> If anyone remembers this one:
> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Reject any proposals
> to ban or restrict the use of older cars."
>
> There's a response here:
> http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15326.asp

> Willy Eckerslyke wrote:

>> If anyone remembers this one:
>> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Reject any
>> proposals to ban or restrict the use of older cars."
>>
>> There's a response here:
>> http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15326.asp

>
> Reading between the lines, if you own a Taxation Class Historic you
> will probably always be OK, but the 1970s cars that don't qualify
> might be a long term risk
>
> Time to start pressurising the Government to reset the Historic date,
> perhaps?
>
> Jim

> conservatives brought it in, when it was a rolling 25 year exemption,
> labour capped it at 1973. Make it a condition you demand of your MP at
> the next election and vote conservative.

> I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being a classic car owner
> I've a gut feeling there are more deserving cases for taxation reduction
> than someone's hobby.

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>

>> I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being a classic car owner
>> I've a gut feeling there are more deserving cases for taxation reduction
>> than someone's hobby.

>
> I see it more as a way of papering over the cracks in vehicle taxation.
> It's totally unfair to charge the same tax regardless of annual mileage,
> so anyone running several classics averaging low mileages would be
> unfairly penalised without this concession. It's far from perfect, but
> IMO, is fairer than no concession at all.
> And there are plenty of _far_ less deserving cases for tax relief out

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>> I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being a classic car owner
>> I've a gut feeling there are more deserving cases for taxation
>> reduction than someone's hobby.

> I see it more as a way of papering over the cracks in vehicle taxation.
> It's totally unfair to charge the same tax regardless of annual mileage,
> so anyone running several classics averaging low mileages would be
> unfairly penalised without this concession. It's far from perfect, but
> IMO, is fairer than no concession at all. And there are plenty of _far_
> less deserving cases for tax relief out there.

>
>"Willy Eckerslyke" bangor.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:67dmqeF2oupk6U1@mid.individual.net...

>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>

>>> I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being...

>>> I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being a classic car owner
>>> I've a gut feeling there are more deserving cases for taxation
>>> reduction than someone's hobby.

>

>> I see it more as a way of papering over the cracks in vehicle taxation.
>> It's totally unfair to charge the same tax regardless of annual mileage,
>> so anyone running several classics averaging low mileages would be
>> unfairly penalised without this concession. It's far from perfect, but
>> IMO, is fairer than no concession at all. And there are plenty of _far_
>> less deserving cases for tax relief out there.

>
> Why restrict it to classic cars? Why not allow anyone to have any number
> of cars they wish without paying any VED?

> "Willy Eckerslyke" bangor.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:67dmqeF2oupk6U1@mid.individual.net...

>> And there are plenty of _far_ less deserving cases for tax relief out

> there.
>
> Yep, like the Dodge Ram 4x4 fitted with the 5.7 V8 Hemi engine!