And it uses so much more road space than another car?
And it uses so much more fuel than another car?
And it is far worse on emissions than all the other contributers (cars, planes, powere stations, usa, china etc)
So therefore you must pay far more (road?) tax on it as its only fair.
The fact that we (as a world) would be far better off if cars were made to last, (but that would affect the western economy too badly), use less resources, etc etc etc.
|
Yes, the tax can sometimes be a bit unfair. But, 4x4's do in general use more fuel, take up more space, cost more to make, less efficient, kill small animals and children etc.
I have a 1984 toyota supra, it spends 99.9% of the year in the garage. If I use it a lot then I may do anywhere up to 2,000 miles in a year (last year I only did 500 miles). I still have to pay full RFL of £165 at the top rate(or what ever it is at the moment!). Yes, it's unfair, but those are the rules until I get another chance to vote for a better goverment.
It's been said many time before on this forum that the fair way to do this is to tax the fuel only. You pay for what you use.
|
What gets my goat as a Range Rover owner is as it uses more fuel i should pay more tax !!, erm, well as i use more fuel i do pay more tax.
If we all became eco friendly ie walked everywhere, did not smoke, did not drink, made our own electricity, grew our own food etc etc where would the money come from to run the country ?.
|
|
|
Yes, the tax can sometimes be a bit unfair. But, 4x4's do in general use more fuel, take up more space, cost more to make, less efficient, kill small animals and children etc.
rather sweeping generalisations don't you think. 4x4s kill small animals?
When I had a Discovery I went straight over the top of a rabbit on the M40, it lived to see another day, when I went over one with a mini, bang bang thump....
And on the size issue, a rover 75 is longer than a BMW X5, so which takes up more road space?
www.4x4prejudice.com/index.php
Chris
ps, I agree, putting tax on fuel is the best plan, but it doesn't grab the headlines like a hit the 4x4 tax as they are owned by rich people tax.
|
My comments, including size of car, were meant a little tongue in cheek.
The 4 x 4 issue always grabs the headlines; but when is a 4x 4 not a 4x 4. Subaru etc. 4 wd jag ?
Panda 4 x 4 etc etc.
What about farmers etc who need 4wd to get about fields? Headline grabbing sweeping statements always annoy me !
|
So is there a tax that it specific to 4x4 vehicles? Don't think I have heard about it......
Anyway, don't worry too much. 4x4 craze is over in the US - no one wants to buy them - the fashion has changed. It'll be the same here soon.
|
It'll be the same here soon.
Soon? Can't give the things away now.... except old, muddy and battered, Land-Rovers - for some reason? They're still going up.
|
|
Ah but with designer rugosity, they have advantages in traffic. X5s and the like are less obstreporous when faced with a vehicle that isn't merely aspiring to give a tough image......
|
X5s and the like are usually towing the trailers that they're on...
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, yes on reflection I take back the statement about small animals. I mistakenly thought that 4x4's were used in the country (farms, muddy tracks, off road) and were therfore more likely to encounter and kill small animals. I guess that as they are manily used in urban environments with drivers that a busy texting on the mobile, shouting at kids in the back while drinking a nice wild bean coffee with the other hand, they are indeed still guilty of killing small children. Apparently some of the more advanced 4x4 drivers can also kill adults and are even trying to destroy the planet with their CO2 emissions....
Of course it could be that poor rabbit you ran over merely ran off into a ditch to die a slow painfull death rather than being killed outright.
I was once driving behind a car on a country lane that ran over a rabbit (not a 4x4), poor bunny got flipped up by the rear wheels into the air and bounced off my windscreen.....
All of the above is half true, half serious and half joking. I'll leave you to decide which is which.....
|
moonshine
I have to first confess to murdering three fluffy bunnies, [are there any other sort? Hairy? Scaly? Bald? En croute??] in only the last two nights, driving my awful gas-guzzling 4x4 home at midnight from posting on here. It was all their fault - that's my assertion..... and they're in no position to argue!
[Lying there next to the dead wild boar - and that wasn't me; OK! Just as well... those things are heav-ee! 'Taken the rad clean out...]
Note to self: Must make some stronger bull bars - RSJ-style ones maybe...
As to killing children - none as yet. It was fascinating to hear some politician ranting about a child killed by a LandCruiser many years ago. His contention was that it was all the poor 4x4 driver's fault that the kid ran out into his path and inferred that if he'd got his way and 4x4s were banned, then nothing bad would have happened. So if it had been a Scania truck, doing the same [legal] speed, that would have been OK then?
|
As to killing children - none as yet. It was fascinating to hear some politician ranting about a child killed by a LandCruiser many years ago. His contention was that it was all the poor 4x4 driver's fault that the kid ran out into his path and inferred that if he'd got his way and 4x4s were banned, then nothing bad would have happened. So if it had been a Scania truck, doing the same [legal] speed, that would have been OK then?
Unfortunately kids act like kids sometimes and run into the road without looking - no matter how much road safety training they are given. The death penalty seems harsh for such a minor misdemenour. Large SUV's are, on the average, much less pedestrian friendly than most other cars. Of course getting hit by a Scania truck would be much worse, however we don't get many of them belting around the narrow lanes and residential areas where I live - we do however get a lot of 'green welly' 4x4 drivers. Driven by the sort who like to make sure that their spuds are organic, boiled in Perrier on top of the Aga.
Incidentally, today I did something I've never done before. I was driving an old Scorpio (totally worthless clapped out thing) and was doing about 42mph in a 40 zone. Large Kia 4x4 was right on my tail - trying to get onto my back seat. This went on for a mile or so and I got really sick of it and so jabbed on the brakes. I saw his nose dip sharply as he hit the brakes. Seemed to get the message across because he backed off. Its not something I would recommend anyone to do, but we have a high density of 4x4's in my part of the world and I get thoroughly sick of this sort of driving. I know that Corsa, Micra drivers etc also do this sometimes, but it feels much less intimidating than having a 4x4's grille as the only thing visible in the rear view mirror. And don't tell me a lot of them aren't trying to intimidate.
|
On a country lane local to me I often come head to head with 4 x 4 numpty drivers who seem to think that becuase they have a 4x4 they are allowed to drive in the middle of the road (note that the road is wide enough for two cars to pass without any problems). My view is that as they have a 4x4 they are best equiped for some off road action and should be able to drive on the grass verge at the side of the road. I confess that on occasions I have (foolishly I might add) adjusted course to centre of the road to match that of the 4x4. They soon chicken out....
PS - to pre-empt the posts about dangerous driving etc, yes, yes I know its stupid dangerous, shouldn't do it etc etc.
|
My view is that as they have a 4x4 they are best equiped for some off road action and should be able to drive on the grass verge at the side of the road.
I give the grass verge outside our house the same tlc as the lawns get ~ weedkiller, mosskiller, lawn food, mowing etc. We get enough vehicles driving over the verge already without you wanting to encourage all 16s (4x4?) to do it!
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
I take your point about dabbing your brakes in front of a tailgating driver, but there's another reason you might not want to do it in front of a 4x4. Those things, the big ones in particular, have the braking performance of the Queen Mary - or at best, of a 1950s Austin. One of the telly programmes - the C4 one, I think - did a demonstration of this a few years ago, testing a Discovery against a couple of ordinary cars and a 911. As I recall, the Porsche came up shortest from 70mph, but not by very much compared with the cars, but the Discovery was many, many car lengths further down the track - it took just about all the Highway Code's 96m to stop, and those standards date from the 1950s, along with double-declutching and arm signals.
|
You are quite correct WillDeBeest. 4x4 braking performance is often poor - this is down to high CoG and long suspension travel which leads to considerable weight transfer. M+S tyres don't help either!
I my particular case I was driving a big more-or-less worthless car and I figured if he shunted into the back of me it wouldn't be too much of a loss. I'm not really proud that I did it and wouldn't suggest anyone else do it, but I'm getting sick to the back teeth of these characters and the problem seems to be getting worse.
|
|
Typical of this government to avoid the real problem and go for the revenue generation.
The issue is not the vehilce, or its drivetrain, its the muppet driving it.
Its not a car, it doesn't handle or behave like one, it is a nonsense that one only needs a car licence to drive it.
|
Typical of this government to avoid the real problem and go for the revenue generation.
Is there a proposal to tax 4x4's differently then? I have not heard about this - can anyone enlighten?
|
|
>> My view is that as they have a 4x4 they are best equiped for some off road action and should be able to drive on the grass verge at the side of the road.
Actually, one of the things I've noticed is the way that some SUVs are actually driven in this manner - here in Munich city centre! In other words they are driven with 2 wheels on the road and 2 on the kerb/ grass verge in order to undertake traffic queues. I guess this also adds a new dimension to the bull-bars argument as well and clearly happens because the raised ground clearance allows some incredibly selfish people to put pedestrians' lives at risk in order to save a couple of minutes queuing.
Other "antisocial driving" techniques adopted by (a probably very small percentage of) 4x4 owners here include parking on raised grass verges, presumably raised to prevent cars parking on them, and extreme tailgating. This phenomenon appears to be because the driver can see over the top of the car in front so tends to drive closer to it.
I've personally got nothing against either the vehicles themselves or people exercising their free will to buy and use them. There do seem to be a significant number of SUV owners who, to give them the benefit of the doubt, are not aware of the consequences of driving powerful 2 1/2 ton vehicles in a thoughtless and potentially dangerous fashion. Rather than taxation, I think it would make more sense to introduce a new category of driving licence for large SUVs (e.g. above 2 tons kerb weight) which would entail potential owners actually getting trained to drive them before being let loose on the rest of us.
|
The attitude to 4 x 4s seems to change when someone needs a trailer/caravan moving, or needs to tow a dead vehicle...
r
|
I'm still waiting to hear what these proposed 'Green Taxes' are to be spent on.
A solution to Global Warming? Doubt it.
Improved public transport? Not that I've heard.
War in Iraq? Quite possibly.
General government spending? What else?
And where is the reduction in other taxes to compensate. Inother words it's just tax after tax after tax with this government.
|
Criticizing governments for taxing is like criticizing fish for swimming. Governments have to raise revenue from something, so would you rather it was a voluntary tax, raised from unnecessarily large and polluting vehicles, foreign holidays, fags, booze etc, or an unavoidable one in the form of income tax?
Or, to look at it another way, if the government - which we elect, remember - considers that certain products or behaviours are dangerous or otherwise undesirable, it can either ban them altogether, as happened with handguns ten years ago, or influence people's decisions through taxation. Broadly, I'd actually agree that I'd rather the tax were on use than on ownership - because use, more than ownership, is the greater part of the problem - but can you imagine how the Daily Mail would react if the government scrapped VED and other ownership-based charges and loaded the whole lot onto fuel tax? But either way, the tax is there to influence behaviour, and arguing that it's invalid unless the revenue is spent on environmental initiatives - even if that's what we'd like to see - is fatuous.
|
|
Whilst not condoning any waste of public money, this is quite small change compared to what is getting spend on overseas operations. I suspect a lot of the money spend on PFI & consultants etc. gets recycled back into the system anyway. Government takes about a third in direct taxes to start with.
|
WillDeBeest raise some good and valid points.
Everyone complains when they are the subject of taxation (and who can blame them). But, the government need to get the money from somewhere.
I have a divided view on 4x4s.
On one hand I don't want anyone to drive them as they are un-necessary, waste of resources, polluting, driven badly, the list goes on.
But I also want people to drive them from a purely selfish and econmonic point of view. The more people that drive them the more tax the government gets. The more tax that is payed by those people then the less tax I pay. (or rather my taxes are not increased as much).
Could everyone now please go out and buy themselves a nice 4x4?
|
Yes, of course governments need to raise tax to run the country, but this lot are extracting the michael.
I also agree that 'undesirable' activities should be taxed to discourage them, such as smoking and driving wasteful vehicles, however many wheels are driven. (Obviously gambling is different, because whilst undesirable to many the government see the opportunity to gain more taxes by allowing a massive expansion, but you get my point!)
But my point was that the government is taking ever more of our money. As wages and prices increase, so their take increases, and so an efficiently run government should be able to get by. This lot are however raking in ever more from stamp duty, non-increased tax thresholds, inheritence tax, reduced contributions to local authorities (meaning Council Tax rises) etc. And at the slightest whiff of an excuse to do it again. They do it again in the form of 'green' taxes. This is pure smokescreen. Where is the encouragement to act 'greener'? - grants for LPG conversions withdrawn, standard 17.5% VAT on energy-saving measures, above inflation increases in public transport, etc., etc.
If this lot were really 'green', they would be giving carrots as well as sticks, and wouldn't be actively encouraging a massive increase in air travel, amongst other things, would they?
Sorry, I'm going a bit off topic, so I'll stop.
|
|
|
.....Driven by the sort who like to make sure that their spuds are organic, boiled in Perrier on top of the Aga.....
LOL
|
>>.....Driven by the sort who like to make sure that their spuds are organic, boiled in Perrier on top of the Aga.....
Maybe the real question is "Do they use Perrier to make their ice cubes or do they cut costs and use tap water?"
Global warming (if it exists) is caused by emission of gases into the atmosphere that are causing the world to increase in temperature (still not proven). If we all need to cut down our emmissions then we should try to make our materials go further that at present (not a bad goal anyway). The best way to reduce people's consumption is to make it more expensive. Last year all fuel prices hit new records, but did you reduce your consumption? I did slightly, but not enough to say 5%. Or put another way my lifestyle (and probably most of the population's) cannot be substantially changed to reduce my need for all fuels.
The percentage of gases emitted by cars is about 2% of all emissions. Even a huge reduction of car emissions will make little difference. This does not mean we should not try, but current political thinking is targeting the wrong emissions. It is easier to target high emitting cars (and easier to extract money from the owner) than ensuring our coal fired generating stations and industrial plants are even cleaner. No one ever mentions the heat generated from electricity production, heating buildings, industrial plants, etc that might also be a factor in current rise in temperatures.
Targeting 4x4's and other large engined cars is purely a political tax to try and help the Chancellor balance his books because he is spending too much of our money already.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
>>So can someone explain to me how it is that I am going to be hammered by a new tax<<
Have I missed something - what new tax is this ?
|
|
I have not heard of a new tax, only Lib Dem councils proposing to charge four wheel drives more for parking permits, presume that includes Subaru and Audi and Volvo and anyone else who maks 4 wheel drive cars.
|
> No one ever mentions the heat generated from electricity production, heating buildings, industrial plants, etc that might also be a factor in current rise in temperatures.
Unlikely. There have always been things on earth that have produced heat. The point is that the earth as a system is pretty good at radiating excess heat back into space. The greenhouse effect, which the great majority of scientific opinion believes is created by rising concentrations of CO2, methane and a few other gases, disrupts this balance by trapping more heat in the atmosphere. So you could argue that if less heat were wasted in power stations, industrial plants, homes and, yes, cars, there'd be less heat to trap and the problem would be lessened, but I'd be surprised if all that energy were more than a tiny fraction of what the earth receives from the sun.
|
My proposal is that cars should be taxed on aesthetic appeal. Most 4x4s, being hideous, would attract the highest rate.
|
|
Nice idea but what do you do with the Porsche Cayenne? Tax that at a rate appropriate to its ugliness and you'd have to charge all the money in the world, ever - and that might cause problems elsewhere.
|
|
Having just seen an advert for the Cayenne must agree it would qualify for the highest band with surcharge. Any oher proposal for the top rate?
|
Any oher proposal for the top rate?
Fiat Doblo!
|
What is all this about the Cayenne's ugliness? It isn't significantly uglier than any other large 4X4, while being on paper anyway a lot more capable than any of them.
I saw an old Top Gear the other night and JC was going on about how he didn't care how expensive, fast, safe etc the Cayenne was because it was so hideous.
I'm not saying I would have one even if I could afford it, but I wouldn't mind a go in one and I've seen them on the road not getting in the way.
I just don't get this hatred of 4X4s, or the stereotyping of their owners.
|
I just don't get this hatred of 4X4s, or the stereotyping of their owners.
What I dont get is the criticism of size. Big 4x4s are no bigger than big people carriers. As a car driver, my view of the road is just as obscured by a Galaxy or Espace as it is by a Range Rover. So people carriers are supposed to be a more efficient use of space are they; but how often do you see them with 6 passengers in them? The vast majority I see have 1 or 2 occupants.
Why do people need people carriers? When I was young we were a family of four and we managed fine with a Mk3 Cortina. When my youngest brother came along we had Mk2 Cavaliers. We once went camping as a family of 5 in Cornwall with a 6 man frame tent taking up 60% of the Cavalier hatch boot space, with nominal storage on a roof rack, and we managed okay IIRC. If it had been an estate we would have been laughing.
But people carriers can do no wrong, because you can get little Jack and all his friends in the back, plus 3cwt. of toys and carp.
So if they are going to target 4x4s with higher taxes/ parking permit costs, etc., why not do the same for people carriers? And what about white vans, yes they are very useful but they have dirty big diesel engines, and they also take up a lot of room?
If my dislike of people carriers sounds irrational, well yes it is probably as irrational as many peoples hatred of 4x4s.
|
So if they are going to target 4x4s with higher taxes/ parking permit costs, etc., why not do the same for people carriers?
They are. I'm not aware of any legislation, current or proposed, that singles out 4x4s and treats them differently from people carriers. All the talk of 4x4s being singled out is the media and the public going round chasing their own tail.
If any particular 4x4 is taxed or charged more than any particular people carrier, it's purely because it's less efficient.
|
|
Ah, yes.. Oops I didnt intend to relate it to the tax issue, I only intended to mention the IMHO irrational size issue, I should have read my post before posting. I'll get me coat. I know the proposed Richmond parking charges are based on CO2, not vehicle type.
|
Okay, purely on the perception front, I think 4x4s annoy people more because they're unnecessarily tall, blocking everyone else's view, and apparently seen by their owners as a fashion statement. As annoying as wearing a tall hat in an auditorium.
When I see a 4x4, I don't think "ooh, lots of seats, what a sensible purchase"; I wonder why carrying one or two child seats requires 6 inches of extra ground clearance and a bonnet/base-of-window line above my eye-line.
Whereas a people carrier just evokes a response of "poor pink fluffy dice - forced to drive a taxi van because he couldn't sort his contraception out".
|
|
Excellent plan. Cars qualifying for the higher tax on grounds of sheer ugliness should also be banned from conservation areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
