|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: DougDoug Date: Apr 29, 2008 23:24
About time too. It costs far too little to run a car. Maybe this will
help to reduce damaging hypermobility and bumper-to-bumper 24/7 free
street garaging.
"Tens of thousands of families will have to pay up to £245 extra a
year under new road tax rules after a covert government decision to
include cars up to seven years old.
The Treasury admitted to The Times last night that it was quietly
abolishing the exemption for older cars from the highest rates of
vehicle excise duty. This means that owners of larger cars bought
since March 2001 will find that their road tax will rise steeply from
next April.
The increases are being introduced in two stages, with many owners who
are now paying £210 a year being charged £300 in 2009 and up to £455
in 2010.
The revelation comes amid motoring costs soar. Petrol prices reached
£5 a gallon yesterday. One consumer body believes that by next year it
could cost £84 to fill an average car with fuel..."
More:
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/article3842848.ece
|
| Show full article (1.15Kb) |
| 63 Comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Apr 29, 2008 23:25
Doug riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
> "Tens of thousands of families will have to pay up to £245 extra a year
> under new road tax rules after a covert government decision to include
> cars up to seven years old.
Hardly "covert".
> One consumer body believes that by next year it
> could cost £84 to fill an average car with fuel..."
It cost me that to fill my 2.0 Citroen last year.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MortimerMortimer Date: Apr 30, 2008 01:30
> Doug riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>>> "Tens of thousands of families will have to pay up to
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Apr 30, 2008 01:43
"Mortimer" privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>> "Tens of thousands of families will have to pay up to £245 extra a
>>> year under new road tax rules after a covert government decision to
>>> include cars up to seven years old.
>> Hardly "covert".
> What is the change that the government is making, The original reference
> in the article is a bit confusing.
It has to be, to suit their agenda. If it was clear, everybody'd say "So
what?"
> I know that cars registered before (I think) March 2001 all pay the same
> road tax, apart from being divided into two bands by engine size (*),
> whereas those after that date pay a rate that is dependent on CO2
> emissions ie efficiency.
Yup, pre-73 is free, 73-01 is <=1549cc and >=1550cc.
> But what is this "exemption for older cars from the highest rates of
> vehicle excise duty" which will now be applied to "larger cars bought
> since March 2001"?
Complete bollocks, you'll be unsurprised to hear.
|
| Show full article (2.23Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: MortimerMortimer Date: Apr 30, 2008 01:55
> "Mortimer" privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:> When the CO2 banding was first brought in, in '01, the highest band was
> band F, 186g/km and over.
> In '06, band G was brought in, 225g/km and up - but only for new vehicles
> from that date forwards.
>
> That banding scheme is changing slightly for 2009/10, for all post-'01
> cars, with the exiting bands A-F (0-224g/km) being replaced by A-K
> (0-225), with G being split into two - L (226-254) and M (255+).
>
> New cars will have a different first-year price. For the lower bands,
> it'll be free (up to D) or the same (E-G). For the higher bands, it'll be
> higher.
Thanks for that very informative explanation. Shame the original article
didn't say that!
|
| Show full article (1.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Apr 30, 2008 02:01
"Mortimer" privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:
>>> Either way, it doesn't apply to me since my car is just too old to
>>> benefit from CO2-based road tax, so I pay a rate that is higher than I
>>> would if it was based on my CO2 emissions.
>> Same here - but mine's probably lower than it would be if it was based
>> on CO2 - which, of course, it can't be because there is no official CO2
>> figure for any pre-01 car.
> Which is a bummer when the self-same car registered after 2001 has an
> official figure: assuming the manufacturer's spec hasn't changed, if CO2
> is known after 2001 it *could* in theory be back-dated to earlier cars
> of the same spec.
Big "if", that last bit. In practice, very small and seemingly hidden
spec changes have effects on the CO2 figures, with few cars apparently
having the same figure on their individual V5C as the guidelines for that
model. Tyre size, minor aerodynamic, gearing or fuel mapping changes will
all change the actual figure.
|
| Show full article (1.80Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: MortimerMortimer Date: Apr 30, 2008 02:39
> "Mortimer" privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>>>>> Either way, it doesn't apply to me since my car is just too old to
>>>> benefit from CO2-based road tax, so I pay a rate that is higher than I
>>>> would if it was based on my CO2 emissions.
>
>>> Same here - but mine's probably lower than it would be if it was based
>>> on CO2 - which, of course, it can't be because there is no official CO2
>>> figure for any pre-01 car.
>
>> Which is a bummer when the self-same car registered after 2001 has an
>> official figure: assuming the manufacturer's spec hasn't changed, if CO2
>> is known after 2001 it *could* in theory be back-dated to earlier cars
>> of the same spec.
>
> Big "if", that last bit. In practice, very small and seemingly hidden
> spec changes have effects on the CO2 figures, with few cars apparently ...
|
| Show full article (2.34Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Brian WhiteheadBrian Whitehead Date: Apr 30, 2008 02:52
On 30 Apr, 07:25, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:> Doug riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>>> "Tens of thousands of families will have to pay up to £245 extra a year
>> under new road tax rules after a covert government decision to include
>> cars up to seven years old.
>
> Hardly "covert".
I was mystified by the references to "secret" etc when I read the
article in the paper this morning. It also contains some great
rentaquotes from someone at the "Association of British Drivers",
whining on about how "This impacts hardest on poorer families who need
larger cars". Given that diesel-engined larger cars (with perfectly
adequate performance and carrying ability yet with decent fuel
economy) have been available for many years now, this strikes me as a
load of old Bollen. So no surprises there, then.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: AdrianAdrian Date: Apr 30, 2008 03:04
Brian Whitehead hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:
> I was mystified by the references to "secret" etc when I read the
> article in the paper this morning. It also contains some great
> rentaquotes from someone at the "Association of British Drivers",
> whining on about how "This impacts hardest on poorer families who need
> larger cars". Given that diesel-engined larger cars (with perfectly
> adequate performance and carrying ability yet with decent fuel economy)
> have been available for many years now, this strikes me as a load of old
> Bollen. So no surprises there, then.
Quite. All the bollocks about people carriers being hit - they keep
trotting out the Vaux Zafira. Well, yes, but only the 200+bhp petrol
turbo. Same with the Espace. Well, yes, but only the v6 petrol...
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Brian WhiteheadBrian Whitehead Date: Apr 30, 2008 03:29
On 30 Apr, 11:04, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:> Brian Whitehead hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>>> I was mystified by the references to "secret" etc when I read the
>> article in the paper this morning. It also contains some great
>> rentaquotes from someone at the "Association of British Drivers",
>> whining on about how "This impacts hardest on poorer families who need
>> larger cars". Given that diesel-engined larger cars (with perfectly
>> adequate performance and carrying ability yet with decent fuel economy)
>> have been available for many years now, this strikes me as a load of old
>> Bollen. So no surprises there, then.
>
> Quite. All the bollocks about people carriers being hit - they keep
> trotting out the...
|
| Show full article (1.56Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
