I was so relieved this morning when I read my home page that Gordon Brown is finally listening to us - at long last things will change and get better.
""Cabinet colleagues insist the Prime Minister is "listening" to anger over the planned increase in vehicle excise duty on higher-polluting vehicles expected to hit nearly 18 million people.""
I see farmers are still raising pink flying pigs - one just flew past again.
|
|
Mmmm - he's been "listening" for 10 years now... but not hearing.....
|
tinyurl.com/47lmzg
Last nights Newsnight - go to 7min 15sec in the programme and watch Phil Woolas. Come back and explain what he actually says!
|
Eh!! He certainly lost me. Do you think he knew how ridiculous he sounded.
Followed by a 'balanced' report from that representative group known as 'Friends of the Earth'. How do such minority groups get such prominence. I never see pro-motorist groups given such air time.
|
I hear on the news that El Gordo and not now Darling are off to see oil company bosses this morning. It's worrying that Brown doesn't seem to understand much. Last week he was complaining that it was a "scandal" that over 40% of the world's oil supplies is controlled by the OPEC nations. But the oil is in the ground where the oil is in the ground.
I know I keep banging on about speculation and it's influence on oil prices but when the price for delivery in 2016 is being driven up, how is pumping more oil now in 2008 going to help?
(madf: where are you?)
I don't think anything will happen on VED. Vince Cable said this morning that no decisions should be taken before the autumn. And at that point they'll maybe hold up on the 2p per litre duty rise.
And the more I think about it, the less I see a problem in the VED. It's (allegedly at least) a tax on pollution. So if a new car and an older car both pollute the same, why not charge them the same VED?
|
... VED ..... a tax on pollution
If that was the case, then Brown and Darling would not be going around asking for an increase in oil production, just so that more of that black stuff could be burnt off even more cheaply.
|
You cynic, jbif!
But if we lose a grasp on the truth, let's hold on to a bit of logic no matter how irritating the consequence.
If a 5 year old car emits the same pollution levels as a new car, they should pay the same vehicle emissions duty.
|
let's hold on to a bit of logic
the pollution is more or less proportional to the fuel used and only produced when the car is used
if pollution punishment is the aim a fixed cost VED makes no sense
it should be on fuel alone
(ducks for cover)
|
|
Logically then the parent's of a five year old should get child allowance difference from five years ago and today back dated to them - sounds good to me - we could also back date today alcohol rates to 2003 - we could pay a one off payment according to what government decides we may have drunk during those years - Logic that's what we want.
|
Er, no. But the drink analogy is a good one.
I don't know what the duty on a bottle of scotch is but whether you buy a bottle of 50+ year old Glen Gordonbrown (the best to be had) or a bottle of Glen Owenbrand (aged for well over three quarters of an hour) the duty is the same.
If you'd bought the Glen Gordonbrown some years ago, the duty, though less, would have been the same as a then scotch of less good quality.
Same with the VED. It's now that counts, not the date of acquisition or manufacture.
|
|
And the more I think about it the less I see a problem in the VED. It's (allegedly at least) a tax on pollution. So if a new car and an older car both pollute the same why not charge them the same VED?
It's claimed to be a tax to reduce pollution - and putting an extra charge on cars already on the road will have absolutely no effect in that direction.
|
It will if it forces those older cars off the road... though I accept the "new build pollution" argument - though they've done that one off purchasse tax on them - I can't see that someone who has the money to shell out 50 grand on a new car will be all that bothered on paying a few grand more - if they want a new car they'll get it anyhow!
As a "pollution" tax, if thats really what they are trying to do, then making high polluters pay more through VED sends a much clearer message than adding it all onto fuel duty - a once a year big hit is much more noticable than 1p on a litre....
Edited by b308 on 28/05/2008 at 16:36
|
making high polluters pay more through VED sends a much clearer message than adding it all onto fuel duty - a once a year big hit is much more noticable than 1p on a litre....
but much less equitable
not sure I agree anyway high fuel costs may make people rethink individual journeys,
if the VED is paid for the year I might as well use the car anyway, no incentive not to
Edited by commerdriver on 28/05/2008 at 16:46
|
not sure I agree anyway high fuel costs may make people rethink individual journeys if the VED is paid for the year I might as well use the car anyway no incentive not to
My understanding is that if VED was abolished it would only mean a 1 or2p raise in fuel duty - if thats correct then most people would not notice the increase at all...
|
but at least the people who polluted most would be paying most
all playing with VED will really do is distort the s/h car market for larger cars and lead to them being scrapped earlier as unsaleable. If I have the money to buy a new range rover etc I will not be bothered by high VED.
|
"all playing with VED will really do is distort the s/h car market for larger cars and lead to them being scrapped earlier "
Which I suspect is the idea - those people who when buying their next s/h car "thought" that the only car that suited their needs is a large gas guzzler will actually realise that they can get by with something smaller - no bad thing in my book....
|
|
Two phrases I'm really getting sick of are 'credit crunch' and 'gas guzzler'. Is it only me?
|
Two phrases I'm really getting sick of are 'credit crunch' and 'gas guzzler'. Is it only me?
>>
no, particularly the second one.
what irritates is some young hot shot in a chavved 1.4 driving with diver's boots on, can be consuming as much, if not more fuel than the old boy in his 2 litre+ driving it carefully...they all consume fuel
the other thing is it's another Americanism that has crept in...we don't use 'gas' over here, we use petrol
|
Ok what do we call something heavy on fuel in the uk, then?! ;)
btw I use diesel!
Edited by b308 on 28/05/2008 at 20:48
|
Who defines 'heavy'?
Good Q, I'm not sure - I suppose from a personal point of view I'd say that anything that averages less than 30mpg "in normal use" has heavy fuel consumption... what do others think?
|
heavy fuel usage to me is the amount used over a period of time, not what each individual car could do mpg wise
e.g. larger car used sparingly versus small car used greatly and unnecessarily
if someone owning a small car uses it for unnecessary journeys or in circumstances public transport makes a great deal of sense as an alternative..then they're 'guzzling gas' are they not?
|
Ok what do we call something heavy on fuel in the uk then?! ;) btw I use diesel!
I use petrol, and I fill up at a petrol station. Where do you get your diesel?
|
I use petrol and I fill up at a petrol station. Where do you get your diesel?
At a garage or a service station.... :)
|
At a garage or a service station.... :)
Isn't "service station" an Americanism?
And doesn't the British meaning of "garage" refer to that place in the home where people store their junk?
images.google.co.uk/images?um=1&hl=en&q=garage&btn...s
images.google.co.uk/images?um=1&hl=en&q=petrol+sta...s
images.google.co.uk/images?um=1&hl=en&q=service+st...s
|
the other thing is it's another Americanism that has crept in...we don't use 'gas' overhere we use petrol
And I drive to the Shop and NOT the store.
MD
|
A popular English-US dictionary written by a colleague:
The motoring section is here: www.effingpot.com/motoring.shtml
Kevin...
|
My understanding is that if VED was abolished it would only mean a 1 or2p raise in fuel duty ..........
12000 miles per year at 30 mpg (or 6.6 m/litre) = 1818 litres, so an extra 2p/litre would only be £36.
|
Point being made, Mr Snail, is that most people wouldn't notice the rise, even if it were as high as 5p, after the recent price hikes - all I was saying is that a yearly "big hit" is much more effective at concentraiting peoples minds!
BTW I've used "garage" for my local filling station (there's another!) since I was a kid back in the 60s!
Edited by b308 on 29/05/2008 at 09:55
|
|
The point I was making was that it would need a much greater rise in fuel duty than 2p/litre (probably 20p/litre or perhaps even more) to generate enough to compensate for abolishing VED.
|
12000 miles per year at 30 mpg (or 6.6 m/litre) = 1818 litres so an extra 2p/litre would only be £36.
That brings up another couple of interesting points.
1) I do 8000 miles a year or less. This means that my car - in band M, a terrible satanic baby-eating machine according to the government - which does about 300 miles to a 57 litre fill up, uses 1500 litres a year. 20% less than the average (an average what's more suggested by someone who is being staunchly anti-'gas guzzler' in this thread. I wouldn't want to appear biased). What a murderous swine I truly am.
2) Were Darling to wish to put my tax burden in to the fuel instead, if he wished to rip me off to an equivalent degree, he would have to put up the price of my petrol by 28p a litre. I can't imagine why I feel this is unfair.
|
|
It will if it forces those older cars off the road...
Rubbish. We're talking about cars which are 7 or 8 years old. By forcing them off the road you're probably halving their useful life. Ridiculous to claim that is good for the environment.
And I wasn't suggesting that the owner will go straight out and buy a new car, but somewhere along the line of purchases a car will have to be built to replace it.
If this is a tax to stop pollution, then it has no business being applied to old cars.
If this is a tax ON pollution, then it's a terribly elitist measure. You're allowed to pollute as long as you're rich? And of course, if it's NOT meant to reduce pollution, then once again they're lying to us about it being a green tax.
|
This arguing about 2p here and 200 pounds there is doing exactly what the govt wants.
They must be loving the bickering thats going on, instead of us being united in a universal motorists condemnation of a totally unjust and uncalled for retrospective (there i've said it again) massive ved rise, we have the old story of people only looking at their own position in this, and not looking at the whole picture.
01 to 06 higher co2 band vehicle owner, whether by choice or need will be against the rise, low co2 vehicle owner will have made a gain possibly (for a short while till the gov loses the larger car contributions, and then brings in road pricing), and will be feeling rather pleased with themselves, which is quite evident from the views here.
In other words ''i'm alright jack''
Similarly, low mileage driver will want the backdated ved increases to be scrapped and put increase on the fuel, high mileage driver will want the other, its only natural.
We are playing into the gov ploy of divide and separate, for some reason as a nation its something we're good at.
Again i get the feeling that people think things will be better after the next election, how so? , there's not a scrap of difference between the 3 main parties.
|
I see your point Gordon.
I would certainly feel as I do regardless of whether I was effected by it personally.
I have to admit, I probably wouldn't have gone to the lengths I have to complain though.
|
I have to admit I probably wouldn't have gone to the lengths I have to complain though.
I've got a feeling you would BB, there comes a point when the straw breaks etc.
The way you write, which i am extrememy envious of, tells me the principles involved are important to you, IMO there are still a lot of us left.
By we i refer to the vast majority of us, who go to work and try hard to do the right thing and live our lives in a decent and civilised way, and are systematically being screwed further into the ground year on year.
It doesn't affect me as we have an older car and a new pick up, (we all know the older cars are next, the pick up has had the vat already paid, not that the fact will make a scrap of difference), but as we all know its only a matter of time before we all get ripped off by the govt of the day in one way or the other, if not with ved then something else.
This is not a political rant at any one party, the 3 stooges are all the same, screwing down hard working people, whilst voting themselves huge rises, huge pensions paid for by us, and fiddling expenses as much as possible, they shame us.
(if the mods feel they have to delete that sentence, please wipe the whole post, as it is part of my point)
|
I'm not convinced that it will need to be as high as you say, L'Esc!
>> It will if it forces those older cars off the road... Rubbish. We're talking about cars which are 7 or 8 years old. By forcing them off the road you're probably halving their useful life. Ridiculous to claim that is good for the environment.
I didn't - but they "say" they are trying to get people to use less polluting cars - the measure would do that - but as you say, at the cost of the pollution caused by the building of new ones... which would have been built anyhow???
If this is a tax to stop pollution then it has no business being applied to old cars.
Even if they intend to use it as a rod to force people to get rid of older, more polluting cars?
If this is a tax ON pollution then it's a terribly elitist measure. You're allowed to pollute as long as you're rich?
Thats always been the case - the more polluting cars have always been driven by the rich... initially... the difference if they continue with this policy is those rich will suddenly find that there is no market for their large polluting cars as no-one will want to buy them as the running costs will be too high - that should, in theory, force them to buy less polluting cars in the first place... the supposed intention of the tax in the first place.
As you will have gathered I'm not convinced that tax only on fuel will do what they want, reduce the number of higher polluting cars, history has proved that no matter how high the cost of fuel goes people still buy and run them - but I recon a high annual tax would...
That doesn't mean to say I support it, its just that I can see the logic...
Quite honestly they have now backed themselves into hole - they have continually plugged this as a "green" tax - if they now do a U turn it will be seen for what the majority of people think it is - a money raising tax with absolutely nothing to do with green matters - which would then make the current VED set up a total farce.... forcing them into a corner for that sake of a few large cars that get really hammered may not be the best thing for all of us in the long run....
|
I'm not convinced that it will need to be as high as you say L'Esc!
Why not? You came up with the 30mpg figure, everything else there is perfectly transparent maths.
I didn't - but they "say" they are trying to get people to use less polluting cars - the measure would do that - but as you say at the cost of the pollution caused by the building of new ones... which would have been built anyhow???
Would they have been built anyway? If person A doesn't scrap his car, he doesn't buy the car of B, who doesn't buy the car of C - all the way up to person Z, who doesn't buy a car new from the showroom. There are a finite number of people driving cars on our roads, and they can only drive one at a time each. If they're not getting rid of their old one, then they're not buying a new one to replace it.
>> If this is a tax to stop pollution then it has no business being applied >> to old cars. Even if they intend to use it as a rod to force people to get rid of older more polluting cars?
Once again, we're not talking about ancient bangers trailing plumes of black smoke (irnonically, they're unaffected, and can continue on their merry way!) we're talking about mechanically sound cars whioch could carry on being used and avoiding the huge environmental costs of disposal and replacement for many years.
We've digressed on to the fuel tax issue again. That's a totally different argument.
Once more, it comes back to this point:
Tell me how applying this tax to cars already on the road will help the environment?
That is the only relevant point - and you can't, because it won't. You've attempted it, and even by ignoring the disposal and replacement costs, and attempting to suggest that a 7 year old car is a banger on it's last legs, choking all those it passes, you still haven't come up with anything that comes close to suggesting a real benefit.
I can't even imagine why you're so stubbornly supporting a tax which is clearly, on every level, unfair and introduced with a tissue of lies as the only supporting reason. You don't work for the treasury do you? ;)
Edited by BazzaBear {P} on 29/05/2008 at 11:38
|
You came up with the 30mpg figure everything else there is perfectly transparentmaths.
I suggested it - are you agreeing with it 'cause it suits you then? Care to show me the maths? Actually fuel tax will rise eventually as revenue from VED goes doown as more people buy lower band cars and the other cars are scrapped
Tell me how applying this tax to cars already on the road will help the environment? That is the only relevant point - and you can't because it won't. You've attempted it and even by ignoring the disposal and replacement costs and attempting to suggest that a 7 year old car is a banger on it's last legs choking all those it passes you still haven't come up with anything that comes close to suggesting a real benefit.
I did nothing of the kind - I suggested that people are always buying cars, so there is a constant turnover - that suggests that if you want rid of a certain group of cars which you feel would benefit the environment by being rid of them then taxing them heavily, both new and old versions, is a way of reducing their numbers...
I can't even imagine why you're so stubbornly supporting a tax which is clearly on every level unfair and introduced with a tissue of lies as the only supporting reason.
I'm not, I'm suggesting that it is a perfectly logical way of going about reducing pollution from cars, I didn't say one way or the other whether i supported it, just put an alternative point of view which you are then ranting and raving at me about - tbh if we are to reduce polution then it seems a better way of doing it than increasing fuel tax, but thats just my opinion...
You don't work for the treasury do you? ;)
No
Edited by b308 on 29/05/2008 at 12:10
|
... perfectly logical way of going about reducing pollution from cars
As I keep repeating, if the intention is to do this for the good of the planet, then the policy needs to be applied across the whole world. A global harmonised approach to fuel and VED taxes is the only way forward.
At last somebody else writing in a major newspaper seems to agree with me:
tinyurl.com/5erj5u
".... Mr Brown is absolutely right to say that energy pricing is a global issue demanding global solutions, .... If Mr Brown were .... to propose such a policy at the European level as an important step in both environmental and tax co-operation. Given the present anxiety about oil dependence, he would receive a sympathetic hearing from other European leaders.
If the EU were to adopt a policy of steadily escalating petrol prices, the new US Administration would probably follow suit, especially as energy taxes are seen by many American economists as a better weapon than carbon trading in the battle against global warming. In time, even China might adopt similar measures, since it would not want to be left behind technologically, as American, European and Japanese industries and transport systems adapted to the certainty of steadily escalating oil taxes and petrol prices. .."
Also worth reading, today's Telegraph:
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinio...l
"... All the signs are that we have reached the foothills of global oil peak ? the moment production flattens and then goes into terminal decline. The facts are stark: the amount discovered has been falling for 40 years; for every barrel we find each year, we now guzzle three; output is already falling in over 60 of the world's 98 oil producing countries; and global production has been essentially flat, at just under 86 million barrels a day, since early 2005; serious analysts now forecast $200 per barrel. What is it that Gordon doesn't get?
Or perhaps he gets it perfectly well. Because the alternative to praying for some improbable boost to the oil supply is to get serious about cutting demand, and no politician, least of all Gordon Brown, is eager to do that. "
Edited by jbif on 29/05/2008 at 12:44
|
|
What is the matter with everyone - all arguing about whether the tax should be on this or that. The tax should be halved at least - it's not a green tax- that is the excuse the gov has jumped on just to raise taxes to grab in money by any means possible to help them out of the mess they have made of this country. Fuel as such is cheap it's the tax that is crippling us - do they spend it all on roads and transport infrastructure - I fear not ! - just for a bit of fun if everyone sat down and worked out if they had no company car or no mileage allowance and half of the pay they were on now could you afford it - if you did that then welcome to pensionable age or low pay - I feel too many posters are buffered from real cost at moment.
|
Table 6-12 on this page
tinyurl.com/5u4yfd
shows you what the tax is in the USA, state by state. Note: it is raised per gallon.
|
Fuel as such is cheap it's the tax that is crippling us >>
Absolutely right. When you hear Brown saying that it's a priority to get more oil pumped while studiously ignoring the ludicrous level of tax, you know we've got no chance. Add to that he seems to have increased some of the taxes on North Sea oil in 2005 so reducing the incentive to go and find it.
He is allegedly very clever. I think he regards your average voter as thick: too stupid to see through his 10p and VED fiddling.
Too political, I know, but politics is what hits you on an everyday basis.
|
I suggested it - are you agreeing with it 'cause it suits you then?
I've used it because how can it be proved better than to use a figure someone on the other side of the argument provided?
It is accepted that 12,000 miles is average mileage, the rest of was L'Escargot said is irrefutable.
using 30mpg and an average of 12,000 miles, 2p per litre would gain £36. You don't like 30mpg? Make the limit 60mpg, it would still only gain £72.
It's clear and unarguable. But then so are the other points that you're arguing against in my opinion.
I did nothing of the kind - I suggested that people are always buying cars so there is a constant turnover - that suggests that if you want rid of a certain group of cars which you feel would benefit the environment by being rid of them then taxing them heavily both new and old versions is a way of reducing their numbers...
Again conveniently ignoring the massive environmental cost of scrapping cars in the middle or their useful life - or sooner.
You might almost think that the sensible GREEN way of reducing their numbers would be to just heavily tax the new ones. That way you're not creating that environmental disaster, but you are encouraging manufacturers and new buyers to go down the more environmental route. Incidentally this is exactly what the politicians claimed they were doing.
Even the people perpetrating this don't believe the rhetoric you are using - otherwise why didn't they make the claim themselves? It's money. That is the one and only pure reason why they have done this.
I'm not I'm suggesting that it is a perfectly logical way of going about reducing pollution from cars I didn't say one way or the other whether i supported it just put an alternative point of view which you are then ranting and raving at me about - tbh if we are to reduce polution then it seems a better way of doing it than increasing fuel tax but thats just my opinion...
I'm not talking about the fuel tax as an alternative - the point is that it shouldn't be done full stop, regardless of there being an alternative.
It is not logical, because it doesn't reduce pollution, it creates more pollution in one situation (scrapping) while making no difference to pollution in the other (not scrapping).
I am not ranting and raving, I am putting forward absoilute facts which show the immorality and irrelevancy of applying these changes to existing cars - which you are again and again completely ignoring and coming out with the same already disproven statement again and again.
Unless you come up with something new, I think I will stop bothering. You are entrenched in a belief, and ignoring any fact which helps to disprove it. What then is the point in displaying facts to you?
I do feel strongly about this - not because of the money. In the great scheme of things £230 a year is a difference I will ahrdly notice. I fee strongly because this is an insult. This is an utter lie, and they haven't even had the decency to make a real attempt to disguise it. The government has finally become arrogant enough to do something where their stated reasons for their actions, with very little effort, can be seen to be absolute and total poppycock. They have no remaining respect for their voters.
We're being lied to, and in a way which shows total disdain - who cares if we find out anyway? What can we do? Maybe they'll find out.
|
"It is accepted that 12,000 miles is average mileage, the rest of was L'Escargot said is irrefutable.
using 30mpg and an average of 12,000 miles, 2p per litre would gain £36. You don't like 30mpg? Make the limit 60mpg, it would still only gain £72."
In fact, I've worked that out the wrong way. If you apply a stricter limit then the amount gained in a hypothetical fuel tax if you class that limnit as an average becomes even less.
If you're saying 30mpg is the limit for a gas guzzler, then what is an average car? We're talking 20p+ a litre difference in price to even out with VED. I think people might notice!
|
I'm not convinced that it will need to be as high as you say L'Esc!
I do 10,000 miles per year at 8.1 miles per litre = 1234 litres per year. My VED this year will be £210, so for the government to get that £210 from me via petrol tax it would require the petrol tax to rise by 21000 pence divided by 1234 litres = 17 pence per litre. Work out how much the petrol tax would need to rise by for the government to get an amount equivalent to your VED.
Edited by L'escargot on 29/05/2008 at 16:22
|
I don't want it on fuel - as I'm one of the many that actually bought a car in bands B and C why on earth would I want to encourage something that would increase my bills?
Several of you have quoted me as if I have stated things as fact - I haven't - I've suggested things, even putting a ? after it to show you!
Its obvious BB that you do feel strongly - I don't - I would though if it went on fuel - as I have said before I read the signs right in 2001, you chose to ignore them, so please stop getting at me because of your own actions.
I'm not a greeny, but I can see a logic in an argument which says that we (the human race) has to start somewhere and if that means us in the UK using more fuel efficient cars that are less polluting to start the ball rolling then so be it...
The only people who would argue against that are those with a vested interest... owners of a large polluting car, perhaps...
Edited by b308 on 29/05/2008 at 17:24
|
If you do even an average mileage in more economical than average car you should gain from it being on fuel. Wanting to continue an unfair system because you would lose is a bit selfish.
There are always winners and losers, I don't know whether I would win or lose but I would still rather see something which is fairer which is putting it on fuel used.
|
Wanting to continue an unfair system because you would lose is a bit selfish.
A system that is only unfair if you are the one losing out?
|
b308, you said ?My understanding is that if VED was abolished it would only mean a 1 or2p raise in fuel duty ???.?
I said ?The point I was making was that it would need a much greater rise in fuel duty than 2p/litre (probably 20p/litre or perhaps even more) to generate enough to compensate for abolishing VED.?
b308, you said ?I'm not convinced that it will need to be as high as you say, L'Esc!?
I said ?I do 10,000 miles per year at 8.1 miles per litre = 1234 litres per year. My VED this year will be £210, so for the government to get that £210 from me via petrol tax it would require the petrol tax to rise by 21000 pence divided by 1234 litres = 17 pence per litre. Work out how much the petrol tax would need to rise by for the government to get an amount equivalent to your VED.?
b308, you do your own maths.
|
I've never done the maths side, L'Es, I've left that to you... I'd suggest that you need to forget individual examples, though, do you know exactly how much is raised by VED and how many litres/gallons of fuel is sold each year in the UK - then we could have a true figure of just how much extra it would cost?
Many of you have suggested fuel tax, but no-one has come up with a definitive figure - except my "suggestion" which L'Es has proved is well too low...
Edited by b308 on 29/05/2008 at 17:49
|
Its obvious BB that you do feel strongly - I don't - I would though if it went on fuel - as I have said before I read the signs right in 2001 you chose to ignore them
You're not getting away with that pile of rubbish again either. What they've done this time is exactly the opposite of what they did in 2001 and 2006.
You read nothing. You chose to buy a small car, and good luck to you. You are now being super-evangelical about it on here, and are displaying a very selfish viewpoint of how things should work.
You are utterly wrong about whether I'd feel this tax was unfair if it didn't affect me. As I've said, £230 a year is negligible, it is immoral and I feel strongly about it on that basis.
Because you have an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude doesn't mean you should tar the rest of us with your brush.
|
You're not getting away with that pile of rubbish again either. What they've done this time is exactly the opposite of what they did in 2001 and 2006. You read nothing. You chose to buy a small car and good luck to you. You are now being super-evangelical about it on here and are displaying a very selfish viewpoint of how things should work.
Because you have an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude doesn't mean you should tar the rest of us with your brush.
Oh dear, is no-one allowed to express a view that is different to yours, BB?
I DID read it right and so did some others who have expressed a similar opinion to mine but have been brow-beaten by tirades such as yours into staying quiet...
I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are and the fact that I carefully considered which car I needed and the most cost-effective version of that car back in 2001 is not being "super-evangelical", it is called being sensible.
It is obvious that you intend to keep berating me whenever I express a view that is different to yours so I will bow to the enevitable and leave you to it, which is no doubt what you want to hear...
Whatever happened to free speech then? And we think politicians are bullies!
Edited by b308 on 29/05/2008 at 20:29
|
> I DID read it right and.....
you didn't read it right, there was nothing to read. You got lucky because you bought a small car. When the govt of the day starts fiddling with VED bands and linking it to CO2 output in a Budget.. and twice does that for new cars only... there's nothing to state that in the future they'll apply it to existing cars that are up to 7 years old. No one would guess that, because it would be so unreasonable. If you can honestly state you did foresee it, then please e-mail me next week's lottery numbers.
Smugly stating the equivalent of 'I told you so' because you happen to have Band B and Band C cars isn't overly helpful and does not add to the debate of how immoral and underhand the Chancellor has been to raise more taxes in a form he hoped would be sold as a green tax. Judging by how many Labour MPs are now hurriedly signing motions etc (and the numbers are escalating) then it would appear the Chancellor and the PM have misjudged how thick the public are and it's now backfiring on them. Good, they tried to pull a fast one and have been caught out.
If they truly wanted a system where people drove less etc, they'd initiate a safe, clean, modern, well equipped, cheap public transport system with damned great free car parks at the termini, equipped with security staff. Pigs will fly first.
|
> >> I DID read it right and..... you didn't read it right there was nothing to read.
Have it your way, WP, as with BB you are right and I am wrong... though I have proved my point so I have nothing else to say on the subject, you two can comment 'til the cows come home for all I care...
BTW I have responded because I wanted to confirm that I entirely agree with your final para!
|
I DID read it right and so did some others who have expressed a similar opinion to mine but have been brow-beaten by tirades such as yours into staying quiet...
Westpig has done a better job than I can of pointing out the truth of this matter.
Whatever happened to free speech then? And we think politicians are bullies!
You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I welcome decent debate. It's more useful and more entertaining if your support your views with facts, and refute the things that I say though - rather than just ignoring any facts which don't help you and repeating the same thing again and again.
As for the old free speech, I'm being a bully argument - well you're arguing with me just as much as I'm arguing with you. Why then am I denying your free speech, but you're not denying mine?
You're trying to point out why you're right, I'm trying to point out why I'm right. Claiming to be bullied is the weakest of forum cop-outs.
|
As for the old free speech I'm being a bully argument -
Its the tone of your posts, BB, that I find bullying - I have stated my argument several times and I feel they are perfectly reasonable but you always bulldoze it out, not as a discussion but as an argument of which you hold the moral high ground and I am wrong, ignoring the fact that I am entitled to my opinion as well and it could be just as right as yours... I find that offensive - perhaps you didn't mean it like that but I detect an undercurrent of frustration in you that someone could actually hold different views to yours and it came to the surface... in my eyes anyhow...
Edited by b308 on 30/05/2008 at 13:40
|
My frustration is at your ignoring of facts which have been put forward by me and others, and just repeating the same mantra which has already been refuted. It means that the conversation can never develop and never move on.
If you knew me you'd know that I generally go out of my way to see others points of view - but on this subject I just don't see that there is one. I have carefully read everything written by you, Nowwheels, and several others, and on pure, cold logical grounds the reasons given for this tax just do not add up.
BTW, if you knew Nowwheels, you'd also know that there's no way on Earth I have bullied her out of this thread. There's no-one on this website who can hold an argument as well as she does - if she's stopped posting it's either because she's not got access for some reason, or because she's run out of cvredible things to say!
Also of course, I do hold the moral high ground, and you are wrong! ;)
I apologise for any offence caused. As we've both noted above, I am morally outraged by the governments actions in this, and most certainly on my soapbox.
|
My frustration is at your ignoring of facts which have been put forward by me and others and just repeating the same mantra which has already been refuted. It means I apologise for any offence caused. As we've both noted above I am morally outraged by the governments actions in this and most certainly on my soapbox.
I have gathered that you are outraged by what is happenning and feel that it has clouded your ability to see someone elses point of view - I am not wrong, I just hold a different view of events to yours - I know what I did in 2001 when I purchased my car, all the research both on and off the web, and none of your discussions (lets call them that!) have done anything to prove that my line of thinking that came from that research was wrong - the only thing that surprised me was the length of time it took the Gov to hike the rates for the higher bands as they have now done - you and WP will call it "luck" - well so be it, but you make your own luck in this life and and in this case, it seems, the gods were with me when I made that fateful decission for once!
Rather than say who is right and who is wrong, lets just say we have different opnions on what happened back then and leave it at that as I feel we may have bored everyone else sick?!
Edited by b308 on 30/05/2008 at 16:45
|
BTW if you knew Nowwheels you'd also know that there's no way on Earth I have bullied her out of this thread. There's no-one on this website who can hold an argument as well as she does - if she's stopped posting it's either because she's not got access for some reason or because she's run out of cvredible things to say!
No, you didn't bully me out of the thread, though your use of personal attacks made it look like you might have been trying to do that. What you did do, though, was to bore me out of the thread, because you didn't seem to have much to say beyond that you were outraged.
The issue isn't complicated: CO2 banding was introduced 7 years ago, and the only purpose of that change was to allow higher emission cars to be taxed more highly. The issue in dispute seems to be whether the warning was loud enough for some people.
I'm sure that the warning could have been louder, but some people did hear it. Most tax rises are not forewarned at all, so this one was better than most, but the fact that it wasn't signaled loudly enough for some people doesn't make it a wicked tax rise, it makes it a normal tax rise.
Of course, I'd have preferred if these tax rises had been signaled explicitly, with big sticker on the dash of every new car ... and if the govt had then set about raising road tax much more sharply on the highest-polluting vehicles. However, I don't think it would have made much difference to the objections, because it would merely have brought forward the date at which people realised that a petrol Mondeo is a real gas-guzzler. By doing it this way round, the govt has given ppl a few more years of driving big cars.
The stupidity of the govt's position is that by delaying these increases for so long, they have coincided with the fuel crisis to create a very sudden increase in the cost of motoring. An oil crunch has been looming for years, and govts should have been warning people much more clearly that there were changes on the way.
A Ford Mondeo is being cited in this debate as a "family car", but the 2001-onwards Mondeo is the biggest of Ford's four hatchback models, and it's the same size as a 1990s Granada. What's happened is that we have had a decade and more where the cost of motoring fell substantially in real terms, so people have been able to afford bigger and more polluting cars ... and now all the long-delayed cost increases are coming together in one big cluster.
Those who can't offload their gas-guzzlers are just going to have to do what many families did in the 1970s, and offset the tax rise by using the car less. In the 1970s, my parents used carshares to get to work, made fewer trips, and cut their mileage substantially. We all survived, and this generation will survive too, despite all the wailing as the chickens come home to roost, and despite the abysmal lack of govt planning.
|
The issue isn't complicated: CO2 banding was introduced 7 years ago and the only purpose of that change was to allow higher emission cars to be taxed more highly. The issue in dispute seems to be whether the warning was loud enough for some people.
I disagree ......... There is no dispute for me that there were plenty of warnings that bigger cars were being and were going to be taxed heavily. That bit is/was glaringly obvious...however, historically, for car taxation purposes, whenever this was applied it was applied for NEW cars, so that the British buying public for new cars might be dissuaded from buying that particular type of vehicle and then when it was sold on, the second hand buying public might avoid it as well, which would presumably mean it's second hand value would be deflated as it would be less popular to buy.
It is unusual and is a precedent to apply the car taxation policies to vehicles that already exist and for some are starting to become a bit older.
It is purely that bit i.e. inc existing cars that is wrong and has caused the outrage.
I'd agree the issue isn't complicated and there were loud and clear warnings on increased taxation (whether you agreed with it or not)... BUT, it was NOT loud and clear they'd do it to existing cars.
|
I'd agree the issue isn't complicated and there were loud and clear warnings on increased taxation (whether you agreed with it or not)... BUT, it was NOT loud and clear they'd do it to existing cars. >>
And the government gave manufacturers in the process of putting new cars/models on the road no chance to reduce emissions in accordance with their intentions to tax.
|
And the government gave manufacturers in the process of putting new cars/models on the road no chance to reduce emissions in accordance with their intentions to tax.
Manufacturers have had plenty of time to reduce emissions, because the issue has been moving up the regulatory agenda for at least a decade, and emissions have been a key part of BIK taxation for company cars for more than five years.
All that was missing was clear guidance on what exactly the the car tax rates would be in future. However, nobody tells me more than a few months in advance what will happen to council tax, and tobacco tax rises take effect immediately. That doesn't stop me from knowing that both are heading sharply upwards, and I can plan accordingly.
|
>>However nobody tells me more than a few months in advance what will happen to council tax and tobacco tax rises take effect immediately. That doesn't stop me from knowing that both are heading sharply upwards and I can plan accordingly.
Your analogy doesn't hold. If the council demanded extra council tax for previous years or you were taxed on tobacco you had already bought, then it would.
|
Your analogy doesn't hold. If the council demanded extra council tax for previous years or you were taxed on tobacco you had already bought then it would.
The road tax increases don't apply to previous years, so that's a red herring (that would indeed be retrospective taxation, but it's not what's happening). And council tax increases or re-bandings apply regardless of whether I bought the house 5 days ago or 50 years ago, which is a similar stituation to the road tax.
So the analogy does hold.
|
All that was missing was clear guidance on what exactly the the car tax rates would be in future. However, nobody tells me more than a few months in advance what will happen to council tax, and tobacco tax rises take effect immediately. That doesn't stop me from knowing that both are heading sharply upwards, and I can plan accordingly >>
I can see how you'd plan if you thought the cost of smoking was going up: cut down. Not so sure about council tax rises: what can you do but move?
Yes, emissions have been part of the benefits legislation but I'm not aware that the government has been in a dialogue with car manufacturers. And you're not suggesting, are you, that anyone knew five VED bands would turn into 13 in this year's budget?
Why not announce the change for one year hence, give the bands, and let the manufacturers do their best to reduce emissions in that time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
