And zero-emissions cars paying if the car is worth more than £40k.....which is a value that already has tax paid on it in the first place...
 
Not before time. Its been a totally unfair system up to now, with the better off that can afford brand new low emission cars paying little or nothing.
 
A new car like a golf probably costs about 15 tons of co2 to produce.

My bio powered disco 300 would take about 20years to give the same net gain.

I pay 250/yr tax. A new golf blue motion would probably pay zero tax.
 
julianf said:
A new car like a golf probably costs about 15 tons of co2 to produce.

My bio powered disco 300 would take about 20years to give the same net gain.

I pay 250/yr tax. A new golf blue motion would probably pay zero tax.
Click to expand...
Yes there is a point where making new clean **** has got to be dirtier than fixing old dirty ****!
 
How do you achieve zero emissions over there?

Here is NZ 80% of electricity is hydro or geothermal (with a touch of wind) but any marginal generation comes from coal or gas. So every extra EV plugged into the grid will add to coal or gas consumption - 100% fuelled by dino products.
 
Another example of the government moving the goal-posts. First they persuade drivers to buy low or zero emission cars by offers of zero or very low VED rates, then realise how much revenue they are losing in the process. It's like the tax disc, doing away with it saves a claimed 10 million a year but then the resulting (& totally predictable) surge in non-payers now costs several times as much - thought that one through didn't they o_O
 
norseman said:
Another example of the government moving the goal-posts. First they persuade drivers to buy low or zero emission cars by offers of zero or very low VED rates, then realise how much revenue they are losing in the process. It's like the tax disc, doing away with it saves a claimed 10 million a year but then the resulting (& totally predictable) surge in non-payers now costs several times as much - thought that one through didn't they o_O
Click to expand...
Our current and past Govs don't care about long term. Everything is quick fixes. Nothings built to last. Its always about them in the here and now and damn the next guy. By the time their lies and incompetence comes to light, they have moved on and are seemingly untouchable.
 
Basically I read that from the governments point of view, if you can afford a 40k+ car, you can afford to pay us £310 for five years, for the privelage... money grabbing pricks!
 
Tony Reeves said:
How do you achieve zero emissions over there?

Here is NZ 80% of electricity is hydro or geothermal (with a touch of wind) but any marginal generation comes from coal or gas. So every extra EV plugged into the grid will add to coal or gas consumption - 100% fuelled by dino products.
Click to expand...

We don't!

What is known as zero emissions actually means that the emissions are emitted somewhere other than the exhaust pipe of the vehicle.

We are not lucky enough to have significant hydro, with the exception of a few in Scotland, our rivers are too small and the wrong kind.

Generation mix is variable over time. But broadly speaking, still quite a bit of fossil fuels, a lot of nuclear power, either generated here or bought from France. Onshore and offshore wind, solar parks, little bit of hydro.
 
Personally , I say tax should be paid on actual emissions over a year. For example my L322 puts out approx 3x my friends Megane. I do 2000 miles pa approx, she does 20000 approx. Therefore she puts out around 3x more gunk than I do. So if the issue is emissions, all veh owners should have to show MOT, or other proof of mileage for new cars, and be taxed according to predicted emmissions based on usual mileage. If for some reason noticably more or less miles have been done by next renewal, refund or higher charge should be applied for that period. Simples :)
 
Beneagles said:
And extremely expensive to administer :)
Click to expand...
Not any more so than any other system , once it's set up. Some maths genius gets paid to work it out, makes a chart, which is referred to when paying. Random audits to catch out those who commit fraud. Yes there will be people who lie or don't pay but we already have those. I know it's a pipe dream but I live in the hope of a fairer world, including those who drive vehs bigger than Noddy's ;)
 
Any variable amount system has to be dearer to administer than a simple fixed amount one.
The only mileage-based system that would be economic to administer is to scrap Road Tax as such and increase fuel duty...and that has been resisted for the last 40 years
 
i agree. my megane is 30 a year and the mrs does hundreds of miles a week. my 90 didn't do 400 miles this year but I pay through the nose... scrap the road tax and dare I say it add it onto fuel....
gold rover said:
Personally , I say tax should be paid on actual emissions over a year. For example my L322 puts out approx 3x my friends Megane. I do 2000 miles pa approx, she does 20000 approx. Therefore she puts out around 3x more gunk than I do. So if the issue is emissions, all veh owners should have to show MOT, or other proof of mileage for new cars, and be taxed according to predicted emmissions based on usual mileage. If for some reason noticably more or less miles have been done by next renewal, refund or higher charge should be applied for that period. Simples :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Buying advice
Replies
7
Views
999
new to all this
new to all this
N
New road tax announcement
Replies
9
Views
1K
neilcmusic
N
hd3
Why Injectors Fail and ..
Replies
5
Views
4K
hd3
hd3
N
Impending doom of Road tax on a 2001 TD4
Replies
19
Views
8K
chromiumuk
chromiumuk
A
1997 DSE Manual Diesel
Replies
2
Views
2K
aerofabrique
A