Road tax...red herring

[kevdyas]

People might find this article quite typical of the UK Government!

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/articl ... 61,00.html

Kevin

[martine]

People might find this article quite typical of the UK Government!

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/articl ... 61,00.html

Kevin

Ahhh one assumes you are not a labour voter then!

I agree with the principle though of higher emissions, higher fuel consumption paying more tax regardless of whether they are 4x4, 2-wheeled, hybrid, rubber-band powered or whatever.

[Nigel]

If you drive a larger car you pay more tax by default, as you buy more fuel, we don't need anything aditional.

The British motorist already pays for the entire road network to be built seven times over....every year.

Its all political clap trap, leaving your tv or computer on standby causes more pollution than traffic, industry, airlines ( still no tax on airline fuel).

The motorist is just an easy target, and from some of these posts, people are begining to believe the nonsense.

Our government sign us up to targets that they can't attain, then spend our money either paying fines for not attaining the targets, or buying other Countries allowances.

[martine]

If you drive a larger car you pay more tax by default, as you buy more fuel, we don't need anything aditional.

This is bizarre - I'm not what some people would call green, but I feel drivers that choose certain types of vehicle should pay *much* more and the increase to £215 road tax is just a joke. Yes you pay more in fuel tax but judging by the popularity of 4x4s it's not a disinsentive. I have a people carrier because I have 4 children - I just don't get the urban 4x4 attraction as they seem to have loads of disadvantages.

Its all political clap trap, leaving your tv or computer on standby causes more pollution than traffic, industry, airlines ( still no tax on airline fuel).

Well that depends - it might be true of the old tv/videos but even my 3 year old one consumes <1 watt on standby according to the manual - I can't see it's an issue.

The motorist is just an easy target, and from some of these posts, people are begining to believe the nonsense.

An easy target for sure but the money doesn't disappear...if it's not raised by car tax then it would need to be raised by other means. Getting the balance is what we're talking about and in principle I think we should be encouraged to use public transport more. There are some excellent transport systems around the world and it's something we can learn from I believe.

Our government sign us up to targets that they can't attain, then spend our money either paying fines for not attaining the targets, or buying other Countries allowances.

Not quote sure what facts are but I assume you are talking about Kyoto? I would prefer to be a world leader in such matters as standing back from the detail, it's got to be the right direction hasn't it? I beleive the UK gets a lot of credibility worldwide and even the US are just starting to move.

[Nigel]

I'm not keen to be a wrold leader if it is just throwing money away, whilst we still supply "3rd world countries" with old technology.

As for your thoughts on 4 x 4's, just because you can't see the attraction, I fail to see why you want people who can to pay more ( I don't have one, just so you don't think that is the reason for my thinking).

What do you think the extra damage caused by 4 x 4's is ?

Compare a Land Rover Discovery to your people carrier or my BMW 525i.

If it uses more fuel ( which I doubt in diesel version compared to my BM), they pay extra anyway, I just can't see this impact you percieve.

There is a diffence between my wifes little suzuki swift and our larger cars, that is why she enjoys cheaper running costs, and therefore pays less tax.

I can't understand peoples perceptions of larger cars, it smacks of jealousy to me.

[martine]

I'm not keen to be a wrold leader if it is just throwing money away, whilst we still supply "3rd world countries" with old technology.

Can you expand on that...not with you.

As for your thoughts on 4 x 4's, just because you can't see the attraction, I fail to see why you want people who can to pay more ( I don't have one, just so you don't think that is the reason for my thinking).

What do you think the extra damage caused by 4 x 4's is ?

Compare a Land Rover Discovery to your people carrier or my BMW 525i.

I think in general 'society' should be encouraged to drive smaller, fuel efficient, green cars. One way to do this is to make it less expensive to own/drive one. OK fuel tax is a start but road tax is another way to differentiate and even now with the £0 - £215 range it's just not enough.

People like me who drive a large, fuel inefficient car need more than the current 'weighting' to make it attractive to become greener. As I said at opening of this thread the £50 difference between medium and large sized vehicles is just one tank of fuel...that's not going to effect anyone's decision on which car to run.

It's not a 4x4 tax it's a tax based on emmissions rightly so. As an aside I just can't see the attraction of a 4x4 in urban environments over a people carrier apart from the 'macho' element which obviously appeals to some.

If it uses more fuel ( which I doubt in diesel version compared to my BM), they pay extra anyway, I just can't see this impact you percieve.

I think fuel and emmissions are the main arguments against but others would include:
pedestrian safety
parking space (think of 2 smart cars in the same space as a Landcruiser
congestion (ditto)
and yes more errosion to road surface

I can't understand peoples perceptions of larger cars, it smacks of jealousy to me.

Oh I'm jealous of a Lambourghini Gallardo or a Merc S class all right just not a any 4x4s.

I've no problem with peoples right to choose exotic/big/fuel ineffecient cars/motorbikes etc but I just don't think the cost weighting is quite right yet...and yes, I woud be willing (as a big car user) to pay even more.

[Nigel]

Well thats where we differ Martin....we pay for our road system seven times over every year, as far as I'm concerned thats more than enough.

If the government need more money for what ever barm pot idea they have next, they can raise general taxation, not keep getting the double and even treble bite at the cherry they get with motoring taxes.

Elecrtricity generation and aircraft fuel are the two big issues regardng pollution at the moment, not cars.

[kwakba]

Nigel is right, nowadays most modern cars have a minimal impact on the enviroment, and it's negligble when compared to Planes and Electricity generation/wastage.

We all know using a car for short journeys is wasteful and we all should know that leaving appliances on standby is wasteful, looking round my flat I'm ashamed to say I had 2 tv's, 1 vcr, 2 dvd players, 1 hifi, 1 cable box,1 playstation, 1 scart selector box, a printer, and alarm clock, etc. all on standby plus a marine fish tank with several filters/lights/heaters etc. All using electricity for no reason (other than the fish tank), it might not seem much but imagine how much is being wasted (say 10watts per hour) and imagine my flat is about average for the UK. On this basis with approx 15million houses (guessing here) in the UK we are wasting approx 150 million watts per hour, not a small amount...

Look over the sea at the Americans who waste energy with no thought to tomorrow and it show what a small impact out car useage has... I'm not saying it should be ignored but needs to be kept in perspective.

To be honest, I don't mind paying a bit extra to be able to drive the car of my choice.