Call me old fashioned, but isn't VED supposed to be a tax for the use and upkeep of the road?
The tax on petrol is directly proportional to usage. If you drive a big engined car you pay more than if you drive a small one.
The government have hijacked VED to show their green credentials and as a result ripping us off.
It is far more damaging to the environment to keep producing millions of new cars every year.
|
And there I was looking forward to £90 VED next year.
What's the big fuss about anyway? We're talking about less than £9 per week, at worst, for something that's used every day and which on average we stick £60 per week in without grumble. Just think of all the rubbish people buy every week that we don't really need.
And what's this about it hitting poorer families? If they're poor then why did they buy a gas-guzzler in the first place? Or why not just purchase a pre-2001 vehicle, there's plenty of them around and as cars get older the difference in reliability diminishes so a couple of years won't make any difference.
I too think the government should stop fleecing us, but who are the other contenders? Taxpayers? No, I forgot that's us too. Small businesses? No, that won't make good headlines. The super-rich? Nice try, but they can so easily invest their money elsewhere. Aha, I know, they can cut public services! That'll should keep everyone happy.
|
And what's this about it hitting poorer families? If they're poor then why did they buy a gas-guzzler in the first place?
The problem is the government's definition of 'gas guzzler'. My Volvo returns between 30 and 35 mpg so is hardly a gas guzzler, yet will be stung with a K band (£300pa - an increase of nearly a third). If it had an automatic gearbox, it would be walloped with L band and £415 pa. Even on a K, that's about 10% of its value every year in VED.
Walloping people for cars they already own is, to use a favourite phrase of the chairman of a company I used to work for, 'not playing with a straight bat'. They can do what they like with new cars when people actually have a choice, and I don't think anyone seriously objects to that unless they had their heart set on that X5 or XC90, where frankly what concern is £415pa VED?
It was all over R4 this morning that the Chancellor is expected to reverse the retrospective aspect of this decision, and also to further postpone this almost ominpresent 2p fuel duty hike, but equally there was no real conclusion where the money was going to come from.
Unlike many other governments, ours has squandered and borrowed through the good times, and has nothing left now. The government cannot be blamed for the high oil prices and economical turmoil in America that is driving this downturn, but it can certainly take the blame for the appalling, ill equipped position we find ourselves in as we start to deal with it. The Norwegian government has $350 billion in oil revenues invested for such events, and is looking at ways to utilise some of it to ease tax pressures on its people as the economy slows. Our lot is £11 billion in the hole at the start of a downturn.
|
|
|
|
The government have hijacked VED to show their green credentials and as a result ripping us off.
There are few Green Taxes - the last 10 years the taxes may have been decribed as GREEN but they were 100% BROWN
i.e. G Brown he of number 10 & 11 Downing St - well at least when I last looked
|
There should be some news on this today, although it will probably be "wait until pre budget report"
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7484478.stm
|
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7484478.stm
"The Tories say 2.3m families will have to pay between £100 and £245 more each on cars which they already own."
Why did the Tories single out families to comment on? What's the significance in this respect of familes as opposed to, say, single/divorced/separated people? Why not just relate the cost increase to "people"?
Edited by L'escargot on 02/07/2008 at 10:16
|
I am confused. Not an unusual occurrence. People keep talking about the 2.0 Mondeo being in the top £400 band but I've gone through the VCA site and that has this model at £210. OK more than now at £165 but not a reason for Mondeo 2.0 second hand values to fall off a cliff, which they have.
Am I missing something?
|
|
The Mondeo 2.0 Auto will go up £300. Only the V6s will go up to £400, which is unlikely to get much sympathy, rightly or wrongly.
|
The Tories
Typical Tory nonsense. On one hand you have 'good old' Dave Cameron claiming to be on the side of the people in pressing for the reversal of the restrospective application of the new bands. Then, to much less fanfare, his colleague Tim Yeo goes on the Today programme and says the government should stick to their guns and not give in, as to do so would be 'catastrophic' for climate change.
They're all sharks, with nothing to choose between them.
Cheers
DP
|
|
Maybe we should just vote for the ones with the smallest expense account? At least that would mean something!
|
|
|
|
I am confused. >> Am I missing something?
I haven't checked the figures myself for that particular car, but I would imagien the root of your confusion is that you are checking the VED costs now. The costs being discussed are the costs next year.
For instance my car is £210 now and that is what will show if you do a check on the DVLA site, but next year it will be £440.
|
www.parkers.co.uk/cars/road-tax/ {no clickable links to Parkers please}
If you select your car on the Parkers Website it will show your tax now, and then the increases up to the year 2010/11.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 02/07/2008 at 20:06
|
Thanks for the Parkers link now I get the debate.
These increase fall right in to the date range for the next election. We all assume Gormless Gordon will go for the last possible date.
To maintain these increases at all is electoral suicide. To maintain them AND the backdating means another 100 Labour MP's will lose their seats however;
Maybe the Labour party are so far gone now its just scorched earth policy.
|
|
|
|
My 2 litre Mondy (1997) will return up to 44 mpg with careful driving on a decent run.
I make that 155 grams CO2 per kilometre, so hardly a gas guzzler.
|
That I'd like to see. I've had several 2L Mondeos (1994,95,98 and 00 models), some manuals, some autos. I used the manuals on long commutes at 60mph cruises and could never get more than 35mpg. The autos would hit 20mpg round town, with careful driving!
I also had a couple of 1995 1.8 TD Mondeos and even they only managed 45mpg with careful motorway driving (60mph self enforced limit, keep good gaps ahead etc).
That's the thing about emissions, they have to use a standardised test that tries to mimic a variety of driving styles and conditions. Not everyone does careful motorway cruising, after all.
|
|
I agree with BrianW. I have a 1998 2L petrol mondeo that will do 44 mpg on a run.
|
|
Love to know how you manage it. On a run I can drag nearly 60mpg out of a Vectra 1.9 CDTI and 48 out of an S80 D5 auto, but no way could I beat 35mpg in a 2L Mondeo. What the trip computer says is another matter...
|
My 2.0 petrol Mondeo's - did 75k in one (a '98) and 84k in the next (a '00) - always got 36mpg or something very close.
MPZ
|
Last autumn I sort of accidently bought a Porsche Boxster S.
It was first registered on 18th of March 2001, so if it had been registered 19 days earlier then the tax next year would be a lot lower.
That offends common sense, it doesn't make sense to apply tax so retrospectively. All it will do is lead to scrapping vehicles well before the end of their useful life and penalize those that need to run a people carrier or that regularly transport five adults so need a big car.
Its daft, it will annoy so many voters but I think that the Labour party have realized that there is no way they can win the next election so they're going to upset as many people as possible on the way and make it even more difficult for whoever does win to get the economy back on track.
|
"My 2.0 petrol Mondeo's - did 75k in one (a '98) and 84k in the next (a '00) - always got 36mpg or something very close."
Interesting. Although admittedly via trip computer figures only, my 1998 2.0 Mondeo used to regularly return 43 plus, with a peak of 47 once on a long run. My father in law still has a 2000 2.0 Mondeo and reports mid forties too. He doesn't have a trip computer on his (although to his enormous satisfaction we recently discovered we could add footwell lights to his LX for less than a fiver. Ah, the cheery smile of an old boy hovering about on the drive in the dark repeatedly opening doors and shutting them again).
Both petrol versions.
Edited by Dipstick on 03/07/2008 at 10:52
|
|
|
|
This is the same with all the newspapers/media. I think they use family to play on people's emotions whereas people could be anyone. you see the same when they say "gas bills rise for families"...oh so as a singleton my gas bill is staying the same...err no...
I have the same bee with "motorists" instead of "people who drive cars"....as if motorists are some kind of hobby group or special interest society....they just are people who drive cars for one reason or another.
|
U turn defeated I'm afraid by a 65 majority :
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7484478.stm
However, the issue "will be looked at again in the chancellor's pre-Budget report in the autumn"
Edited by Marc on 02/07/2008 at 22:23
|
That latest news on the BBC utterly incensed me - specifically some of the utter lies told by Angela Eagle.
I'm afraid I have another letter to my MP for you to suffer through:
Dear Ann
Thank you very much for your help in my continuing correspondence with Angela Eagle. I was particularly pleased and grateful when you let me know that you had re-forwarded my latest email when it had not been replied to for quite a length of time.
I had some observations on Angela?s latest message which I was going to send to you ? but I was generally happy that this issue seems to have finally entered the public eye, and I hoped that the clear outrage displayed would show this government the mistake they were making ? I had no particular plan to continue asking you to forward further emails to the Treasury.
Today though, I read of the vote lost on this subject (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7484478.stm ), and I read quotes from Angela Eagle which left me incensed ? there is no better word for it.
Please find attached my comments on both the letter you kindly forwarded, and on that news story. As to whether these comments should be sent to the Treasury; I am disgusted with their actions and words at this point. You may forward my points if you wish, but I have an idea they will be ignored, or more lies sent my way.
Firstly, the letter. I will quote various parts, and add my responses:
"I understand that Mr Leeson disagrees with the arguments I forward in previous letter. In response I wish to further draw-out several points from my last letter.
It remains the case that VED not only has an environmental focus, but also serves to provide revenue for the funding of public services. These aims are entirely compatible, and are in accordance with the Government's wider approach to the use of fiscal measures to help the UK meet its climate change and other environmental goals."
Finally, after 3 months of correspondence there has been any admittance at all that any part of the aim is to make money, there was no doubt about this, and it is not my complaint. I would continue to argue that, referring only to the retrospective nature of the changes (since that is the element about which I continue to complain) revenue is the ONLY aim.
"For it's part, the government recognises that it is required to take action where market failures prevent long-term economic and environmental consequences from being taken into account by business and individuals in their decision making. A key aim of government intervention is to encourage behavioural change."
This is true of the VED changes as a whole. But it would still be true if the changes only referred to cars registered from this point forward ? and more importantly the retrospective part of the change adds NOTHING to this aim.
"I therefore reiterate the point that the overall carbon dioxide emissions basis for VED, in respect of cars, has been in effect since 2001."
In fact, this is not a reiteration of a previous point. The previous (and false) claim which Angela Eagle made was that VED in exactly this form has been in effect since 2001. My argument is that this government is changing the form, and this is exactly what is immoral about the plans.
"Moreover, the approach taken by the government in Budget 2008 is consistent with the progression through other wider measures, such as the EU's proposed CO2 emissions target, towards decarbonising cars. Therefore the rates serve to help influence a behavioural shift over time, in line with the broader effort to deliver lower carbon cars in the future through regulation."
So the changes are in line with EU directives, not in line with previous changes then? This is not what was said before in letters to me. It seems that this government is quite happy to terribly damage the environment in real terms (by the unnecessary scrapping of cars and building of new ones) as long as this allows them to meet an ill thought out 'decarbonising cars' target which clearly only takes account of the carbon emissions during use of the cars on the road at present.
Now the news story, which includes two points made by Angela Eagle which particularly disgust me:
? But Ms Eagle said the Tory plans were "undesirable, unworkable and down right peculiar".
The ?Tory plans? are in fact to continue to treat VED exactly as it is currently treated. To have different VED rates for different ages of cars. If this is so utterly unworkable, could Angela explain why my car is currently in band F, but were it 3 years newer with exactly the same emissions data it would be in band G?
? Previous changes to vehicle excise duty had always applied to cars already on the road, she said.
And here we get to the point which most causes my anger and disgust. This claim is an absolute and bare-faced lie. VED banding has been performed in 2001 and in 2006. In both of these cases cars already on the road were not affected by the new bands. If this was truly said by Angela Eagle then it displays an utter arrogance and disregard for the public?s opinion. What attitude does telling such an obvious untruth display? It doesn?t matter if the public find me out, what can they do?
I send these comments to you as you have been so supportive and helpful on this subject in the past, and I hope they are of interest to you. I apologise for the long-windedness which my ire has caused!
As I said earlier in this opus, you may forward this to the Treasury if you feel it will serve any purpose.
Kind regards (and many thanks again),
James Leeson
This has already been sent, and I'm not asking for advice on wording this time. I know the wording isn't perfect, and I know that the letter betrays my anger, and that it's generally best not to do so - but in this case I want them to see how I feel.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 02/07/2008 at 22:38
|
|
Beware that long letters can be off-putting and boring and can lead to them being binned unread. Just think of the number of communications an MP will receive each day. Far better to keep it short and sweet.
|
I've been in continued communication with my MP for three months. They are not allowed to simply 'bin' a letter which is too long, or which they do not like.
As I said, I'm not asking for advice on this letter - it has already been sent. I am perfectly aware of what impression it gives to the reader, and in this case that is exactly the impression I wish to convey, despite normal guidelines for letter writing advising against it.
Edited by BazzaBear {P} on 03/07/2008 at 11:46
|
It is nonsense to twist the meaning of words and call these charges "retrospective". Retrospective would mean that the bands could be increased in subsequent years and that you were sent revised bills for licences already paid and expired in previous years.
Increasing the rate in the future for a car that is already on the road is no more "retrospective" than is increasing income tax for someone who is already alive.
|
|
We can (and unfortunately have) discussed what the word 'retrospective' means over and over again. It's largely irrelevant to the issue. Call it what you want (and the word retrospective more easily conveys the point than any other I've seen used) but if you're going to argue about it, please argue about the rightness or wrongness of what they're doing, rather than the rightness or wrongness of the word being used to describe it. otherwise the debate becomes horribly pointless.
|
It's not pointless, because this deliberate misuse of the word is being used as if the element of alleged retrospection is in itself a reason to criticise the changes. It is misusing a word for emotive reasons rather than engaging in real debate.
All government legislation is "retrospective" in this misused sense, because it applies to people who are already in existence.
Ok, on the rightness or not of a higher tax on cars with higher emission levels, of course it is justified. That is half the point of taxation, to encourage people to alter their behaviour.
But specifically raising the tax via the excise licence is totally wrong and unnecessary, in view of the rapidly escalating increase in fuel costs. Taxing fuel, rather than fixed costs, is inherently fairer.
|
Good man yourself Bazza.
I daresay they'll take no notice of any of us anyway, the electorate are only important to any of the current parties for the 6 months prior to an election, and forgotten the day after.
Keep the pressure on, i like the cut of your jib and the way you portray your disgust in a forceful but polite way.
|
Ok on the rightness or not of a higher tax on cars with higher emission levels of course it is justified. That is half the point of taxation to encourage people to alter their behaviour.
But, once again -
If you apply this to new cars, then you can indeed alter people's behaviour, and stop the cars being sold in the first place. If you apply it to existing cars (retrospectively, if you will) then there are three possible outcomes:
1) The car is kept, no difference is made
2) The car is sold to another used, no difference is made.
3) The car is scrapped way before the end of its useful life, an environmental disaster.
You may not think that there is any moral issue with making the tax retrospective in this manner - but the government always had until this point. Otherwise why did they make a point of avoiding it the two previous times VED band changes have been made, in 2001 and 2006?
And yes, I am continuing to use the word retrospective. The arguments against it are purely semantic and entirely opinion based.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
