VED - Road Tax

[kasandrich]

I drive a Kia Sorento 4X4, the VED is £210 from memory, I bought it for a purpose, its a tow car, so most of the time it sits doing nothing, now, its a diesel and without the caravan on the back it will do 35mpg, so its hardly a gas-guzzler, which is a term that was bought in referring to 10mpg V8 petrol Range Rovers and the like. But my point is, that my 4X4 is more economical when its not in use than a Toyota Yaris that is in use, and whats more it is just as economical as a Toyota Yaris thats not in use. :roll:

 

[Lons]

I drive a Kia Sorento 4X4, the VED is £210 from memory, I bought it for a purpose, its a tow car, so most of the time it sits doing nothing, now, its a diesel and without the caravan on the back it will do 35mpg, so its hardly a gas-guzzler, which is a term that was bought in referring to 10mpg V8 petrol Range Rovers and the like. But my point is, that my 4X4 is more economical when its not in use than a Toyota Yaris that is in use, and whats more it is just as economical as a Toyota Yaris thats not in use. :roll:

And in a nut shell, isn't that the argument for a fairer tax system?

 

[big soft moose]

I drive a Kia Sorento 4X4, the VED is £210 from memory, I bought it for a purpose, its a tow car, so most of the time it sits doing nothing, now, its a diesel and without the caravan on the back it will do 35mpg, so its hardly a gas-guzzler, which is a term that was bought in referring to 10mpg V8 petrol Range Rovers and the like. But my point is, that my 4X4 is more economical when its not in use than a Toyota Yaris that is in use, and whats more it is just as economical as a Toyota Yaris thats not in use. :roll:

which takes me back to my original point - before discovering that rogers vehicle wasnt a 4x4

if you only rarely use a 4x4 it might be more economical to drive something cheaper and just hire one when you need it

that said , I would suport a sliding scale ved based on mileage as well as engine size etc, the inteligent way being to pay it via the mot test centre when the car is mot'd as they record your milleage at that point anyway

 

[big soft moose]

If the Govt wanted to cut down realistically on the carbon footprint then get rid of or heavily penalise the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet. After all, no-one needs to fly off for a short weekend break.

flying only accounts for 4% of anthropogenic co2 so it wouldnt make that much difference - tho as soon as oil peaks the stupidly cheap flight will be a thing of the past anyway. ( and i agree that no one needs to fly for recreation)

 

[Digit]

flying only accounts for 4% of anthropogenic co2 so it wouldnt make that much difference

and the UK's contribution to the total Moose is only a fraction of countries like China, which will continue to rise.

Roy.

 

[big soft moose]

flying only accounts for 4% of anthropogenic co2 so it wouldnt make that much difference

and the UK's contribution to the total Moose is only a fraction of countries like China, which will continue to rise.

Roy.

true enough - but we cant expect them or the murricans for that matter to give their kyoto targets any credence if we disregard ourown on the basis that we are only a bit player.

as a wise man once said the route to failure is when he who can only do a little does nothing.

 

[Digit]

Or look at it another way. If the government really means that raising the cost of fuel is a green issue rather than a Milch cow they could simply ration the supply to non essential users. They have done it before, they have the means. When I see such action Moose then I'll begin to believe.
Till then I simply list them as amongst the worlds great con merchants.

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

If the Govt wanted to cut down realistically on the carbon footprint then get rid of or heavily penalise the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet. After all, no-one needs to fly off for a short weekend break.

..... ( and i agree that no one needs to fly for recreation)

Absolutely, old chap, no reason why anyone should go anywhere and actually enjoy themselves. It's clear that my irony/sarcasm in the earlier post failed.

 

[big soft moose]

If the Govt wanted to cut down realistically on the carbon footprint then get rid of or heavily penalise the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet. After all, no-one needs to fly off for a short weekend break.

..... ( and i agree that no one needs to fly for recreation)

Absolutely, old chap, no reason why anyone should go anywhere and actually enjoy themselves. It's clear that my irony/sarcasm in the earlier post failed.

:roll: you still havent absorbed the basic point of my original post and are making my opinion out to be different than it is.

I fully understand that people may want to fly to paris, or wherever for the weekend, other people may want to drive fast cars, and still others may want to do a range of other things for fun, and so long as its legal and doesnt negatively affect the enjoyment of others then I am fine with people doing whatever they want for enjoyment.

However the basic point is the difference between "want" and "need" - no one needs to drive a fast car (excepting the tiny minority who drive them profesionally), just as no one need to fly to paris and back for the weekend.

and thus my original point was a response to your suggestion that the VED on your vehicle was "unjust" - the point being that it is indeed unjust to charge someone extra for a vehicle which they need for their livelihood (such as for example a forester being charged extra VED on his landrover) but it is not , in my opinion, unjust to be charged more on things that one doesnt need to do but which we might want to do for enjoyment - because if it isnt a necessity we have the choice of not doing it if we dont want to pay.

 

[RogerS]

If the Govt wanted to cut down realistically on the carbon footprint then get rid of or heavily penalise the likes of Ryanair and Easyjet. After all, no-one needs to fly off for a short weekend break.

..... ( and i agree that no one needs to fly for recreation)

Absolutely, old chap, no reason why anyone should go anywhere and actually enjoy themselves. It's clear that my irony/sarcasm in the earlier post failed.

:roll: you still havent absorbed the basic point of my original post and are making my opinion out to be different than it is.

I fully understand that people may want to fly to paris, or wherever for the weekend, other people may want to drive fast cars, and still others may want to do a range of other things for fun, and so long as its legal and doesnt negatively affect the enjoyment of others then I am fine with people doing whatever they want for enjoyment.

However the basic point is the difference between "want" and "need" - no one needs to drive a fast car (excepting the tiny minority who drive them profesionally), just as no one need to fly to paris and back for the weekend.

and thus my original point was a response to your suggestion that the VED on your vehicle was "unjust" - the point being that it is indeed unjust to charge someone extra for a vehicle which they need for their livelihood (such as for example a forester being charged extra VED on his landrover) but it is not , in my opinion, unjust to be charged more on things that one doesnt need to do but which we might want to do for enjoyment - because if it isnt a necessity we have the choice of not doing it if we dont want to pay.

Not at all.

Your 'want' and 'need' are value-judgements which you seem insistent on making/imposing on others when you simply have no right to.

 

[Dibs-h]

the inteligent way being to pay it via the mot test centre when the car is mot'd as they record your milleage at that point anyway

It is unbelievably easy to have the mileage "corrected" even on the latest generation cars ranging from little Toyotas to 100k+ Bentleys!

As soon as that sort of thing - recording mileage etc at the MOT test centre were to come into place - "mileage correction" would become an even bigger & more lucrative industry.

 

[Lons]

But Moose, isn't that true of almost everything we now use and "need"

If I'm brutally honest, I dont "need" our computers, (we're using valuable resources at this minute - contributing to an argument we don't "need" to join).
I dont need our flat sceen tvs, or the radios, the cameras, my mobile, dvds, books, conservatory, garage, decent clothes (I can keep warm in rags), central heating. I could go on and on.

I didn't need to visit my brother in Sydney but why shouldn't I?

Do I really "need" all the tools I posess? - Of course not but they make work more enjoyable and a little easier and I enjoy using quality tools. I guess most of us would identify with that.

it's a no win argument and not one of our opinions is wrong.

My beef is that we are being drip fed bum information regarding green issues and falsified results by the powers that be to enable them to justify unfair taxes because they know damn well that if the real reasons weren't suppressed, they wouldn't get away with it.
No-one can seriously argue that it is very easy to justify any expenditure labelled as "green" but precious little of this money is being used effectively!

Just my opinion
Bob

 

[big soft moose]

Not at all.

Your 'want' and 'need' are value-judgements which you seem insistent on making/imposing on others when you simply have no right to.

a) they arent value judgements they are facts - everyone has the same basic needs e.g food, shelter, safety etc which in a modern society means employment or income. We have to have these things so imposing a tax increase which threatens the ability to provide these things would be unjust. Beyond those everyone has a range of desires including fun, enjoyment, adventure etc but none of us actually need those things to live so they arent "needs"

A value judgement would be if I said you dont need to drive a sports car and therefore you shouldnt, or that there is anything wrong with doing so - which i have consistently not done, I am fine with you choosing to drive whatever you want.

and

b) with regard to the "no right to" bit this is a forum, a place for the expression and the exchange of views. I have as much right to express my opinion as you do to express yours - you dont have to agree with me or vice versa (and it would probably benefit the board as a whole if we just agreed to differ), but anyone who happens to disagree with you is not automatically wrong or automatically a troll

 

[big soft moose]

It is unbelievably easy to have the mileage "corrected" even on the latest generation cars ranging from little Toyotas to 100k+ Bentleys!

As soon as that sort of thing - recording mileage etc at the MOT test centre were to come into place - "mileage correction" would become an even bigger & more lucrative industry.

true , but milleage is already recorded at the MOT test centre, and clocking is illegal so there would be penalties for those that were caught (just as there are penalties for those that currently drive untaxed, or use snide mots/insurance certificates toget their tax disc )

just because some might abuse a system this doesnt make it a bad idea

 

[Dibs-h]

It is unbelievably easy to have the mileage "corrected" even on the latest generation cars ranging from little Toyotas to 100k+ Bentleys!

As soon as that sort of thing - recording mileage etc at the MOT test centre were to come into place - "mileage correction" would become an even bigger & more lucrative industry.

true , but milleage is already recorded at the MOT test centre, and clocking is illegal so there would be penalties for those that were caught (just as there are penalties for those that currently drive untaxed, or use snide mots/insurance certificates toget their tax disc )

just because some might abuse a system this doesnt make it a bad idea

Clocking is illegal - i.e. winding back for profit, usually when the car is sold on, but if it was wound back to minimise VED, I don't believe - unless you were stupid - you would get caught.

I've seen high end cars (100k+) go back to the dealership having been adjusted and factory diagnostics (anti-tamper whatever) were none the wiser, so what chance have HMRC or VOSA? Especially when little to no dismantling is required.

Mileage correction isn't illegal - selling the car on having had the mileage corrected and failing to tell the new owner, is illegal.

As for un-insured\untaxed drivers - their are easy solutions to these problems, but there must obviously be some "fat" reason why they aren't implemented.

For instance if registrations were to the individual and not just the car - if a car was sold, legally the plates couldn't go with it, do you think folk could pay cash for a car and drive it away (untaxed or un-insured).

 

[RogerS]

.......

The other ironic thing is people who can afford to buy a car that retails at £23k plus and runs at 25mpg , whinging about the inequity of paying £435 pa to drive their performance toy
......

Well, if that little statement isn't a value-judgement then I don't know what is.

At what 'value' would you find it acceptable ? £20,000? £200

Huge assumptions on your part - the biggest being that you assumed (wrongly) that it was bought brand new at £23k.

'Toy'...there's another one. All your prejudices and chips in one handy sentence.

 

[big soft moose]

.......

The other ironic thing is people who can afford to buy a car that retails at £23k plus and runs at 25mpg , whinging about the inequity of paying £435 pa to drive their performance toy
......

Well, if that little statement isn't a value-judgement then I don't know what is.

At what 'value' would you find it acceptable ? £20,000? £200

Huge assumptions on your part - the biggest being that you assumed (wrongly) that it was bought brand new at £23k.

'Toy'...there's another one. All your prejudices and chips in one handy sentence.

you are determnined to turn this into an argument arent you

a) I'm fine with you (or anyone else) spending 23k or for that matter 23 million on a car, you want to buy a bugati veron or a DB9 or a ferrari diablo or whatever , you go for it, I could give a **** - so i'm not sure where the "what ammount would be acceptable" comes from

b) Huge assumption on your part that i'm talking about just you - the point is that its ironic that anyone who can afford to buy and run a sports car would find 435 quid a year a big deal. (even if the car was bought second hand the 435 quid pales into insignificance compared to the fuel tax)

c) "toy" it is you who is insistent that you "need" this car for the purposes of enjoyment - what else would you call something that you buy to play with :roll:

(and the idea that i am predjudiced against sports car owners is a product of your fertile imagination - as i said way back on page one my wife drives one - and she chooses to drive a less practical car for the purposes of enjoyment also, but she accepts that its a choice and thus isnt whinging about the VED )

 

[Jake]

Where's the popcorn?

 

[jlawrence]

hmmm, I choose to drive a big 4x4. OK, when I got it there wasn't this hike in VED but it is still my choice as to whether to keep the 4x4 or not - more than likely I will keep it.
I don't 'need' to drive a 4x4 (or at least not very often) but I choose to. So I have a choice - either pay the increased VED or change my choice - pretty simply really. As BSM says - it's my choice and I can make that choice knowing the costs involved.

 

[Karl]

The only problem with that Jon is that the ar$e has fallen out of the 2nd hand 4x4 market, principally due to the increased VED. My brother lost £4k on a used 4x4 in just 1 year - little to do with depreciation, more to do with reduced market.

Cheers

Karl