are fairly essential safety features. However, the argument was not about the roads per se, but about the feeling of security/invulnerability that large cars give people. You cannot deny this is fact ortherwise why would all the bloody mothers with virtualy no driving skills/road sense prefer taking the kids to school in a small lorry rather than a normal car? If they have too many of the little darlings to get into a hatch/estate, then get an MPV (still bloody horrible things that block your vision but better than SUV's anyday).
The small engine/large engine economy thing is a crock. Just because a smaller engine might be reving higher dosen't make it less economical. In fact a larger engine will generaly be using less throttle to produce a given power. Less throttle = lower thermal efficiency = higher BSFC.
dazren said:But you're not taking into account the benefit sports motorcyclists bring to the NHS...namely organ donations!
"New research has shown a disproportionate number of sports motorcyclists have bad accidents. To combat this abuse of the NHS the government are looking at taxing motorcycles with a power to weight ratio above XYZ £10,000 per year.
I do take your point that it is unfair to target a particular part of the motoring community.
I would not be in favour of a tax on larger engined vehicles, that wouldn't address the SUV 'problem'. It would simply encourage manufacturers to build slower ones
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff