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.

dave said:

so its still a tax on the poor then

Click to expand...

No. Poor people typically cannot afford cars.

dave said:

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.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. However how is it supposed to be enforced? The council would need a CCTV camera in every garden and or bin and pay an operator to watch it for taxable "offences".

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

gadge said:

Because they can afford one and it's their money......and maybe they just like range rovers?

Click to expand...

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!

gadge said:

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

Click to expand...

If you listen carefully you can hear the sacrificial lamb baaaaing. I'm sure they were only obeying orders..

Was reading a Reuters story saying they had acknowledged the software could recognise EU and US tests and was active during them.

JimbbobW1977 said:

The Ford Fiesta ST is an excellent hot hatch with low running costs...

Click to expand...

But people buy STs purely to go faster. The point I was making was that if they were so concerned about their emissions, they'd just buy a normal fiesta 1 litre/1.25.

puntofan01 said:

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!

Click to expand...

But what if the 1.8 is more efficient?

306maxi said:

But what if the 1.8 is more efficient?

Click to expand...

Like a Mazda 2.0 Sky Activ???

306maxi said:

But what if the 1.8 is more efficient?

Click to expand...

Like MEP has pointed out several times with his 1.8 Prius you mean !!!!?

Most Easterly Pandas said:

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!

Click to expand...

I have previously explained all these that you mention.

I missed the comment about the BMW i8 yesterday, but it does prove my point rather beautifully: if memory serves correctly, the official mpg for the i8 is something along the lines of 134mpg. However, I remember hearing that the mpg people are actually getting out of them is in the 30s!! Therefore, the real driving emissions of that car are absolutely nothing like the figure which the road tax is based on. Granted, not all are to the same extent as the i8, but the same phenomenon of actual mpg not being comparable to the official figure is widespread throughout all cars designed within the last 5-6 years.

As the actual mpg figures don't match official figures, this must therefore mean that the actual emissions are far higher than the emissions figure which road tax is based on. Thus, why I personally believe that roadtax should be based on engine size.
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.

But the i8 only has a 1.5 litre engine.

puntofan01 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

puntofan01 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Because you are just going around in circles here and killing this thread! Look, I get what your saying and I don't quite agree with it. It worked 20 odd years ago but today as mentioned many (many!) times some bigger cars are more efficient than smaller ones and some cars are old and don't fall into it and some cars don't evn have an engine!! So the rules and regs get more and more in depth . Now this is just my opinion and because I don't really know a lot about car emmisions and the regulations that govern them it means that this small opinion is probably not accurate and therefore others - maybe yourself - will disagree but that's the power of opinions. Let's move on ......please!

StevenRB45 said:

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.

Click to expand...

[sarcasm]

If it was a European wide system (I assume America and other countries would have their own system) you could give it some sort of catchy name like abbreviating European to "Euro" then give it an increasing number each time the standards are updated so euro1 - euro 2 - euro 3, 4, 5, 6 etc

WHY HAS NO ONE THOUGHT OF THIS BEFORE !! Puntofan is clearly a genius:worship:

[/sarcasm]

JimbbobW1977 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

puntofan01 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

306maxi said:

But what if the 1.8 is more efficient?

Click to expand...

Then you'd notice the difference in the fuel bills.

StevenRB45 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with this, but it needs to accurately reflect real world driving.

The current test used to be accurate, but as you identify, all manufacturers have found ways of deceiving it.