Don't forget to pay for VED before the Budget
Discussion
I thought I'd post a reminder, since I nearly forgot myself... if your car's VED falls due at the end of this month, don't forget to pay for it before the Budget! That's this Wednesday, the 18th March.
(Of course, this doesn't apply to everybody, but with the registration plate changeover being around this time, I imagine there'll be a fair few people in this category.)
If your car is in one of the higher bands, I'm sure I don't need to point out that the price is quite likely to go up. The worst that's likely to happen is that the price remains the same, and you spent the money a few days early
(The online service was down over the weekend, but it seems to be back up now.)
(Of course, this doesn't apply to everybody, but with the registration plate changeover being around this time, I imagine there'll be a fair few people in this category.)
If your car is in one of the higher bands, I'm sure I don't need to point out that the price is quite likely to go up. The worst that's likely to happen is that the price remains the same, and you spent the money a few days early
(The online service was down over the weekend, but it seems to be back up now.)
That's a very timely reminder, cheers. 
The infrequently used Barge requires taxing at the end of the month and dispite it burning less fuel a year than a average mileage Prius it'll no doubt be screwed for another hike in VED on Wedensday because of all the horrific environmental damage it does whilst sitting in the garage.
The infrequently used Barge requires taxing at the end of the month and dispite it burning less fuel a year than a average mileage Prius it'll no doubt be screwed for another hike in VED on Wedensday because of all the horrific environmental damage it does whilst sitting in the garage.
SuperPav said:
Leaf doing 10k a year? £0 VED.
Evoque doing 10k a year? Company pays VED.
Roller doing 2,000 miles a year? £240 a year.
Taken as an average across the 3 cars.. seems reasonable.
It isn't reasonable if you think about it though, it's actually another example of how stupid the system of basing VED on emissions really is. It peversely encourages manufacturing pollution - some 20% of the vehicles total life cycle - by tempting people to dispose of old and often perfectly servicable cars and buy new ones that are lower or even zero rated and takes no account of how much pollutant you're actually adding to the atmosphere which of course depends on how much fuel you burn every year which is not the same as what vehicle you actualy burn it in.Evoque doing 10k a year? Company pays VED.
Roller doing 2,000 miles a year? £240 a year.
Taken as an average across the 3 cars.. seems reasonable.
Just like you I have a choice of cars.
I do about 15k anually in a crude old technology diesel. At best it'll nudge 45 MPG so that means I'm burning roughly 1500 litres of a relatively dirty fuel a year. I also do between 6-7k at about 25 MPG in a much cleaner petrol V8 and that amounts to a third less fuel useage and subsequent environmental damage without even taking into account the difference in environmental consequences between burning a litre of petrol compared to diesel.
So if VED really is about preserving the environment then why does the least polluting car pay a much higher VED rate than the one that's actually doing far more harm? Idiotic IMO.
Jaguar steve said:
It isn't reasonable if you think about it though, it's actually another example of how stupid the system of basing VED on emissions really is. It peversely encourages manufacturing pollution - some 20% of the vehicles total life cycle - by tempting people to dispose of old and often perfectly servicable cars and buy new ones that are lower or even zero rated and takes no account of how much pollutant you're actually adding to the atmosphere which of course depends on how much fuel you burn every year which is not the same as what vehicle you actualy burn it in.
Just like you I have a choice of cars.
I do about 15k anually in a crude old technology diesel. At best it'll nudge 45 MPG so that means I'm burning roughly 1500 litres of a relatively dirty fuel a year. I also do between 6-7k at about 25 MPG in a much cleaner petrol V8 and that amounts to a third less fuel useage and subsequent environmental damage without even taking into account the difference in environmental consequences between burning a litre of petrol compared to diesel.
So if VED really is about preserving the environment then why does the least polluting car pay a much higher VED rate than the one that's actually doing far more harm? Idiotic IMO.
I agree it's bonkers. My Rolls probably pollutes less than even the Leaf, accounted for mileage! Just like you I have a choice of cars.
I do about 15k anually in a crude old technology diesel. At best it'll nudge 45 MPG so that means I'm burning roughly 1500 litres of a relatively dirty fuel a year. I also do between 6-7k at about 25 MPG in a much cleaner petrol V8 and that amounts to a third less fuel useage and subsequent environmental damage without even taking into account the difference in environmental consequences between burning a litre of petrol compared to diesel.
So if VED really is about preserving the environment then why does the least polluting car pay a much higher VED rate than the one that's actually doing far more harm? Idiotic IMO.
The "reasonable" comment referred simply to the fact that paying £240 a year to have an old roller, and a brand new Leaf and Evoque seems pretty good value!
It is a preposterous concept. A vehicle which is not used may be charged a huge tax for "environmental reasons" whilst some low Co2 (we will ignore the AGW bull**t concept) thing might do 40,000 miles and thus "pollute" far more overall... Yet for "environmental" reasons pays less tax.
Just smoke and mirrors and Eco Bull***t.
Just smoke and mirrors and Eco Bull***t.
SuperPav said:
Jaguar steve said:
It isn't reasonable if you think about it though, it's actually another example of how stupid the system of basing VED on emissions really is. It peversely encourages manufacturing pollution - some 20% of the vehicles total life cycle - by tempting people to dispose of old and often perfectly servicable cars and buy new ones that are lower or even zero rated and takes no account of how much pollutant you're actually adding to the atmosphere which of course depends on how much fuel you burn every year which is not the same as what vehicle you actualy burn it in.
Just like you I have a choice of cars.
I do about 15k anually in a crude old technology diesel. At best it'll nudge 45 MPG so that means I'm burning roughly 1500 litres of a relatively dirty fuel a year. I also do between 6-7k at about 25 MPG in a much cleaner petrol V8 and that amounts to a third less fuel useage and subsequent environmental damage without even taking into account the difference in environmental consequences between burning a litre of petrol compared to diesel.
So if VED really is about preserving the environment then why does the least polluting car pay a much higher VED rate than the one that's actually doing far more harm? Idiotic IMO.
I agree it's bonkers. My Rolls probably pollutes less than even the Leaf, accounted for mileage! Just like you I have a choice of cars.
I do about 15k anually in a crude old technology diesel. At best it'll nudge 45 MPG so that means I'm burning roughly 1500 litres of a relatively dirty fuel a year. I also do between 6-7k at about 25 MPG in a much cleaner petrol V8 and that amounts to a third less fuel useage and subsequent environmental damage without even taking into account the difference in environmental consequences between burning a litre of petrol compared to diesel.
So if VED really is about preserving the environment then why does the least polluting car pay a much higher VED rate than the one that's actually doing far more harm? Idiotic IMO.
The "reasonable" comment referred simply to the fact that paying £240 a year to have an old roller, and a brand new Leaf and Evoque seems pretty good value!
RobM77 said:
The thing that winds me up is that VED is based on potential to emit, not actual emissions. A pensioner with a Merc S500 who does 5,000 miles a year visiting his grandchildren and driving to church on Sunday pays more VED than a businessman doing 50,000 miles a year in a 335i. Utterly crazy.
Yes, but you can't pick and choose the bits you want by inventing hypotheticals. I could just as easily come up with a pensioner with an S500 doing 50,000 miles a year vs the businessman doing 50k and suddenly it looks reasonable? I think its best to look at the total amount the government steals from the motorist by adding VED + Fuel tax. The mileage you drive isn't relevant to VED, it just give you permission to drive, how much or how little you take advantage of that permission is up to you. But yes, overall its a ridiculous system, half thought out and encourages people to run older huge barges like an 05 rangerover because its on cheaper tax then one 6 months newer..
is an easy prediction.HotJambalaya said:
RobM77 said:
The thing that winds me up is that VED is based on potential to emit, not actual emissions. A pensioner with a Merc S500 who does 5,000 miles a year visiting his grandchildren and driving to church on Sunday pays more VED than a businessman doing 50,000 miles a year in a 335i. Utterly crazy.
Yes, but you can't pick and choose the bits you want by inventing hypotheticals. I could just as easily come up with a pensioner with an S500 doing 50,000 miles a year vs the businessman doing 50k and suddenly it looks reasonable? I think its best to look at the total amount the government steals from the motorist by adding VED + Fuel tax. The mileage you drive isn't relevant to VED, it just give you permission to drive, how much or how little you take advantage of that permission is up to you. But yes, overall its a ridiculous system, half thought out and encourages people to run older huge barges like an 05 rangerover because its on cheaper tax then one 6 months newer..Best to view it as an incentive to run an economical car rather than punishment for causing emissions (that's what fuel duty is for). Personally, I'd far rather see the tax moved to fuel but I don't think it'll happen. VED is about 10% of my total motoring costs, so it's certainly not trivial.
RobM77 said:
That's daft. Imagine if income tax was based on potential to earn, so if you're a qualified lawyer you're taxed £40k a year, even though you didn't enjoy law and work in a Greengrocer. Or, if you're a greengrocer you're taxed £5k a year, even if you strike it luky and start importing bananas and earning a six figure sum. It's utter nonsense. I pay less VED now that I'm doing 40k a year in a diesel than when, in 2009, I walked to work and owned a Z4 Coupé for weekends. VED is a levvy on emissions, and as such should be based on the amount of CO2 you emit - end of story.
Again, you're using invented and extreme hypotheticals to try and illustrate your point, and that just doesn't work. I know what you mean, however, they can't tailor make VED for people, so they have to base it all on an average, and on average, people driving cars with bigger engines are going to emit more CO2. I have a C63 and pay £500 a year VED, however I probably only do about 4000 miles a year in it, what am I supposed to say? hi, I didn't drive quite as much as you thought I might this year so please refund me some?Now you might pay less VED today then you did at weekends, but I'm sure that more of your spend goes to the revenue given that you're buying more fuel then you were previously. Now, I agree that the whole thing is utterly ludicrous, a simple solution could be for ALL cars to pay £100 a year, and them to take the rest at the pumps, but as a business, why would GB Ltd, when frankly people will pay.
The CO2 output is a load of crap, and they know it, and we know it, its just a convenient way for them to stick charges to people, but regardless, it is a piece of paper that gives you permission to drive that car on the road, what you do with that permission is down to you, and unlike in your fictional example of qualified lawyers working in greengrocers and still getting taxed at lawyer rates, if I sell my C63 and buy a nissan leaf, I don't still get taxed as a lawyer, I get taxed as a greengrocer.
HotJambalaya said:
RobM77 said:
That's daft. Imagine if income tax was based on potential to earn, so if you're a qualified lawyer you're taxed £40k a year, even though you didn't enjoy law and work in a Greengrocer. Or, if you're a greengrocer you're taxed £5k a year, even if you strike it luky and start importing bananas and earning a six figure sum. It's utter nonsense. I pay less VED now that I'm doing 40k a year in a diesel than when, in 2009, I walked to work and owned a Z4 Coupé for weekends. VED is a levvy on emissions, and as such should be based on the amount of CO2 you emit - end of story.
Again, you're using invented and extreme hypotheticals to try and illustrate your point, and that just doesn't work. I know what you mean, however, they can't tailor make VED for people, so they have to base it all on an average, and on average, people driving cars with bigger engines are going to emit more CO2. I have a C63 and pay £500 a year VED, however I probably only do about 4000 miles a year in it, what am I supposed to say? hi, I didn't drive quite as much as you thought I might this year so please refund me some?Now you might pay less VED today then you did at weekends, but I'm sure that more of your spend goes to the revenue given that you're buying more fuel then you were previously. Now, I agree that the whole thing is utterly ludicrous, a simple solution could be for ALL cars to pay £100 a year, and them to take the rest at the pumps, but as a business, why would GB Ltd, when frankly people will pay.
The CO2 output is a load of crap, and they know it, and we know it, its just a convenient way for them to stick charges to people, but regardless, it is a piece of paper that gives you permission to drive that car on the road, what you do with that permission is down to you, and unlike in your fictional example of qualified lawyers working in greengrocers and still getting taxed at lawyer rates, if I sell my C63 and buy a nissan leaf, I don't still get taxed as a lawyer, I get taxed as a greengrocer.
You've completely mis-understood my analogy with income tax. I was trying to illustrate how other taxes are based on actual activities, not potential activities. Income tax is simple based on what you earn, corporation tax on what a company earns, VAT on the value of what you've bought etc. My example was showing how silly it would be if we taxed on potential to earn rather than the amount actually earnt.
selym said:
I plan to pay by direct debit for the VED , due in April. If I set up today will the arrangement remain at today's prices? I fear not.
That was a question by the way!
Anyone know the answer to this? My VED is due at the end of the month and as its the full fat, I'll rather pay monthly. That was a question by the way!
-crookedtail- said:
selym said:
I plan to pay by direct debit for the VED , due in April. If I set up today will the arrangement remain at today's prices? I fear not.
That was a question by the way!
Anyone know the answer to this? My VED is due at the end of the month and as its the full fat, I'll rather pay monthly. That was a question by the way!
Or would they?
selym said:
I have gone all in and signed up for the direct debit. There was no mention of price changes, the 12 payments were detailed, so i have no reason to think that they would change the price to reflect budgetary changes.
Or would they?
They probably haven't even thought of it Or would they?
, and a panic will ensue to ensure it is in place by next year's budget 
.selym said:
Well Mr. Tail, I have gone all in and signed up for the direct debit. There was no mention of price changes, the 12 payments were detailed, so i have no reason to think that they would change the price to reflect budgetary changes.
Or would they?
Direct Debit Guarantee scheme..Or would they?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff