Should the £695 tax be scrapped?
Discussion
I realise in some ways it's a silly question to ask whether or not a tax should be scrapped because there are enough of us out there who would scrap nearly every tax.
However... I think the £695 tax on larger cars which applies from 2005 until that manufacturer upgraded or replaced the model is an outlier and should be eliminated. It was implemented for ideological reasons and unfairly hits young families who would be typical owners of an old estate car (for carrying buggies etc)
Sometimes exactly the same car can be £395 one side of the change and £695 on the other (there is a £675 band as well)
Two petrol 3.5l Mercedes E350s:
(low) https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202208198...
(high) https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202304216...
It makes the cars registered between aprox 2005 and 2010 more expensive to keep on the road compared with later and earlier cars.
Wouldn't it be better to level it out so that the cars in that bracket would be more economical to own?
However... I think the £695 tax on larger cars which applies from 2005 until that manufacturer upgraded or replaced the model is an outlier and should be eliminated. It was implemented for ideological reasons and unfairly hits young families who would be typical owners of an old estate car (for carrying buggies etc)
Sometimes exactly the same car can be £395 one side of the change and £695 on the other (there is a £675 band as well)
Two petrol 3.5l Mercedes E350s:
(low) https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202208198...
(high) https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202304216...
It makes the cars registered between aprox 2005 and 2010 more expensive to keep on the road compared with later and earlier cars.
Wouldn't it be better to level it out so that the cars in that bracket would be more economical to own?
t though minus first year taxing, £40k as wrong as it sounds is not a lot, through in a few options and so many cars get clobbered with the uplift it is scary.They won’t cut it but it is an amusing issue for certain cars.
Discovery 3 models fall into it.
Pre March 06 are cheap tax, post are the larger tax.
There is no mechanical change in the cars, it’s just a date on the v5.
Mine is the “cheap” tax but a mate had the expensive tax.
People have correctly stated for these cars, the difference is 3 tanks of fuel over a year.
Discovery 3 models fall into it.
Pre March 06 are cheap tax, post are the larger tax.
There is no mechanical change in the cars, it’s just a date on the v5.
Mine is the “cheap” tax but a mate had the expensive tax.
People have correctly stated for these cars, the difference is 3 tanks of fuel over a year.
ingenieur said:
I realise in some ways it's a silly question to ask whether or not a tax should be scrapped because there are enough of us out there who would scrap nearly every tax.
However... I think the £695 tax on larger cars which applies from 2005 until that manufacturer upgraded or replaced the model is an outlier and should be eliminated. It was implemented for ideological reasons and unfairly hits young families who would be typical owners of an old estate car (for carrying buggies etc)
Sometimes exactly the same car can be £395 one side of the change and £695 on the other (there is a £675 band as well)
Two petrol 3.5l Mercedes E350s:
(low) https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202208198...
(high) https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202304216...
It makes the cars registered between aprox 2005 and 2010 more expensive to keep on the road compared with later and earlier cars.
Wouldn't it be better to level it out so that the cars in that bracket would be more economical to own?
What on earth makes you think there's political mileage in A) not rinsing people for money and B) in keeping old polluting cars on the road?However... I think the £695 tax on larger cars which applies from 2005 until that manufacturer upgraded or replaced the model is an outlier and should be eliminated. It was implemented for ideological reasons and unfairly hits young families who would be typical owners of an old estate car (for carrying buggies etc)
Sometimes exactly the same car can be £395 one side of the change and £695 on the other (there is a £675 band as well)
Two petrol 3.5l Mercedes E350s:
(low) https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202208198...
(high) https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202304216...
It makes the cars registered between aprox 2005 and 2010 more expensive to keep on the road compared with later and earlier cars.
Wouldn't it be better to level it out so that the cars in that bracket would be more economical to own?
The only real surprise is that Band K retains the asterisk for cars pre Mar 23 2006. Dropping that would increase revenue instantly, you can see it coming.
A.J.M said:
People have correctly stated for these cars, the difference is 3 tanks of fuel over a year.
Depends how much you drive. If you only fill the tank once a month it looks worse. It's not far off double the cost if you tax your car monthly. If you tax it for a whole year when you buy the car the difference would be enough to buy a new pair of good quality tyres or get a stereo upgrade.
A Chevrolet Tacuma 2.0 automatic is in that tax band. It does seem very excessive.
An X-reg Lupo 1.7 SDI would cost over £300 per year to tax because the engine exceeds 1549cc. An identical car on a Y-reg would cost £35 per year to tax because the CO2 emissions are 119g/km. These two cars could be identical but registered one day apart.
The whole system's a joke.
An X-reg Lupo 1.7 SDI would cost over £300 per year to tax because the engine exceeds 1549cc. An identical car on a Y-reg would cost £35 per year to tax because the CO2 emissions are 119g/km. These two cars could be identical but registered one day apart.
The whole system's a joke.
MrGTI6 said:
The whole system's a joke.
Difficult to argue against the entire system. I suppose with the introduction of electric vehicles and the existing system being emissions based there is a case for an entirely new system.
The best new system could be the old system? One rate for everybody excluding historic, police and disabled etc.
It is pretty nuts that tax can cost so much more than insurance. I was very lucky in buying my current car as it's February 2006 registered, but it wasn't a consideration when buying the car. 3 years later and the prices have risen so much that I would now think carefully before committing to purchasing a higher rate car. £700 I can stomach, just, but a few more rises and it will really become a dominating running cost
Fully agree it should be scrapped.
It just doesn't make sense to have a tax system which is doesn't retrospectively apply to previous periods.
It unfairly impacts some great options such as RX8, 350/370Z, Golf R32 etc
With electric cars now I think they need to just scrap the system and start again with a mileage based system, after all shouldnt tax reflect usage e.g. Upkeep of the road infrastructure rather than purely being emissions based?
Something like a baseline amount per mile for upkeep of roads and then a variable per mile figure based on emissions e.g.
EV
Baseline - £0.02 per mile
Emissions - £0.0 per mile
Yearly based on 8,000 per year = £160
High emission petrol car
Baseline - £0.02 per mile
Emissions - £0.05 per mile
Yearly based on 8,000 per year = £560
So basically the system would fairly distribute the upkeep of the road network across all vehicles and then fairly charge people more who do lots of miles in high pollution vehicles. Whilst letting people use their high pollution car e.g. TVR for the odd weekend run
This effectively spreads the tax burden across all users in a way that makes sense. Rather than making people who have a high Nox car they barely use pay for it all
It just doesn't make sense to have a tax system which is doesn't retrospectively apply to previous periods.
It unfairly impacts some great options such as RX8, 350/370Z, Golf R32 etc
With electric cars now I think they need to just scrap the system and start again with a mileage based system, after all shouldnt tax reflect usage e.g. Upkeep of the road infrastructure rather than purely being emissions based?
Something like a baseline amount per mile for upkeep of roads and then a variable per mile figure based on emissions e.g.
EV
Baseline - £0.02 per mile
Emissions - £0.0 per mile
Yearly based on 8,000 per year = £160
High emission petrol car
Baseline - £0.02 per mile
Emissions - £0.05 per mile
Yearly based on 8,000 per year = £560
So basically the system would fairly distribute the upkeep of the road network across all vehicles and then fairly charge people more who do lots of miles in high pollution vehicles. Whilst letting people use their high pollution car e.g. TVR for the odd weekend run
This effectively spreads the tax burden across all users in a way that makes sense. Rather than making people who have a high Nox car they barely use pay for it all
Edited by rotaryjam on Sunday 11th June 11:23
ingenieur said:
It was implemented for ideological reasons and unfairly hits young families who would be typical owners of an old estate car (for carrying buggies etc)
Sorry but that is nonsense. It is incredibly easy to buy a family car without paying the top tax rate. No-one needs the performance of an E350.The top rate of tax does exactly what it is designed to do, which is to encourage people into more efficient cars irrespective of how much (or little) mileage they do.
Besides, the 2006-2008 350 engines seem to be a guaranteed liability with their balancer shaft issue. That is why they are cheap and one of the reasons i bought an E200K instead.
ChocolateFrog said:
It writes off perfectly decent cars, that's my biggest issue.
If it tapered down to say something like £250 after 15 years then it would save lots of cars.
Not on the political agenda though.
No it wouldn’t. Cars of that age get scrapped for all sorts of small reasons. That would still be the case of tax was £300 on them. If it tapered down to say something like £250 after 15 years then it would save lots of cars.
Not on the political agenda though.
braddo said:
ingenieur said:
It was implemented for ideological reasons and unfairly hits young families who would be typical owners of an old estate car (for carrying buggies etc)
Sorry but that is nonsense. It is incredibly easy to buy a family car without paying the top tax rate. No-one needs the performance of an E350.The top rate of tax does exactly what it is designed to do, which is to encourage people into more efficient cars irrespective of how much (or little) mileage they do.
Besides, the 2006-2008 350 engines seem to be a guaranteed liability with their balancer shaft issue. That is why they are cheap and one of the reasons i bought an E200K instead.
A.J.M said:
They won’t cut it but it is an amusing issue for certain cars.
Discovery 3 models fall into it.
Pre March 06 are cheap tax, post are the larger tax.
There is no mechanical change in the cars, it’s just a date on the v5.
Mine is the “cheap” tax but a mate had the expensive tax.
People have correctly stated for these cars, the difference is 3 tanks of fuel over a year.
Same with 100 Series although there's several facelifts around the same time so there's a kind if holy grail period in late 05/early 06.Discovery 3 models fall into it.
Pre March 06 are cheap tax, post are the larger tax.
There is no mechanical change in the cars, it’s just a date on the v5.
Mine is the “cheap” tax but a mate had the expensive tax.
People have correctly stated for these cars, the difference is 3 tanks of fuel over a year.
Dingu said:
ChocolateFrog said:
It writes off perfectly decent cars, that's my biggest issue.
If it tapered down to say something like £250 after 15 years then it would save lots of cars.
Not on the political agenda though.
No it wouldn’t. Cars of that age get scrapped for all sorts of small reasons. That would still be the case of tax was £300 on them. If it tapered down to say something like £250 after 15 years then it would save lots of cars.
Not on the political agenda though.
I'm not the only person that looks at cars that age and immediately discounts the £700 tax ones.
Depends how much you use the car.
In my 25,000 mile a year case, VED works out to £0.03 per mile for my usage at that rate.
My super unleaded use is 4400 litres (c.£7500), of which £2500 is duty (34%) and £1250 is VAT 17%)...so,
In my 25,000 mile a year case, VED works out to £0.03 per mile for my usage at that rate.
My super unleaded use is 4400 litres (c.£7500), of which £2500 is duty (34%) and £1250 is VAT 17%)...so,
- Fuel = £0.30 per mile (including taxes)
- Fuel = £0.15 per mile (excluding taxes)
- Duty = £0.10 per mile
- VAT = £0.05 per mile
- VED = £0.03 per mile
ChocolateFrog said:
It writes off perfectly decent cars, that's my biggest issue.
If it tapered down to say something like £250 after 15 years then it would save lots of cars.
Yes, if there was a logical reason for the tax in the first place it was to prevent high-CO2 cars being built. Once they are built you've already 'spent' a significant minority of their lifetime CO2 emissions and this is recognised in the current system where there's a first registration fee determined by CO2 emissions, but then the annual VED is around £180 for all ICE cars.If it tapered down to say something like £250 after 15 years then it would save lots of cars.
I doubt overall CO2 emissions will be reduced by £695 VED cars being scrapped and replaced by EVs, where the amount of CO2 emitted during EV production is probably enough to fuel the £695 VED cars for many tens of thousands of miles.
Forums | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff