The govements u-turn on diesel cars.
Discussion
I see that main headline in The Sun (wifes paper) that the government is doing a u-turn into now targeting diesels cars when (according to them) 11 million people were persuaded to swap.
People have short memories. I can still remember being 'shafted' into swapping to unleaded fuel. Also I suspect there are two things going on here. 1) The EU green target that we have missed again. 2) Less tax due to higher mileage.
People have short memories. I can still remember being 'shafted' into swapping to unleaded fuel. Also I suspect there are two things going on here. 1) The EU green target that we have missed again. 2) Less tax due to higher mileage.
Morningside said:
2) Less tax due to higher mileage.
The Gov never expected manufacturers to get Co2 output as low as they have on newer cars.The Treasury is currently losing a lot of funds on VED (and into the very near future) and they couldn't be seen to be making the balls up Labour did a few years ago.
So hitting the diesel seemed like an option.
Diesel is the new asbestos in that it has massive health effects yet it's use (in meeting green targets) has been a good enough reason to ignore them in the same way we ignored asbestos for so long.
There's a massive amount of blurb out there on it.
An example: http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts....
The sooner it is curtailed the better.
There's a massive amount of blurb out there on it.
An example: http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts....
The sooner it is curtailed the better.
Morningside said:
I see that main headline in The Sun (wifes paper) that the government is doing a u-turn into now targeting diesels cars when (according to them) 11 million people were persuaded to swap.
People have short memories. I can still remember being 'shafted' into swapping to unleaded fuel. Also I suspect there are two things going on here. 1) The EU green target that we have missed again. 2) Less tax due to higher mileage.
I'm not sure I get the tone of your post, but leaded petrol is toxic as all hell.People have short memories. I can still remember being 'shafted' into swapping to unleaded fuel. Also I suspect there are two things going on here. 1) The EU green target that we have missed again. 2) Less tax due to higher mileage.
I'm sure the increased mpg of diesel cars have deprived the govt. of plenty of fuel tax, while the lower CO2 ratings have lost them VED.
They have an insatiable thirst for our money which is reflected in 'tax creep' like stamp duty (used to only apply to expensive houses, now to almost all houses), higher rate income tax (gradually affecting more and more of the population), inheritance tax (ditto).
Meanwhile there's a full frontal attack on the poor, who don't vote Conservative anyway and so don't matter: benefits are cut, the minimum wage falls behind cost of living, zero hours contracts are allowed, houses prices rise further out of reach due to shortgae of supply, sick people are forced to work and the infrastructure falls apart.
I'm delighted to drive a diesel and give the Westminster sh!ts as little of my money as possible. I'll also be voting for Scottish independence next month, and I'm English.
As for the health issues, that's what DPFs are for, no? The lower CO2 ratings are good for climate change. I'm sure the environmental and health 'arguments' put forward by the govt. to justify their tax increases are just a front.
They have an insatiable thirst for our money which is reflected in 'tax creep' like stamp duty (used to only apply to expensive houses, now to almost all houses), higher rate income tax (gradually affecting more and more of the population), inheritance tax (ditto).
Meanwhile there's a full frontal attack on the poor, who don't vote Conservative anyway and so don't matter: benefits are cut, the minimum wage falls behind cost of living, zero hours contracts are allowed, houses prices rise further out of reach due to shortgae of supply, sick people are forced to work and the infrastructure falls apart.
I'm delighted to drive a diesel and give the Westminster sh!ts as little of my money as possible. I'll also be voting for Scottish independence next month, and I'm English.
As for the health issues, that's what DPFs are for, no? The lower CO2 ratings are good for climate change. I'm sure the environmental and health 'arguments' put forward by the govt. to justify their tax increases are just a front.
BGarside said:
I'm sure the increased mpg of diesel cars have deprived the govt. of plenty of fuel tax, while the lower CO2 ratings have lost them VED.
YupTheyre losing a fortune on fuel duty as cars these days are much more economical than 10 years ago, plus much reduced VED revenue.
They'll have to recoup it somewhere - increasing fuel tax even further would be v unpopular so i'm sure it'll be some sort of tax disguised as a "green" tax.
Although my car is diesel, i get 65mpg on average out of it and pay £30 a year road tax, so probably as good a position as i can be in without spending a fortune to upgrade to a car with £0 road tax.
djc206 said:
The simple solution is to tax based on a CO2 and NOx matrix that way diesels would pay tax proportionate to the dangerous pollution that they create. If they wanted to complicate it even further you could add particulates.
^^ Probably this. They'll promote it as a "green" tax, and tell us its for our own good.
Agree NOx and CO (& SO2?) should be taken into account. Everything has been simplistically reduced to CO2 only.
I also suspect real world CO2 emissions are much higher than the test ratings (just as mpg is generally way below the test results), so an EU test cycle that is more realistic is urgently required.
Then purchasers can make an informed decision, and any tax regime could be based on real-world emissions and take into account all harmful emissions.
Of course, if the environment mattered to the government they might also incentivise the use of alternative fuels such as biodiesel, LPG and CNG.
I also suspect real world CO2 emissions are much higher than the test ratings (just as mpg is generally way below the test results), so an EU test cycle that is more realistic is urgently required.
Then purchasers can make an informed decision, and any tax regime could be based on real-world emissions and take into account all harmful emissions.
Of course, if the environment mattered to the government they might also incentivise the use of alternative fuels such as biodiesel, LPG and CNG.
joebongo said:
Diesel is the new asbestos in that it has massive health effects yet it's use (in meeting green targets) has been a good enough reason to ignore them in the same way we ignored asbestos for so long.
There's a massive amount of blurb out there on it.
An example: http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts....
The sooner it is curtailed the better.
Any idea if there is a fair comparison of diesel vs. petrol, including economy comparisons, as it wasn't that long ago that petrol was targeted? In my 4.2 TDI V8 car, I get the same MPG as I did with my 3.2 V6 Petrol. If I had chosen a equivalent 3.0 TDI V6 model, the petrol 3.6 would have looked very poor based on MPG, before we investigate the emissions. So hitting diesels based on the gasses and particulates without taking the potential economy benefits, so the amount per mile can be compared better, might be worth a better look.There's a massive amount of blurb out there on it.
An example: http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts....
The sooner it is curtailed the better.
daemon said:
Yup
Theyre losing a fortune on fuel duty as cars these days are much more economical than 10 years ago, plus much reduced VED revenue.
They'll have to recoup it somewhere - increasing fuel tax even further would be v unpopular so i'm sure it'll be some sort of tax disguised as a "green" tax.
Although my car is diesel, i get 65mpg on average out of it and pay £30 a year road tax, so probably as good a position as i can be in without spending a fortune to upgrade to a car with £0 road tax.
Well that is incorrect. Look at the price of fuel in 2004 versus 2014 (up 40%+ in the last 10 years) and you will see that the tax revenue from fuel has gone up proportionately to the cost.Theyre losing a fortune on fuel duty as cars these days are much more economical than 10 years ago, plus much reduced VED revenue.
They'll have to recoup it somewhere - increasing fuel tax even further would be v unpopular so i'm sure it'll be some sort of tax disguised as a "green" tax.
Although my car is diesel, i get 65mpg on average out of it and pay £30 a year road tax, so probably as good a position as i can be in without spending a fortune to upgrade to a car with £0 road tax.
moffat said:
daemon said:
Yup
Theyre losing a fortune on fuel duty as cars these days are much more economical than 10 years ago, plus much reduced VED revenue.
They'll have to recoup it somewhere - increasing fuel tax even further would be v unpopular so i'm sure it'll be some sort of tax disguised as a "green" tax.
Although my car is diesel, i get 65mpg on average out of it and pay £30 a year road tax, so probably as good a position as i can be in without spending a fortune to upgrade to a car with £0 road tax.
Well that is incorrect. Look at the price of fuel in 2004 versus 2014 (up 40%+ in the last 10 years) and you will see that the tax revenue from fuel has gone up proportionately to the cost.Theyre losing a fortune on fuel duty as cars these days are much more economical than 10 years ago, plus much reduced VED revenue.
They'll have to recoup it somewhere - increasing fuel tax even further would be v unpopular so i'm sure it'll be some sort of tax disguised as a "green" tax.
Although my car is diesel, i get 65mpg on average out of it and pay £30 a year road tax, so probably as good a position as i can be in without spending a fortune to upgrade to a car with £0 road tax.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2435311...
This has been a trend happening for years now.
Edited by daemon on Thursday 7th August 11:22
Just put everything back to how it was, before Labour (iirc) started fecking about with VED bands in the late 90's.
ie, everyone pays the same amount.
If they want to discourage diesel use, then make the price difference of fuel so much that it's only viable to own one if you're doing lots of miles per year.
Give hauliers tax breaks etc.
Convert diesel buses to CNG.
ie, everyone pays the same amount.
If they want to discourage diesel use, then make the price difference of fuel so much that it's only viable to own one if you're doing lots of miles per year.
Give hauliers tax breaks etc.
Convert diesel buses to CNG.
Well they can tell us it's for our own good because ultimately any tax on toxic substances is if it successfully reduces their prevalence.
Just working through some numbers I drive approx 8000 miles a year at ~20 mpg with a tax cost of ~500. So someone driving a diesel 20000 a year getting 50mpg and paying 30 tax uses the roads 2.5 times as much as me, creates untold amounts more pollution and more harmful pollution at that and saves 500 quid. I think the system is broken.
Just working through some numbers I drive approx 8000 miles a year at ~20 mpg with a tax cost of ~500. So someone driving a diesel 20000 a year getting 50mpg and paying 30 tax uses the roads 2.5 times as much as me, creates untold amounts more pollution and more harmful pollution at that and saves 500 quid. I think the system is broken.
BRMMA said:
I'm glad they're onto this, i was going to start donating extra money to help the Polar Bears but i'd rather give the money to the government as i'm sure they'll know how to spend it wisely and get maximum benefit for those Bears
This isn't about the bears. They've cottoned on to the fact that humans are actually quite important and that if you poison them it gets a tad expensive. So we'll be getting a tax to save us that'll be added on to the bear taxGassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff