Gas-guzzling sportscars to receive purchase tax up to £23K
Discussion
The simple and most straight forward solution is to dump VED all together, calculate how much the govt. generate in revenue from the current system, run a few calcs on miles covered and average mpg and add 10p a litre to the cost of fuel (or whatever that figure turns out to be). That way, if you do 1k miles a year in a One-77 you pay your FAIR share, if you do 50k miles in an ecoboost POS you pay your FAIR share. This will also bring down the annual CO2 emmissions as people will drive less as it costs more, or buy more efficient cars.
The govt. adjust the tax on the fuel annually to ensure they get what they need to top up the coffers, although dare I say it, the savings on the staff bill at the DVLA would mount up to a fair bit too. The few dealings I have had with them, plenty of scope to get rid of some dead wood anyway.
Win/Win and a fair situation, pay as you go motoring.
The last time I checked, my car ran perfectly well with no tax disc in the window, however when it ran out of fuel, it was a bugger to start. Think of all the man hours saved from the police not checking cars for tax, the reminder letters in the post, the queues at the post office desk at the end of every month when everyone is taxing their car. It's so easy, everyone has to put fuel in the car anyway, so just bolt it onto that, you cannot avoid it. Simples.
The govt. adjust the tax on the fuel annually to ensure they get what they need to top up the coffers, although dare I say it, the savings on the staff bill at the DVLA would mount up to a fair bit too. The few dealings I have had with them, plenty of scope to get rid of some dead wood anyway.
Win/Win and a fair situation, pay as you go motoring.
The last time I checked, my car ran perfectly well with no tax disc in the window, however when it ran out of fuel, it was a bugger to start. Think of all the man hours saved from the police not checking cars for tax, the reminder letters in the post, the queues at the post office desk at the end of every month when everyone is taxing their car. It's so easy, everyone has to put fuel in the car anyway, so just bolt it onto that, you cannot avoid it. Simples.
Why does everyone think that the govt wants people to be more efficient and "save money"? That would reduce revenue.
The new proposal just ensures the tresury receives a net increase in total contributions, boosted from those the wealthy who cannot be taxed further through income and capital gains as this makes GB look unattractive in a business and employment perspective.
405dogvan said:
Massive value judgements based on Daily-Mail-like rage are lovely but you realise that as they are, this 'idea' could actually make more powerful cars even more common and popular!?!?
Right now they cost a bomb but they sell AOK because there's plenty of people with that much money. An issue, tho, is that there are fewer people willing to take-on such cars down-the-line (seen the barge/shed threads - we're BATHING in V8s and V12s for the price of sweeties!)
By asking the 'rich' to shoulder the tax burden on the car, you actually open-up sales for these cars down-the-line - you ensure that these cars will live out their useful lives being used "as intended" by more people (people who'd not touch them now because of the likely costs).
Of course the rich don't lose entirely because their more-expensive trinket will keep it's value better - but they'll still shoulder more of the taxation cost as-a-whole (just as they shoulder the bulk of the depreciation on them now).
and I'm struggling to work-out how any of that is bad for petrolheads really...
Because we're not just talking about the V8s and V12s. You're right about those cars.Right now they cost a bomb but they sell AOK because there's plenty of people with that much money. An issue, tho, is that there are fewer people willing to take-on such cars down-the-line (seen the barge/shed threads - we're BATHING in V8s and V12s for the price of sweeties!)
By asking the 'rich' to shoulder the tax burden on the car, you actually open-up sales for these cars down-the-line - you ensure that these cars will live out their useful lives being used "as intended" by more people (people who'd not touch them now because of the likely costs).
Of course the rich don't lose entirely because their more-expensive trinket will keep it's value better - but they'll still shoulder more of the taxation cost as-a-whole (just as they shoulder the bulk of the depreciation on them now).
and I'm struggling to work-out how any of that is bad for petrolheads really...
I'm talking about the more affordable stuff in between the econoboxes and the luxobarges. I'm talking about the stuff I can actually afford to run second-hand as well as buy.
So, what will become of things like the Vauxhall Astra VXR under a policy like this? Or even the Mazda MX5? It's all very well saying that the rich will shoulder the burden of buying a Porsche, Aston or big V8 Merc new, but what about fun cars with more reasonable pricetags?
This will be the death knell for affordable performance cars. Either you'll be rich enough not to care about paying an extra packet on a supercar, or you'll be buying with economy firmly in mind. There'll be nothing in between.
otolith said:
Point is, they won't. They won't buy powerful Jap coupes either, which down the line will leave you with a selection of diesel VAG products to choose from. Enjoy.
Yep, and as I previously said, you don't need to look into the future to see this, just hop on a ferry from Holyhead to witness how dull life is when the only new cars sold are low-CO2 onesIs it just me that thinks this is an idea for a significant short term increase in revenue?
They are not going likely to stop taxing existing vehicles are they? They will continue to tax existing vehicles and take the lump sums from all the new car sales. Result, huge short term increase in revenue.
They are not going likely to stop taxing existing vehicles are they? They will continue to tax existing vehicles and take the lump sums from all the new car sales. Result, huge short term increase in revenue.
Twincam16 said:
This will be the death knell for affordable performance cars. Either you'll be rich enough not to care about paying an extra packet on a supercar, or you'll be buying with economy firmly in mind. There'll be nothing in between.
Afraid it works this way in mainland Europe. Not that there'll be no Boxsters or Renaultsport cars anymore - but they'll be hugely compromised for their need to pander to EU CO2 legislation so they can be still sort of competitive - robotised 'manual' gearboxes, EPAS, the death of multicylinder, naturally aspirated engines... otolith said:
405dogvan said:
Massive value judgements based on Daily-Mail-like rage are lovely but you realise that as they are, this 'idea' could actually make more powerful cars even more common and popular!?!?
Right now they cost a bomb but they sell AOK because there's plenty of people with that much money. An issue, tho, is that there are fewer people willing to take-on such cars down-the-line (seen the barge/shed threads - we're BATHING in V8s and V12s for the price of sweeties!)
By asking the 'rich' to shoulder the tax burden on the car, you actually open-up sales for these cars down-the-line - you ensure that these cars will live out their useful lives being used "as intended" by more people (people who'd not touch them now because of the likely costs).
Of course the rich don't lose entirely because their more-expensive trinket will keep it's value better - but they'll still shoulder more of the taxation cost as-a-whole (just as they shoulder the bulk of the depreciation on them now).
and I'm struggling to work-out how any of that is bad for petrolheads really...
See earlier comment;Right now they cost a bomb but they sell AOK because there's plenty of people with that much money. An issue, tho, is that there are fewer people willing to take-on such cars down-the-line (seen the barge/shed threads - we're BATHING in V8s and V12s for the price of sweeties!)
By asking the 'rich' to shoulder the tax burden on the car, you actually open-up sales for these cars down-the-line - you ensure that these cars will live out their useful lives being used "as intended" by more people (people who'd not touch them now because of the likely costs).
Of course the rich don't lose entirely because their more-expensive trinket will keep it's value better - but they'll still shoulder more of the taxation cost as-a-whole (just as they shoulder the bulk of the depreciation on them now).
and I'm struggling to work-out how any of that is bad for petrolheads really...
otolith said:
Worth noting that what the proposal actually suggests is scrapping the annual VED (road tax) charge and replacing it with a massive up-front charge. I can actually see the logic in that, in that it will tend to discourage the first purchase (end hence the building) of thirsty cars rather than the subsequent ownership. Taxing someone 400 quid a year to run a thirsty car which has already been built achieves nothing other than perhaps encouraging it to be scrapped earlier, a somewhat wasteful outcome.
I still don't like it, but taxing creation is more logical than taxing subsequent ownership.
However, there is no doubt that the objective of this idea is to stop the kind of cars we like to drive being built in the first place. It is intended to price thirsty cars out of existence and remove the option to buy them from the secondhand market.I still don't like it, but taxing creation is more logical than taxing subsequent ownership.
otolith said:
CoupeCrazy said:
Those poor hard up families having to cough up road tax upfront for their new 300 HP Boxster.
Point is, they won't. They won't buy powerful Jap coupes either, which down the line will leave you with a selection of diesel VAG products to choose from. Enjoy.Plenty of people are prepared to buy VW's over Fords, Audi's over Vauxhalls, in the same way that they are prepared to pay more in order to buy iPads, iPhones, Semi-pro quality camcorders and DSLR's, Bose hifis, Neff/Miele kitchen appliances etc over cheaper and perfectly adequate alternatives. Sometimes the price difference is quite significant.
Of course this would have "an effect", but you're over-estimating people's ability to place a value judgement ahead of brand slavery I think.
otolith said:
CoupeCrazy said:
Those poor hard up families having to cough up road tax upfront for their new 300 HP Boxster.
Point is, they won't. They won't buy powerful Jap coupes either, which down the line will leave you with a selection of diesel VAG products to choose from. Enjoy.And even if the Daily Mail brigade are right, should the DVLA decides to tax me out of owning old performance cars then I'll part ways with it. Life is too short to limit your hard earned cash and time to all things on 4 wheels.
phil121081 said:
The simple and most straight forward solution is to dump VED all together, calculate how much the govt. generate in revenue from the current system, run a few calcs on miles covered and average mpg and add 10p a litre to the cost of fuel (or whatever that figure turns out to be). That way, if you do 1k miles a year in a One-77 you pay your FAIR share, if you do 50k miles in an ecoboost POS you pay your FAIR share. This will also bring down the annual CO2 emmissions as people will drive less as it costs more, or buy more efficient cars.
The govt. adjust the tax on the fuel annually to ensure they get what they need to top up the coffers, although dare I say it, the savings on the staff bill at the DVLA would mount up to a fair bit too. The few dealings I have had with them, plenty of scope to get rid of some dead wood anyway.
Win/Win and a fair situation, pay as you go motoring.
The last time I checked, my car ran perfectly well with no tax disc in the window, however when it ran out of fuel, it was a bugger to start. Think of all the man hours saved from the police not checking cars for tax, the reminder letters in the post, the queues at the post office desk at the end of every month when everyone is taxing their car. It's so easy, everyone has to put fuel in the car anyway, so just bolt it onto that, you cannot avoid it. Simples.
I agree with the logic. I reasoned that a 5ppl rise ring-fenced as VED replacement would work jut as well.The govt. adjust the tax on the fuel annually to ensure they get what they need to top up the coffers, although dare I say it, the savings on the staff bill at the DVLA would mount up to a fair bit too. The few dealings I have had with them, plenty of scope to get rid of some dead wood anyway.
Win/Win and a fair situation, pay as you go motoring.
The last time I checked, my car ran perfectly well with no tax disc in the window, however when it ran out of fuel, it was a bugger to start. Think of all the man hours saved from the police not checking cars for tax, the reminder letters in the post, the queues at the post office desk at the end of every month when everyone is taxing their car. It's so easy, everyone has to put fuel in the car anyway, so just bolt it onto that, you cannot avoid it. Simples.
In return, I'd be in favour of having an insurance disc, rather than a tax disc. You'd still have to bring your insurance and MoT certificates to the post office, but you wouldn't have to pay anything beyond a token amount for the disc itself. Again, this would get rid of the crunch-time nature of paying for road tax, which has a nasty habit of coinciding with MoT, insurance renewal, or both. Also, this system would make the police's job easier - rather than demanding to see documents from the driver, most of them would be represented by the disc in the window.
Thing is, this all represents simple logic, and governments don't like that, they like unnecessary bureaucracy and attempts to force people to live in different ways. They don't want us to enjoy driving any more and that's that. So expect draconian tax regimes, dizzyingly complex computerised systems and lots of U-turns to be involved.
405dogvan said:
every time the Govt puts up the tax, the industry adds a bit to line it's pockets too..
Almost, but not quite. What it is is government idiocy that matches Gordon Brown's announcing in advance he was selling gold reserves - warning the markets of a large surplus on its way thus depressing the gold price and slashing the amount he was going to raise by the very act of saying he was going to raise it.By announcing fuel price escalators and tax increases on fuel months or even years in advance, the government is basically saying that they have done their due diligence and realised the market will bear an increase in the price. This signals the industry, and they decide to get in there first and take the increase for themselves. Then the government is faced with either backing down (as they have done on a couple of occasions now) or imposing their increase anyway and not getting the anticipated revenues because the price is then pushed beyond what the market will stand and consumption goes down.
These people are supposed to be economic experts FFS.
Don't let your well-founded cynicism about the tax raising potential of this lead you to underestimate the political will to force us into lower CO2 cars. That intention is very real, and will happen. Has been happening. All that will happen is that the tax-raping will kick in at lower and lower thresholds until you are paying through the nose for some god awful slice of tedium.
phil121081 said:
The simple and most straight forward solution is to dump VED all together, calculate how much the govt. generate in revenue from the current system, run a few calcs on miles covered and average mpg and add 10p a litre to the cost of fuel (or whatever that figure turns out to be). That way, if you do 1k miles a year in a One-77 you pay your FAIR share, if you do 50k miles in an ecoboost POS you pay your FAIR share. This will also bring down the annual CO2 emmissions as people will drive less as it costs more, or buy more efficient cars.
The govt. adjust the tax on the fuel annually to ensure they get what they need to top up the coffers, although dare I say it, the savings on the staff bill at the DVLA would mount up to a fair bit too. The few dealings I have had with them, plenty of scope to get rid of some dead wood anyway.
Win/Win and a fair situation, pay as you go motoring.
The last time I checked, my car ran perfectly well with no tax disc in the window, however when it ran out of fuel, it was a bugger to start. Think of all the man hours saved from the police not checking cars for tax, the reminder letters in the post, the queues at the post office desk at the end of every month when everyone is taxing their car. It's so easy, everyone has to put fuel in the car anyway, so just bolt it onto that, you cannot avoid it. Simples.
So its easy to work this out if you have the right numbers.The govt. adjust the tax on the fuel annually to ensure they get what they need to top up the coffers, although dare I say it, the savings on the staff bill at the DVLA would mount up to a fair bit too. The few dealings I have had with them, plenty of scope to get rid of some dead wood anyway.
Win/Win and a fair situation, pay as you go motoring.
The last time I checked, my car ran perfectly well with no tax disc in the window, however when it ran out of fuel, it was a bugger to start. Think of all the man hours saved from the police not checking cars for tax, the reminder letters in the post, the queues at the post office desk at the end of every month when everyone is taxing their car. It's so easy, everyone has to put fuel in the car anyway, so just bolt it onto that, you cannot avoid it. Simples.
26 million cars, 40 M total vehicles on the road inc trucks taxis etc.
Let stick to cars, 26M at say an average 200 per yr. call it 5B /yr
AA says 1,286 litres of fuel per year. total 33.5 Trillion This works out to 0.15 per L
Twincam16 said:
In return, I'd be in favour of having an insurance disc, rather than a tax disc. You'd still have to bring your insurance and MoT certificates to the post office, but you wouldn't have to pay anything beyond a token amount for the disc itself.
To be honest, ANPR makes bits of paper certifying insurance or MOT anachronistic. We don't need them, the car has an identifier which can be tied to all of those records. Scrap the lot of it. I haven't queued in a post office to tax a car for years as it is.CoupeCrazy said:
And even if the Daily Mail brigade are right, should the DVLA decides to tax me out of owning old performance cars then I'll part ways with it. Life is too short to limit your hard earned cash and time to all things on 4 wheels.
I don't think they'd price us out of driving the old stuff, I just don't think any new affordable performance cars would sell as a result.That said, it could prompt manufacturers to design Elise-type things around their new Ecoboost-type engines, so maybe there is a way through.
otolith said:
Twincam16 said:
In return, I'd be in favour of having an insurance disc, rather than a tax disc. You'd still have to bring your insurance and MoT certificates to the post office, but you wouldn't have to pay anything beyond a token amount for the disc itself.
To be honest, ANPR makes bits of paper certifying insurance or MOT anachronistic. We don't need them, the car has an identifier which can be tied to all of those records. Scrap the lot of it. I haven't queued in a post office to tax a car for years as it is.Max_Torque said:
Unfortunately politicians are NOT scientists. And once again, they completely fail to understand the importance of cutting "majority emissions" first. (Rather than minority ones)
For example, Car A outputs 10 chunks of polution for every km it is driven, compared to CAR B, which is only puts out 1 chunk / km.
Clearely, Car A is much more poluting. Except of course, for every km driven by CarA, 1000kms are driven by CarB. To lower overall emissions the most, which car should you tax more???
They do that through fuel duty anyway.For example, Car A outputs 10 chunks of polution for every km it is driven, compared to CAR B, which is only puts out 1 chunk / km.
Clearely, Car A is much more poluting. Except of course, for every km driven by CarA, 1000kms are driven by CarB. To lower overall emissions the most, which car should you tax more???
Twincam16 said:
But how will you know if the person driving the car is insured to do so unless they can personally produce documents linking them to the car? There are loads of people out there driving 'uninsured', but the car itself is insured and wouldn't trouble an ANPR camera.
Same issue you face with the current system or an insurance disc. People may still want a certificate for their own records, I suppose, but the real answer is to ensure that the Motor Insurance Database also includes the names of those insured to drive. You could also tie it to driving licence numbers so that your status for "driving other cars" cover could be checked immediately by a copper.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff