VED - Road Tax

[RogerS]

Ouch....just seen what the VED is going to be. It does seem a bit unjust. We do under 2000 miles a year in it and so can hardly be called 'planet-blasters' and yet we get penalised the same as someone driving many many more miles. The temptation to go out and get a lovely old 5 litre V8 Mustang gets stronger every day.

 

[thomvic]

I have some sympathy with you, my VED is going to be £235 this year though I do drive about 10k miles p.a.

We just have to accept that VED has nothing to do with road funding (you may recall that it used to be called the Road Fund Licence) or the amount you travel it is just another tax stream. Additional taxation is being stuck onto the motorist and varied according to theoretical carbon emissions under the guise of trying to reduce emissions whereas we know that the likely environmental benefits are minimal.

Any Government has to raise taxes or borrowings to meet it's financial budgets. If the money is not raised from motorists it will only be taken from us another way.

Oh the joys of motoring! :evil:

 

[jasonB]

The temptation to go out and get a lovely old 5 litre V8 Mustang gets stronger every day

But then you would only start complaining about the amount of tax on fuel, at least that way you pay in proportion to what you use.

Thats why my Scooby does not do a lot of miles as it likes super unleaded :wink:

Jason

 

[Karl]

To my mind, the only green way to tax motorists is to abolish VED and alter fuel tax so that those who use more pay more, those who use less pay less.

We would be worse off (about 26k per year over 2 cars).

Cheers

Karl

 

[flying haggis]

To my mind, the only green way to tax motorists is to abolish VED and alter fuel tax so that those who use more pay more, those who use less pay less.


Cheers

Karl

BUT then everything that you buy that has been delivered by a vehicle would rise in price to compensate. Just for info I use about 100-130 litres of diesel per day in the truck that I drive. Luckily I dont have to pay for it!!

 

[beech1948]

Karl,

There is no need to change the law at all.

Under the current system of petrol prices those who use more do pay more.

In fact in direct proportion to the miles driven and the fuel economy of their car.

The VED is just another tax stream we could do without.

regards
Alan

 

[Lons]

Karl,

There is no need to change the law at all.

Under the current system of petrol prices those who use more do pay more.

In fact in direct proportion to the miles driven and the fuel economy of their car.

The VED is just another tax stream we could do without.

regards
Alan

Yeah and you can just visualize the scenario......................

To great self applause =D> =D> - "we are abolishing the RFL and adding 10p ltr on fuel to give a fairer system"

Guess what............. a few years later - RFL returns under a different name but tax on fuel stays!

Am I cynical - No - am I - really? :roll:

 

[Blister]

Born to live :lol:

Taxed till you die , o sorry I forgot ( after you die as well ) :roll:

 

[big soft moose]

Ouch....just seen what the VED is going to be. It does seem a bit unjust. We do under 2000 miles a year in it and so can hardly be called 'planet-blasters' and yet we get penalised the same as someone driving many many more miles. The temptation to go out and get a lovely old 5 litre V8 Mustang gets stronger every day.

if you only drive about £2k miles per year you might be better off looking at leasing, or buying a lower tax bracket car and just hiring when "its" needed. (I presume "it" is a 4x4 of some nature)

 

[RogerS]

Ouch....just seen what the VED is going to be. It does seem a bit unjust. We do under 2000 miles a year in it and so can hardly be called 'planet-blasters' and yet we get penalised the same as someone driving many many more miles. The temptation to go out and get a lovely old 5 litre V8 Mustang gets stronger every day.

if you only drive about £2k miles per year you might be better off looking at leasing, or buying a lower tax bracket car and just hiring when "its" needed. (I presume "it" is a 4x4 of some nature)

No it's an RX8. Just not worth selling it. Leasing? No way.

 

[big soft moose]

Ouch....just seen what the VED is going to be. It does seem a bit unjust. We do under 2000 miles a year in it and so can hardly be called 'planet-blasters' and yet we get penalised the same as someone driving many many more miles. The temptation to go out and get a lovely old 5 litre V8 Mustang gets stronger every day.

if you only drive about £2k miles per year you might be better off looking at leasing, or buying a lower tax bracket car and just hiring when "its" needed. (I presume "it" is a 4x4 of some nature)

No it's an RX8. Just not worth selling it. Leasing? No way.

well in that case you are stuck and i dont really have that much sympathy, no one needs to drive a sports car and if you choose to you have to accept the penalities that go with it including higher VED (and we are in a similar boat as swimbo drives an mx5 - but we accept that its a choice , previously she drove an aygo and paid VED or just £35 per year )

I was thinking that 4x4 users as similiarly penalised and living out in the sticks a 4x4 is sometimes an essential rather than a luxury which makes that unjust. (hence also the comment about leasing - the works team we share an office with lease their 4x4s - paying arround 3k pa i think - however they have no VED to worry about, no MOTs, No repairs other than accidental damage, and have new vehicles every three years, we own our works vehicle outright but i often think that leasing would be more economic)

 

[RogerS]

.....no one needs to drive a sports car ....

No one needs to ...what utter tosh. That is so judgemental as are most of your posts.

Who the hell gave you the right to tell me what I need?

 

[mr grimsdale]

The system looks quite intelligent IMHO;
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Ow ... G_10012524
No doubt the gradient will get steeper, and so it should.
There could be more zero rates perhaps, or even negative rates (subsidies) for those who travel on foot, bicycle etc.

 

[big soft moose]

.....no one needs to drive a sports car ....

No one needs to ...what utter tosh. That is so judgemental as are most of your posts.

Who the hell gave you the right to tell me what I need?

Okay so tell me this why do you "need" to drive a sports car - or for that matter why does anyone ?

(and btw Its not judgemental , i'm not saying that there is anything wrong with driving one, I mean FFS I said my wife drives one , but the point is its a choice not an essential)

with a 4x4 the need justification (at least for the country dweller) is obvious - for example " I regularly go off road so I need the 4WD, the difflock, and the ground clearance" or I regularly tow a heavy trailer so i need the 4wd and the grunt "

but for a sports car the "need justification" isnt there - I mean what do they offer that an ordinary car doesnt - they acelerate faster certainly, lower to the ground, you can put the top down and drive with the wind blowing in your hair, they can be a status symbol etc - but none of those things are really necessary, and the desires to drive fast, look cool. or whatever are "wants" not "needs"

 

[Jason Pettitt]

Coo - 238bhp (or whatever an RX8 has these days).

I was thinking about this t'other day, in the bath as it happens. Horses are big, heavy animals. Strong too. You wouldn't want one standing on your foot or be between a horse and a wall it fancies leaning on. 10 horses is a lot of horse. 20 is stampede material. I start having problems imagining what 50 horses looks like but I guess that 100 horses is probably sufficient to fill the entire road that I live on with a seething mass of muscle and nostrils. 100bhp is about what a typical family run around has right? And then there's you with something a bit sporty, but otherwise not a wholly remarkable car, with the equivalent power to a whopping 238 horses - and all just to move one little person around.

I'm sure Jeremy Clarkson thinks phwoar - but I can't help thinking that being quite that gob-smackingly, brain-defyingly inefficient is actually more than a little tiny bit stupid and that perhaps our way of looking at these things went a bit adrift somewhere down the road.

 

[big soft moose]

I'm sure Jeremy Clarkson thinks phwoar - but I can't help thinking that being quite that gob-smackingly, brain-defyingly inefficient is actually more than a little tiny bit stupid and that perhaps our way of looking at these things went a bit adrift somewhere down the road.

yep I think our thinking on these things is a little bit distorted particularly as neither bhp or 0-60 is really that relevant to the actual driving experience.

For example my wifes MX5 has more BHP than my ford focus estate and a quicker acceleration, plus it has much better road holding if you want to throw it arround on country lanes (or for that matter on a clarksonesque test track)

However we recently went up to lancaster in both cars (taking the mx to be reroofed but with the luggage and dog in the focus ) and although she initially sped away from me and opened up a fair gap once we reached the motorway and I just moved to cruising at 75-80 in the middle lane it only took 20 minuites for me to catch up, overtake , and pull away and i arrived over an hour in front (helped by the fact that the focus will go to lancaster and back on one tank , wheras the mx has to be filled up on both journeys). Added to which on arrival I felt fine having had a relaxed and comfortable drive, whereas swimbo was stiff from being in a cramped cockpit and mentally frazzled.

 

[RogerS]

Whatever.

Suggest you look up in the dictionary 'aesthetics', 'style', 'design' and 'enjoyment'

 

[Racers]

Hi,

Horses produce about 2 horsepower.


185 BHP ALFA 159
100 BHp Kawasaki ZXR750J2

Pete

 

[big soft moose]

Whatever.

Suggest you look up in the dictionary 'aesthetics', 'style', 'design' and 'enjoyment'

umm - yes and your point is...

why do you need aesthetics, style, design, and enjoyment from your car though -I understand that you might want them but thats aint the same thing which was my original point. (that it is unjust to be made to pay extra for those things that you need (as in a rural dwellers 4x4) but perfectly just to have to choose to pay extra in order to satisfy a desire for non essentials where there are other cheaper and more practical choices available)

In my opinion a car is just a car , its purpose is to get me and my equipment from A to B in a reasonable period of time, and at a reasonable cost - therefore the design is important in terms of functionality, fuel efficiency, reasonable performance, and safety - but the style and aesthetics are irelevant.

I apreciate that not everyone feels the same - for example the missus picked her MX5 for reasons of style and looks - when in fact her aygo was a far more practical car - which if it makes her happy is fine - but like i said its a choice not a necessity

 

[RogerS]

I must not feed the troll.

I must not feed the troll.

I must not feed the troll.