- Joined
- Jan 10, 2013
- Messages
- 702
- Points
- 158
Mines one of the affected, only bought it a week ago :bang:
I'll see what the plan is before I take it in though.
I'll see what the plan is before I take it in though.
so its still a tax on the poor then
that not true at all and still doesn't change what people do with that rubbish you have just made my point more valid.
A couple in their 80's in a 5 bed house living off wiltsure farm foods that they eat from the plastic they come in and recycle, are still paying the same council tax for rubbish as the same size house next door with 6 kids 2 adults and they have lots of friends over every weekend and have a bbq or party.
Because they can afford one and it's their money......and maybe they just like range rovers?
Ok coming back on topic I just heard on the BBC that the fella who runs volkswagens US affairs has been in front of congress and stated that he believes that the 11 million cars affected was all down to a couple of small time software programmers......... I'll leave that just there lol
The Ford Fiesta ST is an excellent hot hatch with low running costs...
But what if the 1.8 is more efficient?That is fair enough. However, if people wish to own a car like that, then they should expect to pay more road tax. I don't understand why certain people on here have such a problem with that.
For example: I currently drive a 1.4 litre supermini. Therefore, it is nothing other than completely and utterly fair that I pay more road tax than someone driving a 1 litre city car. If, for example, I trade my 1.4 in for a 1.8 litre family car, then it's completely fair that I pay more tax on that than I would on the supermini. Simple!
But what if the 1.8 is more efficient?
But what if the 1.8 is more efficient?
So again I ask, what has engine size got to do with emissions, my Prius has a much bigger engine than your GP, but half the emissions output - so why should I be paying more tax than a more polluting car
:yeahthat:
But what relevance have they got if you're taxing on engine size and not emissions
This is the point that YOU are missing!
I also agree that car co2 emissions should be controlled and gradually reduced. I believe that this should be done by way of legislation which requires a new model to produce emissions at least 5% lower than its predecessor. This is far more achievable and realistic, and in theory, should lead to more accurate emissions data, as manufacturers would be less likely to tune their cars to produce unrealistic emissions levels for official tests.
That is fair enough. However, if people wish to own a car like that, then they should expect to pay more road tax. I don't understand why certain people on here have such a problem with that.
What we need is some sort of Europe wide emissions standard, this can be lowered periodically to drive clean technology forward. If a car doesn't comply it can't be sold. It's amazing no one has thought of it yet. Although I imagine if such a thing were to exist those dastardly folks at VW would find a way around it and then it would theoretically require a new version with the goal of making it more representative.
I want on honest answer in relation to this question, not so I can criticise you but to understand your logic behind this.
Let's say as an example based on what you say - tax increases per cc size of the engine based on 0.1 increments, so -
<1.0cc - free road tax
<1.1cc - £20
<1.2cc - £40
<1.3cc - £60
<1.4cc - £80
<1.5cc - £100
List can carry on with the assumption obviously that the biggest engines get charged a hell of a lot more.
Let's say this starts straight away and affects every single car on the road.
Take your own car, a modest supermini with a low powered underperforming 1.4 engine with a pedestrian 77bhp doing 60 in 12.8 seconds with a quoted c02 of 134 and 49mph - by the table I constructed above you will need to pay £80 a year to tax it.
In comparison let's take a Fiesta 1.0 black/red edition. This has a modest sized 1.0 engine, but this produced 138bhp it does a claimed 60mph in 8.7 seconds, 104 co2, and returns 62mpg - this will be completely free to tax.
I now want you to explain why you would happy with your Punto to be paying road tax of £80 when it offers no where near the performance, emissions or MPG of the example given?
Would this be fair to you?
So you've just completely removed any incentive to make engines clean. Why do you not realise this? How is this not glaringly obvious to you?!?!??!?!?!?!?!I will start by saying this: I am completely happy with the amount of tax I pay on my Grande Punto. The issue I have is that as things currently stand, people who buy the latest models which perform unrealistically well in emissions tests are paying less tax than they should whilst people who can only afford to drive cars 10 years old plus are being penalised for it.
As a rough idea, here's a chart for yourself:
Electric plus engines upto 999cc: £50.
1000-1499cc: £100.
1500-1999cc: £150.
2000-2499cc: £200.
2500-2999cc: £275.
3000-3999cc: £350.
4000cc plus: £450.
With regards to turbocharged petrols, I would tax them according to their N/A power equivalent. With your example of the fiesta red/black editions, (coincidentally, a girl I took on a date this year drives a black edition, 1 of her friends has a red edition, lol) the output is the equivalent of a N/A 1.8, so they would be taxed in the 3rd category.
But what if the 1.8 is more efficient?
What we need is some sort of Europe wide emissions standard, this can be lowered periodically to drive clean technology forward. If a car doesn't comply it can't be sold. It's amazing no one has thought of it yet. Although I imagine if such a thing were to exist those dastardly folks at VW and other manufacturers would find a way around it and then it would theoretically require a new version with the goal of making it more representative.