I own an 'r' reg discovery 300 Tdi. So what I hear you cry.
well now look! on starting and driving it may exhale just a few more fumes than say a younger more agile vehicle..its not my vehicles fault..she is old!

BASICALLY

Vehicles registered before 01 03 01 are not being subjected to the incresed road tax (the older ones!) yet the younger, cleaner ones are !

and the sense in that is..................?

Who said VED level was really anything to do with emissions anyway? - that's just an excuse to create more civil servants jobs (who will then go on to vote for the govt to keep them in power) and for the govt to appear popular because they superficially appear to be being 'green'. I know absolutely no-one who buys a new car depending on whether the tax is £100 a year, or £175 - or whatever the latest figures are!

The only reason we actually pay VED is to keep civil servants in a job. 1p on a litre of fuel will raise just as much money as VED, whilst at the same time making those who use the roads more (and hence cause more road wear, more pollution etc.) pay more, and vice versa. But of course that would mean making lots of people redundant and we can't have that can we.

Matt

Totally agree with you mmaddock.
VED and congestion charging are a con - there is enough tax on fuel as it is and that tax is perfectly fair - the more you drive, the less efficient car you drive, the more you drive on congested roads the more you pay. Unfortunately the govt put it up so much the people revolted so now they have the VED and congestion charge scam - the idea being that most people will believe that its others causing the problems that will get hit the most so will support it - when in fact we will all get hit by it.

Um forgot to add - I did actually buy my S2 V8 as it was first reg 31/12/00 !
No bloody way I'm paying more tax to this thieving punch of Tonys cronies - makes the last lot look positively 'honest' !!!!

I dissagree with some of the above comments. People in the UK dont like other people who seem to be doing better then they are. Now the average new 4x4 is quite expensive and usually driven by well to do types and as such creates jealousy. I have heard nearly every excuse under the sun why they should have huge taxes for them of why they should be banned (one American even related us 4x4 drivers to the anti-christ). Too much fuel, dangerous etc etc. My van uses more fuel than my disco and if you get hit by any 4x4 or transt van doing 40 mph its going to hurt but no one is calling for huge taxes or a ban on transit vans. If you ever get to a green rally then look at how many of the tree hugging brigade are driving 30 years old Citreon 2cv's, 30 year old VW campers and 40 year old buses, compare there emmissions (not there smell) to a new Range Rover. No one is jealous of someone who hasnt had a bath is a year though.
Generelly speaking big engine relates to big expensive car which means you have probably got a bit more money than the rest of us so mr looser Green thinks we are going to screw you.

gmack - sorry, am I missing the point? - can't see what your comments have to do with car tax???

Matt

read it again

your theory of the transit van against the 4x4 is flawed from the start. commercial vehicles fall into a different category, this is due to the weight they can carry. for example, an average transit van can carry 1.5tonnes plus it can tow 2tonnes, makng a total of 3.5 tonnes. plus the volume of load space. to compare this with a 4x4 is completely irrelevant as you would possibly need 2/3 4x4's to carry the same ammount therefore the transit van is a much more eco friendly option than the 4x4 . but by the way, i agree with you about the jealousy thing