|
This is not a VED threat - the report claims that a £2k tax is to be levied as a "showroom tax" on new cars - 2k is what would be levied on "gas guzzlers" - a dreadful American phrase.
Edited by Pugugly on 09/03/2008 at 12:24
|
>Don't politicians love the climate change stuff to hit ordinary people>
And they seem forget that they've sent fleets of gas guzzling tanks, planes and ships to fight 2 foreign wars without a thought about their contribution to climate change.......
|
....as well as give the go-ahead to new airport runways.
Hypocrites who beggar belief.
|
Bill Payer, I'd love to be a MP, or better still a MEP, they have a grand life. They can travel all over the World, first class, at our expence. Fantastic wages, expenses and like you say, pensions to dream of. Not even much work to do.
But the big trouble is that I am unelectable. I am far too abrupt and direct, I don't think I could change either, people would not vote for me.
I'll just have to pay my own way, cheap old car and sit at the back of the Easyjet/Ryanair/BMIbaby plane.
|
Bill Payer I'd love to be a MP But the big trouble is that I am unelectable. I am far too abrupt and direct I don't think I could change either people would not vote for me.
Definately unelectable, if you could polish up the sickly smile, start kissing other peoples horrible babies, and be able to look the camera straight in the lens whilst telling the most amazing whoppers you'd be in like a shot.
You have to look straight into camera, as a profile will reveal how long your snout is, if its a good one you may be able to get deeper in the trough than those already there, so no chance.
I really like politicians. Thats another porkie.
|
|
Whilst there is a very, very slender link to motoring - can we get back to talking about the OP's question and its implication on the motor industry and car buyers per chance ?
|
Whilst there is a very very slender link to motoring - can we get back to talking about the OP's question and its implication on the motor industry and car buyers per chance ?
As the OP my point is just how out of touch are these imbeciles to think that the only consideration for most of us when purchasing a car is the screen price? The idiot that has enraged me suggested in all seriousness that the public when choosing a new car is NOT interested in car tax or fuel consumption levels, just the screen price - pink fluffy dice???
Just goes to show that these clowns have never done a proper days work outside of their ivory towers ever!!
And why did the moderator change the heading of this post; are we that scared about offending people here??
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 09/03/2008 at 18:29
|
"subject line changed to reflect discussion"
That was the reason - it could have been any old rant otherwise. There's no problem with the post, its just the endless and tiresome complaining about politicians. Let's talk about the issue in hand though....
|
me and my mate met a lad in a bar in brussels (as you do) got chatting, lots of drink had by all, made friends, we put the world to rights, chatted about anything and everything, and towards the end we were talking about our respective jobs, er guess what he tuned out to be an MEP (it was true i checked later), nice guy though really, and he picked up the nights tab on his expenses
best use of my taxes ive ever seen
|
|
They are actually completely correct in saying that running costs are not relevant when chosing something like a car. How many people work out the depreciation hit over the expected usage of the car?
It may be that for people on here with an interest it is, and for those with a high mileage, but most people take no notice whatsoever of any ongoing costs.
By way of example the £400 VED charge has apparently had simply no impact upon the number of such vehicles bought. Similarly the increase in fuel costs has had an impact upon the private motoring of virtually no one.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 09/03/2008 at 18:29
|
How many people work out the depreciation hit over the expected usage of the car?
By way of example the £400 VED charge has apparently had simply no impact upon the number of such vehicles bought. Similarly the increase in fuel costs has had an impact upon the private motoring of virtually no one.
I agree about depreciation, many people don't seem to consider this, but you are totally wrong about the other points. The first owners of a £400 VED charge car might not be too deterred from purchasing a car, but the 3rd/4th owners will be deterred (which will further the depreciation). I don't understand what you mean when you say 'the increase in fuel costs has had an impact upon the private motoring of virtually no one'. It certainly has; perhaps you only associate with very wealthy people, but as someone who makes a living from trading cars, I can safely say the public is very conscious of fuel and running costs.
|
With respect the initial post was about the imposition of a £2,000 charge on new cars, and how many 3rd or 4th owner cars have you had through your establishment with a £400 VED?
You are also confusing what people say and what they actually do. People are told that they should be concerned about the high price of fuel so they are. Paradoxically that has no impact upon how they actually behave.
For example my MIL, who is entitled to pension credits, so is probably poor (rather than wealthy let alone very wealthy) constantly complains about the price of gas, and worries about how she will afford it. Is her heating on constantly and at too high a temperature (absolutely). In fact she claims that our house is too hot for her, even though the real temperature is about 5C lower.
|
ZM i agree with you, i have started to look for a used 3.0 legacy saloon, and i have set my sights on a 05 or 55 plate with as low mileage as poss (in fact just missed a 22k 'er and disappointed). Might just be tempted into a S60 R if i can find the right one though.
This will probably be my last decent engined (band G) car and i want to get as new as poss, but i absolutely will not pay the £400 ved, so count me as one who has changed their purchase plans, 06 and later ruled out.
Don't suppose i'm the only one either, so i agree expect a very steep depreciation curve for band G regd after March 06.
Do you know if mother nature could talk, she'd be laughing hysterically at the insect like human ego that thinks anything we could do would have the slightest effect if she decides to go ballistic.
|
With respect the initial post was about the imposition of a £2 000 charge on new cars and how many 3rd or 4th owner cars have you had through your establishment with a £400 VED?
I have not yet had any £400 VED cars through, but over the last ten years, I have had dozens of big engined Mercs, BMW's, Jags in the 7 - 14 year old age group. Whilst such cars have sold as 2nd cars to enthusiasts and as family transport to those who are 'prepared to have a go', they have always been slower sellers than 'bread & butter' cars, but I have enjoyed having them around. When the current crop £400 VED cars fall in to this price bracket, it is quite simple what will happen; the big Mercs/BMW's and Jag saloons will not find buyers at all. The only ones that will find end users and enjoy stable values are real exotica like Porsche 911's, Ferrari's, Aston's some AMG and M series models.
It is almost certain that we will see 9 year old examples of 7 series, Audi A8, S-Class Mercs etc available at prices even lower than available now, quite possibly under £1000. This will also include many Jaguar models (that'll really help the UK motor industry won't it?). The rich are not stupid and I reckon that many of them could in a few more years change their car buying habits rather than endure the kind of deprecation that will be inevitable.
|
many of them could in a few more years change their car buying habits rather than endure the kind of deprecation that will be inevitable
zm : So in your own words then, you are now agreeing that this proposal by the "halfwit of the week" will actually work!
Edited by jbif on 09/03/2008 at 19:15
|
sqzm : So in your own words then you are now agreeing that this proposal by the "halfwit of the week" will actually work!
I don't understand your point?
Edited by Pugugly on 09/03/2008 at 19:43
|
|
|
|
What's half-witted to me is to charge a very high VED regardless of whether I use my hypothetical Range Rover V8 for 2 000 miles or 30 000 miles a year.
IMHO it does make sense. If you buy a Range Rover V8 and never drive it there is still a huge environmental impact.
|
zm, you realise some fairly ordinary family cars fall into the 400 quid bracket due to having an auto gearbox?
there really ought to be some allowance for folk with dodgy left knees etc, its sure better for the environment for them to drive an auto than the alternates
|
|
I reckon the industry will respond quickly and we'll see a lot of these 'marginal' Band G cars (like family size autos) pulled down into Band F through engineering changes.
|
some of my friends have and are getting toyota prius as company cars
very cheap tax wise for a company car driver
however i dont really think its good for the environment in the round when the pollution from the battery production/disposal is taken into account etc
just an extreme example but the way things are going we are going to see more nonsense like this
|
Market for old 7-Series is already very low - VED of £400 vs £200 won't really change that, nor would depreciation over nine years to £1k instead of £3k (compared to the £15k+ cost in the first year alone it's chicken feed). Anyone who is that worried will simply buy the diesel anyway.
More likely they'll go east or south for export where they'll be less well maintained and the environmental impact will be greater.
Edited by DavidHM on 09/03/2008 at 22:06
|
|
|
however i dont really think its good for the environment in the round when the pollution from the battery production/disposal is taken into account etc
You may think that, but fortunately you're wrong.
|
|
|
|
This has already happened at the other end with marginal software changes that have allowed cars to drop a band.
|
I dont mind this tax aslong as its only on new cars, so I wont then buy one and ill wait a few years till they are cheap - thing is, if these £400 VED cars get cheaper than more economical models then overall they could work out cheaper to run - if they really want to change peoples buying habits they have to attack these cars from every angle - this one prong approach is why nobody takes notice and the sad fact is they are running our transport and taxation systems yet are really dumb enough to think half measures will work.
|
£400 VED is of course temporary : a step to £2000.
|
|
|
|
|
If anyone wants a large, clean automatic, they can get any of the Toyota/Lexus hybrids like the Prius - they're all inherently automatic.
|
If anyone wants a large clean automatic they can get any of the Toyota/Lexus hybrids like the Prius - they're all inherently automatic.
i think the 'pushing' of the Prius as being environmentally acceptable is immoral. If you mostly do inner city driving, then maybe...but if you don't then that means you're using the petrol engine considerably more than the electric and it's not an overly efficient engine. If you did more A road/dual carriageway/motorway work than inner city then you'd be better off with an efficient modern diesel for economy reaons...but you don't get tax discounts or congestion tax exemptions for them do you.
one more thing the Prius is a dog to drive...(well the 06 plate i drove was, unless the brand new ones have improved).
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bulk of congestion and emissions are in my view caused by unnecessary journey and excessively long commutes - I can scarcely believe how far some of my colleagues travel
>>
I work for a company that highlights this phenomenon to the fullest. Trouble is, people do these commutes because it isn't worth moving if you are likely to be made redundant every 18 months or so, as is the case in my industry. In fact some of the distances you name are not very far compared to many of my colleagues.
|
Trouble is people do these commutes because it isn't worth moving if you are likely to be made redundant every 18 months or so as is the case in my industry.
The payback period is now much longer than 18 months if you have a decent house due to the increase in stamp duty. I've just finished a 120-mile each way commute for three years.
I'd have no problem with stamp duty levied on the rise in house value, but a flat tax on relocating to where the work is forces me to commute instead.
|
I've just finished a 120-mile each way commute for three years
IMO - that is lunacy. But it is a free country and people will continue to do so, until the price/cost of driving is jacked up to un-affordable levels by a combination of China/India and the Oil Nations and the Politicians.
That is 240 miles a day, @40p/mile = say roughly £100 day not taking account of the physical and mental strain due to the commute. Worth renting a local flat or house and letting your own property. Or consider staying in a Hotel for a few nights every week.
|
how do people who work in expensive areas, but don't earn enough to buy property there, manage without commuting?
some of my staff work in N London and live in Cambdridgeshire. My wife, a school teacher has colleagues who live equally far way.
Nurses, teachers, postmen, utility workers etc, etc...all needed in London, but none can afford housing in my area.
|
Nurses, teachers, postmen, utility workers etc, etc...all needed in London, but none can afford housing in my area.
Clearly the market is working is these people can afford to travel even though they earn minimal wages. If the cost of travel was prohibitive for them yet their services were essential for the well being of society, then the employers or society would be forced find a way to house them.
There are many possible solutions, including the present Govt's idea of providing "affordable housing for key workers". The aim was to force developers to include such housing in where planning applications were made for 13 (or so, IIRC) or more "normal price" units. Result, most developers limit new build applications to units which are just below that magic number.
Some possible solutions - take the Communist approach, or leave the EU and change the law to allow the Govt to force employers to recruit from a local pool of labour- starting with District/Borough, then County, then wider Region, then Country (i.e. England, Wales, etc.), then UK, then EU, then Commonwealth, then Rest-of-the-world. Even then, make it a condition of employment for the employee to live within 5 miles of work. Or as in China, Employer to provide housing - as used to be the case in the past in the UK in some industries (look up history of old Trafford Park industries to see evidence). Incidentally, I know it has been a condition of planning permission on many large scale projects that the developer has to train and provide employment to "locally living" people as the first source of labour. Only where that can be shown not to be possible, then "outside" recruitment is allowed but again on the understanding that they will be encouraged to live locally.
|
|
|
|
|
