"Can motorists afford another stealth tax"
Discussion
Millions of drivers who use their own cars for work face sharply increased taxes under proposals being considered by ministers, it was confirmed last night.
Motorists driving 10,000 miles a year for work
could face an extra tax bill of £500 to £1,500
Even those doing voluntary work could be caught by a scheme drawn up by Revenue and Customs.
Those who could be affected range from salesman to vicars in sprawling rural parishes.
Should the idea be adopted, a motorist driving 10,000 miles a year for an employer could face an additional tax bill of £500 to £1,500 annually.
The plans were described as another "stealth tax" by Chris Grayling, the Tory transport spokesman.
advertisement
The potentially radical reforms were attacked by motoring groups and the voluntary sector and even alarmed the Church of England.
Details emerged as the Government prepares to introduce a Bill allowing for road pricing pilot schemes in several parts of the country.
At present, anyone who is reimbursed for using their own car is entitled to claim 40p a mile for the first 10,000 miles without facing tax. After that anything paid over 25p a mile is subject to both tax and national insurance.
Last night, Revenue and Customs confirmed that the tax penalty would apply to those using their own cars for work.
It floated the idea at a recent meeting of firms providing company car fleets. It was suggested that the tax threshold be reduced or linked to the environmental friendliness of a car.
The 40p allowance would be slashed to 25p for those using cars with CO2 emissions above 185 grams per kilometre. So anybody driving 10,000 miles for work could be £1,500 a year worse off.
The scheme would apply not only to new gas guzzlers but older family cars with less efficient engines. That would mean vicars using large and inexpensive older cars to get around their parishes could end up paying tax.
This represents the latest planned assault on the owners of big cars who also face higher parking charges in some parts of the country and the prospect of a £25 congestion charge in central London.
Conversely, as part of the Government's green agenda, drivers using cars with CO2 emissions below 135 grams per kilometre may be allowed to claim 50p a mile tax free.
More modest proposals, which would hit around half a million drivers, entail limiting the 40p tax free band to the first 6,000 miles.
The £1,500 figure, which was calculated by Masterlease, a fleet management firm, is based on the additional 15p per mile which would be taxable if the Government links mileage rates to CO2 emissions.
With the tax regime discouraging the use of company cars, more people have turned to buying their own and getting their employer to reimburse the running expenses.
Losers under the proposed regime would include owners of cars such as a BMW 320i and an array of Fords, including the two-litre Focus Duratec. Winners would include those with a one-litre Peugot 207 and one-litre Vauxhall Corsa.
The AA condemned the proposals, maintaining that the realistic cost of running a car was about 43p a mile.
"We fear that if the untaxable allowance for cars covering six to 10,000 miles is virtually halved from 40p to 20 or 25p, workers and volunteers driving longer distances, particularly in rural areas, will lose out substantially," a spokesman said.
"They may refuse to allow their cars to be used for work, heaping overheads on business, voluntary and community health organisations who have to use more expensive alternatives to keep their staff mobile."
"This will hit our volunteers in remote rural areas," said a spokesman for the WRVS "We are very concerned."
Similar concern was expressed by Lambeth Palace. A spokesman said: "We understand the importance of limiting unnecessary car use, but it would be unfortunate if the unintended consequence of this was to reduce the capacity of clergy to serve their local communities, especially in rural areas."
Mr Grayling rounded on the Government for considering the plans.
"These figures appear to bear no relation at all to the cost of running a car," he said.
"My big fear is that the losers would be people providing an array of public services and volunteers who do a lot of mileage supporting people in their homes and doing.
"Once again the Government seems set on trying to hit people in their pockets by changing the small print."
Motorists driving 10,000 miles a year for work
could face an extra tax bill of £500 to £1,500
Even those doing voluntary work could be caught by a scheme drawn up by Revenue and Customs.
Those who could be affected range from salesman to vicars in sprawling rural parishes.
Should the idea be adopted, a motorist driving 10,000 miles a year for an employer could face an additional tax bill of £500 to £1,500 annually.
The plans were described as another "stealth tax" by Chris Grayling, the Tory transport spokesman.
advertisement
The potentially radical reforms were attacked by motoring groups and the voluntary sector and even alarmed the Church of England.
Details emerged as the Government prepares to introduce a Bill allowing for road pricing pilot schemes in several parts of the country.
At present, anyone who is reimbursed for using their own car is entitled to claim 40p a mile for the first 10,000 miles without facing tax. After that anything paid over 25p a mile is subject to both tax and national insurance.
Last night, Revenue and Customs confirmed that the tax penalty would apply to those using their own cars for work.
It floated the idea at a recent meeting of firms providing company car fleets. It was suggested that the tax threshold be reduced or linked to the environmental friendliness of a car.
The 40p allowance would be slashed to 25p for those using cars with CO2 emissions above 185 grams per kilometre. So anybody driving 10,000 miles for work could be £1,500 a year worse off.
The scheme would apply not only to new gas guzzlers but older family cars with less efficient engines. That would mean vicars using large and inexpensive older cars to get around their parishes could end up paying tax.
This represents the latest planned assault on the owners of big cars who also face higher parking charges in some parts of the country and the prospect of a £25 congestion charge in central London.
Conversely, as part of the Government's green agenda, drivers using cars with CO2 emissions below 135 grams per kilometre may be allowed to claim 50p a mile tax free.
More modest proposals, which would hit around half a million drivers, entail limiting the 40p tax free band to the first 6,000 miles.
The £1,500 figure, which was calculated by Masterlease, a fleet management firm, is based on the additional 15p per mile which would be taxable if the Government links mileage rates to CO2 emissions.
With the tax regime discouraging the use of company cars, more people have turned to buying their own and getting their employer to reimburse the running expenses.
Losers under the proposed regime would include owners of cars such as a BMW 320i and an array of Fords, including the two-litre Focus Duratec. Winners would include those with a one-litre Peugot 207 and one-litre Vauxhall Corsa.
The AA condemned the proposals, maintaining that the realistic cost of running a car was about 43p a mile.
"We fear that if the untaxable allowance for cars covering six to 10,000 miles is virtually halved from 40p to 20 or 25p, workers and volunteers driving longer distances, particularly in rural areas, will lose out substantially," a spokesman said.
"They may refuse to allow their cars to be used for work, heaping overheads on business, voluntary and community health organisations who have to use more expensive alternatives to keep their staff mobile."
"This will hit our volunteers in remote rural areas," said a spokesman for the WRVS "We are very concerned."
Similar concern was expressed by Lambeth Palace. A spokesman said: "We understand the importance of limiting unnecessary car use, but it would be unfortunate if the unintended consequence of this was to reduce the capacity of clergy to serve their local communities, especially in rural areas."
Mr Grayling rounded on the Government for considering the plans.
"These figures appear to bear no relation at all to the cost of running a car," he said.
"My big fear is that the losers would be people providing an array of public services and volunteers who do a lot of mileage supporting people in their homes and doing.
"Once again the Government seems set on trying to hit people in their pockets by changing the small print."
Robber Brown has an enormous black hole in his finances that he has done his level best to hide from us. NuLabour need more cash and they will use scare tactics in order to extract it from us in the same way that Bliar did to justify invading Iraq.
NuLabour will quote the Stern report over and again to support their claims. It should be remembered that Stern is an economist, not a scientist, and his report was a worst case scenario prediction of the economic impact IF the global warming harbingers of doom are correct.
NuLabour will quote the Stern report over and again to support their claims. It should be remembered that Stern is an economist, not a scientist, and his report was a worst case scenario prediction of the economic impact IF the global warming harbingers of doom are correct.
The Wiz said:
Robber Brown has an enormous black hole in his finances that he has done his level best to hide from us. NuLabour need more cash and they will use scare tactics in order to extract it from us in the same way that Bliar did to justify invading Iraq.
NuLabour will quote the Stern report over and again to support their claims. It should be remembered that Stern is an economist, not a scientist, and his report was a worst case scenario prediction of the economic impact IF the global warming harbingers of doom are correct.
NuLabour will quote the Stern report over and again to support their claims. It should be remembered that Stern is an economist, not a scientist, and his report was a worst case scenario prediction of the economic impact IF the global warming harbingers of doom are correct.
we're stuck with nulabour....
it, I'll go back on the Pah, over here they slashed the untaxed car allowance for businesses from 0,29 to 0,19 euro/km three years ago - which is a fraction of the true cost per km of an average car.
Unsurprisingly, this led to an increase in company cars on the road...
Unsurprisingly, this led to an increase in company cars on the road...
Edited by 900T-R on Saturday 19th May 18:45
900T-R said:
Pah, over here they slashed the untaxed car allowance for businesses from 0,29 to 0,19 euro/km three years ago - which is a fraction of the true cost per km of an average car.
Unsurprisingly, this led to an increase in company cars on the road...
Unsurprisingly, this led to an increase in company cars on the road...
Edited by 900T-R on Saturday 19th May 18:45
where is over here?
herewego said:
Quite right too. There should be no tax breaks for gas guzzlers.
The tax break is for vehicles under 135g/km. So in your view anything above that is a "gas guzzler"?
Good luck in your imaginary 1-litre 207 (actually minimum 1.4 litre, 150g/km, but still 16 secs to 60)
Edited by deadlym on Monday 21st May 18:35
nice idea, but myself and colleagues work on sites where taking public transport is either a not a chance option as it is not near public transport or need to change multiple buses and trains carrying piles of kit...
lots of them went the private car route, but some like myself changed to the company car scheme for less hassle motoring
suspect that they would use the train more and the client gets charged accordingly, but yet another reason not to vote Nu Labia
lots of them went the private car route, but some like myself changed to the company car scheme for less hassle motoring
suspect that they would use the train more and the client gets charged accordingly, but yet another reason not to vote Nu Labia
Edited by Scraggles on Monday 21st May 19:07
Scraggles said:
nice idea, but myself and colleagues work on sites where taking public transport is either a not a chance option as it is not near public transport or need to change multiple buses and trains carrying piles of kit...
lots of them went the private car route, but some like myself changed to the company car scheme for less hassle motoring
suspect that they would use the train more and the client gets charged accordingly, but yet another reason not to vote Nu Labia
lots of them went the private car route, but some like myself changed to the company car scheme for less hassle motoring
suspect that they would use the train more and the client gets charged accordingly, but yet another reason not to vote Nu Labia
Edited by Scraggles on Monday 21st May 19:07
Yes the same for me, I travel the country to remote areas and we are not for profit organisation...imagine the deficit this will create on our already strugling budget. No company cars' cause we can't afford them what does that leave us?
Spend £300+ on a trip to Scotland, £280 to Manchester, and so on....
The car is there because it is affordable (correction was affordable) I guess all the people we care for will have to wait till our trains arrive on time and we can get taxis or horse carts to the locations, even in emergencies.
Ahhh the beauty of Our government...they are all the same the is no power of the people anymore.
deadlym said:
herewego said:
Quite right too. There should be no tax breaks for gas guzzlers.
The tax break is for vehicles under 135g/km. So in your view anything above that is a "gas guzzler"?Good luck in your imaginary 1-litre 207 (actually minimum 1.4 litre, 150g/km, but still 16 secs to 60)
Edited by deadlym on Monday 21st May 18:35
herewego said:
I read it slightly differently. Those below 135 get the benefit of a higher allowance than at present, those between 135 and 185 get the same as now and those above 185 get their allowance reduced. 185 is some way above average and these are the only ones that would lose the tax break and rightly so.
What's average? Where are your figures? I used to own a 1.8 celica that returned 35mpg and that still chucked out a 220 CO2 figure IIRC...hardly a "gas guzzler"?What do you drive?
StuMartin said:
herewego said:
I read it slightly differently. Those below 135 get the benefit of a higher allowance than at present, those between 135 and 185 get the same as now and those above 185 get their allowance reduced. 185 is some way above average and these are the only ones that would lose the tax break and rightly so.
What's average? Where are your figures? I used to own a 1.8 celica that returned 35mpg and that still chucked out a 220 CO2 figure IIRC...hardly a "gas guzzler"?What do you drive?
"But average car emissions in Europe remain stubbornly high at more than 160gpk. Emissions in Britain were measured at 167gpk last year."
We have a european target of 130 so we have some way to go.
If this Road Pricing thing goes any further shall we protest? I am all for starting the "We've all had enough of this shit" party. Anyone else wanna join?
Also, This Global warming cobblers assumes one fundamental fact... the sun's heat is a at constant level... if it heats up, we heat up... if it cools down, we cool down. Lets see the Sun Temperature charts please before we panic. The experts say the planet could warm by up to 4 degrees in the next 100 years... ok that is 2 degeees in 50 years, 1 degree in 25 years.. so year on year an increase of, wait for it 1/25th of a degree. So it was a bit hot in April... if the scaremongers had their way based on a couple of hot day the world would be a smoldering cinder before the 2012 Olympics. GET REAL AND QUESTION THE 'FACTS' we are being fed.
I also want to know where this '185 grams per km' comes from... are people telling us that if i drive 100 km I have produced more co2 in weight than about 10 tanks of petrol?
Also, This Global warming cobblers assumes one fundamental fact... the sun's heat is a at constant level... if it heats up, we heat up... if it cools down, we cool down. Lets see the Sun Temperature charts please before we panic. The experts say the planet could warm by up to 4 degrees in the next 100 years... ok that is 2 degeees in 50 years, 1 degree in 25 years.. so year on year an increase of, wait for it 1/25th of a degree. So it was a bit hot in April... if the scaremongers had their way based on a couple of hot day the world would be a smoldering cinder before the 2012 Olympics. GET REAL AND QUESTION THE 'FACTS' we are being fed.
I also want to know where this '185 grams per km' comes from... are people telling us that if i drive 100 km I have produced more co2 in weight than about 10 tanks of petrol?
Thebatman said:
If this Road Pricing thing goes any further shall we protest? I am all for starting the "We've all had enough of this shit" party. Anyone else wanna join??
Wrong thread. This is not a road pricing thread.Thebatman said:
Also, This Global warming cobblers assumes one fundamental fact... the sun's heat is a at constant level... if it heats up, we heat up... if it cools down, we cool down. Lets see the Sun Temperature charts please before we panic. The experts say the planet could warm by up to 4 degrees in the next 100 years... ok that is 2 degeees in 50 years, 1 degree in 25 years.. so year on year an increase of, wait for it 1/25th of a degree. So it was a bit hot in April... if the scaremongers had their way based on a couple of hot day the world would be a smoldering cinder before the 2012 Olympics. GET REAL AND QUESTION THE 'FACTS' we are being fed.?
If you know better than thousands of climate scientists then feel free to debate the issue.Thebatman said:
I also want to know where this '185 grams per km' comes from... are people telling us that if i drive 100 km I have produced more co2 in weight than about 10 tanks of petrol?
Could a combination of carbon and oxygen weigh more than a combination of carbon and hydrogen?Edited by herewego on Thursday 24th May 08:48
herewego said:
Thebatman said:
If this Road Pricing thing goes any further shall we protest? I am all for starting the "We've all had enough of this shit" party. Anyone else wanna join??
Wrong thread. This is not a road pricing thread.Thebatman said:
Also, This Global warming cobblers assumes one fundamental fact... the sun's heat is a at constant level... if it heats up, we heat up... if it cools down, we cool down. Lets see the Sun Temperature charts please before we panic. The experts say the planet could warm by up to 4 degrees in the next 100 years... ok that is 2 degeees in 50 years, 1 degree in 25 years.. so year on year an increase of, wait for it 1/25th of a degree. So it was a bit hot in April... if the scaremongers had their way based on a couple of hot day the world would be a smoldering cinder before the 2012 Olympics. GET REAL AND QUESTION THE 'FACTS' we are being fed.?
If you know better than thousands of climate scientists then feel free to debate the issue.Thebatman said:
I also want to know where this '185 grams per km' comes from... are people telling us that if i drive 100 km I have produced more co2 in weight than about 10 tanks of petrol?
Could a combination of carbon and oxygen weigh more than a combination of carbon and hydrogen?Edited by herewego on Thursday 24th May 08:48
ec523 said:
herewego said:
Thebatman said:
If this Road Pricing thing goes any further shall we protest? I am all for starting the "We've all had enough of this shit" party. Anyone else wanna join??
Wrong thread. This is not a road pricing thread.Thebatman said:
Also, This Global warming cobblers assumes one fundamental fact... the sun's heat is a at constant level... if it heats up, we heat up... if it cools down, we cool down. Lets see the Sun Temperature charts please before we panic. The experts say the planet could warm by up to 4 degrees in the next 100 years... ok that is 2 degeees in 50 years, 1 degree in 25 years.. so year on year an increase of, wait for it 1/25th of a degree. So it was a bit hot in April... if the scaremongers had their way based on a couple of hot day the world would be a smoldering cinder before the 2012 Olympics. GET REAL AND QUESTION THE 'FACTS' we are being fed.?
If you know better than thousands of climate scientists then feel free to debate the issue.Thebatman said:
I also want to know where this '185 grams per km' comes from... are people telling us that if i drive 100 km I have produced more co2 in weight than about 10 tanks of petrol?
Could a combination of carbon and oxygen weigh more than a combination of carbon and hydrogen?Edited by herewego on Thursday 24th May 08:48
People are working on hydrogen storage and hydrogen cars so I suppose they think they'll be OK.
It might not be more dangerous than crashing into a car containing a tank of highly flammable petrol.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff