No, only applies to new cars bought after April 2017. Same as cars registered before 2001 are still on the old non Co2 based system
Volkswagen emissions scandal
- Thread starter gadge
- Start date
Currently reading:
Volkswagen emissions scandal
No, only applies to new cars bought after April 2017. Same as cars registered before 2001 are still on the old non Co2 based system
so its still a tax on the poor then
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,579
- Points
- 828
But somebody driving a 20mpg car is already paying 3 times as much fuel duty as someone in a 60mpg car, so that won't change. However, people who chose to buy a needlessly huge car should pay more to use the road. It's only fair. Hence, why an engine size based tax system is the fairest and least abusable way to charge road tax.
I'd love to know how the new system is a "tax on the poor" because your tax on your 10 year old croma won't change.
The money raised from the new system will go into a pot specifically to maintain the roads unlike the old and current systems that pay the money into a central government pot and is spent on other things.
Basically the new system will be a payment, to give you the right to drive your vehicle on the road, and it's he same amount no matter what vehicle you have. As I said times have changed and the focus on reducing emissions has moved from owner to manufacturers hence the big first year premiums on the most polluting cars.
How can you possibly categorise what is needlessly large car?? Each persons requirements are different.
If someone can afford to have a nice car and spoil themselves because they can why should that person be penalised for that? Why should they have some angry lad staring out the window of their Punto thinking they should be paying more for having that.
There is a small amount of good news, the yearly increases on the current/old system have stopped.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,579
- Points
- 828
Not so much tax on the poor, as tax on the ungreedy: those of us whom drive city cars, superminis, and certain compact family cars pay more tax, those who feel the need to buy a completely unnecessary car that's over 5 years old pay less tax!
I agree that it's down to manufacturers to reduce emissions, it's still down to buyers to purchase economical cars in the first place, and that doesn't change however old a car gets! A completely unnecessary brand new car will remain a completely unnecessary car all whilst it's on the road.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,579
- Points
- 828
Ok then, explain why someone whom feels the need to drive a huge range rover (normally very badly!) SHOULDN'T pay more than someone who just drives a modest Vauxhall Viva or VW Up to get to work in?
Yes, those of us who drive citycars pay more tax. Wtf? My 500 is 30 pounds a year. As usual your arguments are extremely poorly thought out....
Are you aware you pay the tax man 20k or there abouts just to take a range rover out of the showroom?
Last edited:
Define "unnecessary car" my next door neighbour has a Range Rover but is a business owner who make numerous trips back and forwards to the cash and carry, he also has a family making a van impractical for the job. It's a good looking car and he has large logos down the side to advertise his business, and we live in a rural location which can at times make it necessary to have a 4x4....
So tell me how that is an unnecessary car?
Not to mention that cheap cars get scrapped early, for example grande puntos are now reaching the point that people are scrapping them if they break down or fail there MOT. However super cars and big 4x4s tend to go on forever, landrover quote something like 85% of cars they have ever made are still in regular use.
The final point I need to make about your little city car is that a petrol grande punto with a 1.4 engine like yours is £130 to tax per year alread with its 134g/km of Co2
Where as the 3 cars we have in my house hold produce 330g/km between them (119g, 112g and 99g) and at least 2 cars are in constant use most of the time. Yet for all three cars will only pay a grand total of £60 a year to tax them all. I do t think you can exactly claim that a CO2 based system is very fair either.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,579
- Points
- 828
If you actually bothered to read what andyrkett said, under the new rules, in 2017, any brand new 500 will be 140 to tax.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,579
- Points
- 828
Rightfully so, however, we are talking about road tax here, not vat.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,579
- Points
- 828
With regards to your 1st point, there's numerous 4wd estate cars which I dare say would meet his needs just as well.
With regards to your 2nd comment: your point being?
With regards to your 3rd comment, hence why I said we should go to an engine size based tax system in the 1st place!!!!!!
Your 1st point, his last car was an Audi A4 Quattro 3.0 diesel estate, no less polluting than his Land Rover but not big enough for those big cash and carry runs, the whole reason for buying the RR was it was the most practical car to meet his needs without compromising in any areas. The real question is who gave you the right to decide what is necessary? Your grande is in a comparatively high tax band with its 134g/km could you not have bought something with a smaller engine more efficient, a smaller car? As maxi pointed out his 500 is £30 a year to tax why didn't you buy one of those?
There are definite double standards at play.
My 2nd comment point being big 4x4s don't get scraped at anywhere near the rate of small cheap cars meaning they save on the pollution caused when the are built and when they are scraped, when your grande is dripping oil and other nasties in a scrap yard somewhere, most 4x4s new and very old will still be on the road.
Your 3rd point: we had an engine sized based system before 2001, a small car was about £120 a year to tax and a big car about £200 a year. And the cut off between the two was 1500cc however that meant that you could end up with little cars that polluted a lot because there was no incentive to make them clean, and the biggest clean running cars would still cost more. If you look at the stats for my 10 year old 1.3 diesel punto versus my 2.0 diesel golf you'll see they are almost exactly the same, when the golf weighs 500kg more so why charge more for the golf to be taxed when it's no less efficient than an older 1.3 litre much smaller car ?
Final point; it's pretty clear that once again you're just trolling the forums with your nonsense. You didn't even know about these rule changes till a few hours ago but you still seem to think you know best.... In fact it took you 3 minutes to decide you knew best as you can see from the timings of the posts.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,579
- Points
- 828
Your 1st point: If your mate definitely needs a car that size, then fair enough, but he has to accept that his needs come at a cost. The vast majority of people who buy these sorts cars don't actually need them, they buy them purely for show.
With regards to my Grande, yes, a Panda would do the job, but they score relatively badly for passive safety. With regards to why I didn't buy a newer, smaller engined, lower emissions car like a 500: simple! I couldn't afford 1!! But you can't exactly compare a Grande Punto to a range rover or s-class, etc. Your comment about double standards is complete and utter bs, I'm afraid.
With regards to your 2nd comment: how's that necessarily true? Some people drive 20 year old superminis, the same as some people drive 20 year old 4x4s.
With regards to your 3rd comment, I have already said that I completely agree that emissions should be strictly controlled by legislation, but at a more realistically achievable level. However, people who can't afford the latest models should be penalised for it, which is the way it currently stands.
With regards to your final comment, please explain why in 2023, a commuter driving a 6 year old city car or supermini, or a family person driving a 6 year old diesel mondeo should face the same road tax burden as someone driving a hulking great 6 year old rolls royce?
In the future, if you are going to accuse me of spouting nonsense, at least have the decency to ask me to explain my opinions before giving me your big headed lectures.
Road tax is not an instrument of social justice, it's way of making those of who use the roads paying for their upkeep.
Ownership of any car is a selfish act, we know they all spew out noxious fumes be it at source or at a power station. It is far better to use communal transport environmentally speaking and for the social good, more people on public transport, more profits, more cheap public transport. Using the scarce resources of the planet just to move my sorry arse around along with the ton or so of metal required poisoning those I happen to pass is socially reprehensible. However I like it and makes my life easier..
Ownership of any car is a selfish act, we know they all spew out noxious fumes be it at source or at a power station. It is far better to use communal transport environmentally speaking and for the social good, more people on public transport, more profits, more cheap public transport. Using the scarce resources of the planet just to move my sorry arse around along with the ton or so of metal required poisoning those I happen to pass is socially reprehensible. However I like it and makes my life easier..
People shouldn't have to justify the car they drive simply because people like yourself don't agree with them having that car. No more than you should have to justify the house you buy or the phone you use. At the end of the day all these things have an environmental impact and big all small these vehicles all pollute, you can't offset pollution by paying a bit more in road tax. So from a moral high ground that makes your 134g/km of CO2 no different from 260g/km co2 from a my big 4x4 you're still polluting and as you point out the reason you didn't choose a more environmentally friendly car was for safety reason
Some people do drive 20 year old superminis but not many, I saw a 1985 Nissan micra the other day driving a long and was stunned mainly because it hadn't rotted to dust but secondly because it was a 30 year old car probably worth less than the cost of a set of brake pads, when cars are cheap they get scrapped. An old Range Rover from the same era might only be worth £500 in a poor state but it won't get scrapped, people will use it for off roading, on farms or estates for carting livestock and materials about etc etc, it's worth more in its flexibility as an off road vehicle than it is as a car and so the majority of these cars are still going... How many 1980s fiats or nissans are still on the road compared to how many were built in the first place?
The reason for penalising people with old cars as you put it, is to encourage them to buy newer cars for both economic and environmental reasons, the air we breath would be horrific if we were all still driving around in 1980s pre catalytic converter cars. The reason for the CO2 tax based system and the scrap age scheme was to get rid of all these old cars bellowing smoke and all sorts and replace them with something cleaner and more fuel efficient.
Finally in 2023 someone driving a little supermini will have paid about £3550 less in total road tax costs than someone in a rolls Royce, on top of which the rolls owner will have paid an additional £40k+in VAT and no end of fuel duty, it's not like they won't have paid their way. But as pointed out above road tax isn't a tool for levelling the social playing field. And emissions don't go away with higher road number of people driving big expensive cars is comparatively less than all the millions of little superminis running about. If you set the tax rate at £3000 a year for the rolls Royce it won't change anything someone will still buy that car and run it without a thought for the cost. I don't suppose Alan sugar loses any sleep over his phantom's road tax.
And how will each test be the same, rain and external air temp etc all make a difference, hence lab tests where it can all be monitored and regulated.
Cobblers, my PHEV is a 1.8, yet puts less crap out than most 1.0/1.2's, so how does your logic work here?
Road hogging, please.
What about a large engined small sports car that doesn't road hog then
Why? They've still only 4 wheels on the road like every other tom dick and harry, Perhaps massive transit vans etc should be paying through the nose for tax then as they take up such road space
