I can't post the link I'm afraid as it's a non Telegraph one but if you searched around I'm sure you could find it independently.
I was reading an article before which states that there will be a new car tax on the more petrol hungry cars to discourage people from buying them and to cut the supposed global warming.
Pretty bad you might think but here's a taste of which cars are possibly going to qualify for this new tax;
VW Sharan 2.0S
Range Rover Sport 4.4 V8 (hardly the same as a VW is it?)
Ford Galaxy 2.3LX
Volvo V70 2.4SE
Personally, I think it's pretty disgraceful. I thought we paid for lower consumption through tax on petrol?
If this is about cutting greenhouse gases, then I'm the 3rd Tsar of Uzbekistan.
--
Adam
|
lower economy not lower consumption.
It's too early!
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
As cars become more fuel efficient then the revenue that HMG gets is lessened. Motorists seems a "justifiable" tax to Them so doing this evens up some of the loss.
|
|
Doesn't an American state see small cars as a revenue avoidance tactic?
|
I think something should be put in place to raise road-tax thresholds on extreme petrol-guzzling cars such as 4 litre + SUV's which are only used in town and for ferrying kids to school.
However there should be some mechanism where users who have a genuine need for such vehicles can claim rebates, eg farmers and other tradesmen who tow heavy loads etc.
Why should a 4.6 litre Range Rover only be taxed at a marginally higher rate than a fairly fuel-efficient 2 litre saloon car.
|
|
It is taxed at a higher rate, because the driver has to put over twice as much fuel into it. 80% of the price of fuel is tax, hence he pays fairly.
|
It is probably a very safe bet that most of the petrol Range Rovers / X5s you see on the motorway at 90mph+ are company cars with company paying the fuel bill - as the driver pays a set fee in tax he doesn't care.
|
We need less rules, less information, less regulation.
Man only emits 5% of greenhouse gas CO2, of which 7% of that 5% is by all of transport, (Not just cars) The whole thing is a global capitalist scam to perpetuate the replacement-cycle of goods.
Do you really think governments that go around blowing countries up are bothered about you taking empty tins to a box in a carpark and piffling emmissions of perfectly natural constituents of air such as CO2? It's a scam, a sham and it's for public consumption.
|
|
|
|
>>I think something should be put in place to raise road-tax thresholds on extreme petrol-guzzling cars such as 4 litre + SUV's
That's a good idea. I know, lets put a really high tax on the petrol That way if you use more of it than someone with a fuel-efficient 2 litre car then you'll pay loads more tax than they will.
I can't believe we didn't think of this before.
Mind you, I am a bit concerned that you believe the way someone chooses to use a private car they own should also be within the purview of HMG.
|
|
Anyone know what the fuel consumption of a big train (say 10 carriages) is per passenger, assuming it's half full? Interesting to see how it compares to that of a car.
|
|
"I think something should be put in place to raise road-tax thresholds on extreme petrol-guzzling cars"
So that will be Fuel duty then: Tick already in place
"However there should be some mechanism where users who have a genuine need for such vehicles can claim rebates, eg farmers"
So that will be duty reduced Red diesel then: Tick already in place
Problem Solved.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at that list Adam, I'd guess that the suggestion is to put the extra tax, as a fixd sum, on any car 2 litres and over.
Do you think we're a big enough market that manufacturers will begin to develop 1.9 litre quad turbos?
I believe the slightly bizarre Suzuki Cappuchino came about in a similar manner.
|
please feel free to correct me....
Performance car or big SUV returning about 20 mpg will cover about 250 miles on a full tank about 60 litres. Because of this they will in all probability cover fewer miles in a year. 10,000 miles. That will require around 2230 litres of fuel which will generate x amount of harful emissions.
Take the average car reurning about 35 mpg, which will cover about 450 miles on the same 60 litre tank of fuel. It will be more likely to travel on average 20,000 miles a year perhaps more. That will require 2545 litres of fuel which will generate x amount of harmful emissions.
Given that the average car outnumbers big SUV's or performance cars by 5:1 or more, surely it is the collective average motorists who contribute more to the pollution problem?
Just a thought - if my thinking is flawed, happy to be corrected.
Leon
|
Interesting posts.
Question. My mate has a 172 2.0 Clio. Now I've no idea what the C02 emissions are like on that and quite frankly, I'm too tired to look. But I wonder if that would get taxed more heavily than a lazier 2.4 engine or not?
--
Adam
|
|
|
Leon - I see your logic but as someone said further up a lot of the big gas-guzzlers are company cars doing high mileages and generating, as you say, harmful emissions.
If they do start fiddling withe the tax it needs to be based on fuel consumption and emissions, not just size of engine. My 2.5 TDI was doing an admirable 45 mpg yesterday on the M4 and M5 to and from Plymouth.
|
|
|
|
|
Thats nothing new Adski, in America people who buy certain cars have to pay a 'luxury tax' as invariably these vehicles are very un-eco-friendly. Doesn't surprise me that our Govt. would want to try and do something like this.
Best I buy my Audi RS4 and BMW M5 now then...;)
-----
Im not plain stupid, just a special kind of stoopid.
|
Interesting how everyone who wants increased taxes only want them to apply to things they don't do or to goods they don't own.
Or maybe I'm just getting too cynical?
|
|
|
|
