Gordon Browns Budget on gas guzzlers...

[RugbyPete]

I'm hoping this is just for REAL gas guzzlers like lorries, buses, trucks, 4x4 offroad vehicles, exotic supercars, etc. and not just everyone driving a 2 litre or above.

Otherwise I've just wasted my money on a v6!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6464783.stm

[jayjay99]

I was just reading that on Yahoo, and it said ".....including most 4x4s and sports cars, is set to rise from £210 to more than £400 over the next two years...." I don't pay £210 in tax, I pay £165 or £170 (can't remember which) so matbe this is a bracket above us. We're probably just classed as large family cars.

[Roadrunner]

I was just reading that on Yahoo, and it said ".....including most 4x4s and sports cars, is set to rise from £210 to more than £400 over the next two years...." I don't pay £210 in tax, I pay £165 or £170 (can't remember which) so matbe this is a bracket above us. We're probably just classed as large family cars.
I wish ... The DVLA doesn't classify any vehicle as a 4x4 or a sports car (or as a large family car), but the engine capacity is known for each vehicle. You can bet that it will be the engine capacity that will be used to decide what level of additional tax we'll pay - easy to administer, easy to collect. :(

The only way we'd escape is if he bases it on CO2 emissions as at present. Any vehicle registered before 1st March 2001 isn't rated which is why I'll pay £175 for my 2.5-litre twin-turbo and why my wife pays £190 for her 2.3-litre supercharged car. Mind, the government currently views any car over 1549cc as a "gas guzzler" so no surprise that most people will end up paying more.

[RugbyPete]

Ah ok, more details have come through. It seems only vehicles registered in the last year, and emitting emissions of a certain level (eg. new 4x4's, or other dirty vehicles) will double their bill. Geared towards future sales of a certain vehicle, and hopefully having a knock on effect to vehicle manufacturers to invest in better engines for the environment. In theory if everyone stops buying 4x4's, in 10 years they will be rare on the road, and if no-ones buying them new, manufacturers will be pushed to progress clean alternative fuelled 'big' vehicles.
Greenpeace and other protesters want £1000 a year tax on brand new big ass vehicles to put off future sales, I guess it makes sense. I just hate tax that shafts those already in a certain category with no warning, at least this way you give people the choice to either buy a gas guzzler and pay high tax or buy something smaller and get taxed normally, but you're not shafting those who have had one for 5 years for example who are trying to get their moneys worth from a full car lifecycle and make depreciation worth it.

That keeps us older car drives again smug for not buying new ;)

[jayjay99]

Cool, sounds good to me!!! :2thumbsup

[thecustomer]

yeah, good thread...

shame that Gordon B is playing politics with this though, appealing to the greens, and conveniently forgetting that he already taxes "gas guzzlers" through fuel tax, where the more fuel you use, the more tax you pay.

:thinking: /pan /Grrr

Will

[RugbyPete]

Yeah, it's true, but I guess if you can afford say a new Range Rover, you probably don't care about fuel prices so much, whereas Joe Public trying to get to work get hit harder.
This way it targets one sector, people who are still buying new 4x4's despite vaious global warming scares, respiratory figures, congestion measures etc.
I reckon it should be 5k a year, for all new 4x4's that run on dino fuels, normal tax on hydrogen powered 4x4's, get it sorted in shortest space of time.

{statement removed after rethinking its value}

[I-S]

Nice to see that blind prejudice lives in the face of common sense there Pete.

See if you can guess which of the following are the 4x4, the sports saloon and the estate:

Car A: 334g/km, 305bhp, 20mpg
Car B: 326g/km, 345bhp, 20mpg
Car C: 317g/km, 271bhp, 21mpg

Note that all of these cars will fall foul of the government's proposal, which sensibly does not care about vehicle type, but rather purely based on emmission.

[Nick Mann]

One other thing that gets overlooked in these debates is the amount of energy used to build the car in the first place. I remember a statistic somewhere that said for the energy used to build a 4X4, you could build a medium size family car and run it for several years.

So the 4X4 owes the planet a debt before it turns a wheel!

I think that the country should be pushing manufacturers towards cleaner and more efficient cars, but I'm not sure that increasing taxes on the consumer is the way to achieve this. Having said that, I can't criticise, as I don't have a better solution.

[I-S]

The old myth that cars take more energy to build than they use as fuel still alive too?

4x4s are barely different to other cars in energy taken to produce them. In fact, they take less energy per unit weight because of economies of scale.

[RugbyPete]

I think the problem is very much to do with quantity of a specific group of vehicles rather than soley emissions.

Exotic sports cars are few and far between compared to the daily school run. Agreed there is a bit of a stigma attached to 4x4's mainly because many use them when a suitable smaller lower emission car could have been used, and the townys are sick of it.

Theres an ex footballers wife who works here, and she up until now used to bomb around in an X5, and for no good reason other than she could. She now drives a golf diesel which fits purpose.

What we need is power, but with low emissions, then it can be fun in a sports car, useful in a big 4x4 and good for long hauls that commercial verhicles perform. I guess this is where they are heading with this proposal.

[I-S]

Your typical school run 4x4 (eg RAV4, CR-V, Outlander) etc are not significantly worse than equivalent family cars:

CR-V iCTDI: 173g/km, 43mpg
RAV-4 D4D: 173g/km, 42mpg
Avensis D4D: 158g/km, 47mpg

CR-V 2.0i-VTEC: 192g/km, 34mpg
RAV-4 2.0VVTi: 202g/km, 32mpg
Honda Accord 2.0i-VTEC: 202g/km, 33mpg
Galant 2.0 Equippe: 210g/km, 32mpg

Blindly targeting 4x4s for being 4x4s is just foolish.

In case you're wondering, from my first post, Car A is an EVO IX FQ300, Car B is an Audi Q7 4.2 and Car C is a Passat W8.

[Beastlee]

I still think road tax shold be scrapped and a small increase on the fuel tax implemented. By doing so the amoutn of tax paid is directly proportional to the economy and eficiency of the car and the driving style. A guzzler on the motorway will probably be similar to a more economic car sitting in the middle of London all day with a lot of stop start traffic.

Just my 2p.

[RugbyPete]

No, I think the real meaning behind it all is to make large, luxury 4x4's an unreasonable form of transport (ie. not the ravs etc.)

Go onto Range rovers site, get their stats for the range rover range and you get
(diesel/petrol/supercharged)

Urban L/100km (mpg)
14.4 (19.6)
21.2 (13.4)
22.4 (12.6)

Extra urban L/100km (mpg)
9.2 (31.2)
11.4 (24.9)
12.2 (23.1)

Combined L/100km (mpg)
11.3 (25.1)
14.9 (18.9)
16.0 (17.7)

CO2 emissions (g/km)
299
352
376


Those are the sort of figures they are trying to oppose, but without saying "New tax for Range Rovers"

Go for the smaller sport and:
Urban L/100km (Mpg)


13.1 (21.6)


14.7 (19.3)


20.9 (13.5)




22.8 (12.4)



Extra Urban L/100km (Mpg)


8.2 (34.4)


9 (31.4)


12.1 (22.3)




11.9 (23.7)



Combined L/100km (Mpg)
10 (28.3)


11.1 (25.5)
14.9 (19.0)


15.9 (17.8)

Get a new discovery, and its:
Urban L/100km (mpg)
11.1 (25.4)
13.1 (21.6)
20.9 (13.5)

Extra urban L/100km (mpg)
8.1 (34.9)
8.5 (33.2)
12.1 (22.3)

Combined L/100km (mpg)
9.2 (30.7)
10.2 (27.2)
15.0 (18.8)


And so on. No-where are they trying to help the environment and cut pollution.
But, as you point out EVO IX FQ300, Audi Q7 4.2 and W8 are all gas guzzling monsters, that you could argue are also unreasonable transport compared to a family saloon. I'm sure they wont be overlooked either, but less people will moan when they pull up in the school yard a) cos the look nice, and b) they aren't such an big eye sore

[RugbyPete]

I still think road tax shold be scrapped and a small increase on the fuel tax implemented. By doing so the amoutn of tax paid is directly proportional to the economy and eficiency of the car and the driving style. A guzzler on the motorway will probably be similar to a more economic car sitting in the middle of London all day with a lot of stop start traffic.

Just my 2p.

I just fear it hammers the poor man. If we paid £1.50 a litre, the little bloke would spend shed loads going shopping, and the Rich man still wont care, even if he does get 7mpg.

It needs to affect sales somehow, otherwise car makers will do what they do everyday, sell cars to those who buy them

[I-S]

The point I'm making is that the government are equally targeting all high CO2 output vehicles, which is reasonable. I don't see why any one type should be singled out, be it an Aston or an Overfinch, X5 or M5.

Determine "unreasonable transport"... Your V6 auto galant saloon's figures are 224g/km and 29mpg. That is comparable to the Shogun 3.2 DI-D and Landcruiser D4D (244g/km, 30mpg, 252g/km, 29mpg respectively). The environment, like the legislation, does not account for "the look nice".

[Kieran]

I just fear it hammers the poor man. If we paid £1.50 a litre, the little bloke would spend shed loads going shopping, and the Rich man still wont care, even if he does get 7mpg

Eh?!:inquisiti

Little man pops to the shops in his little fiesta and tootles to work afterwards, doing about 45mpg and travelling 10 miles in total. He pays more but as an annual cost his petrol bill doesn't rise that much.

Big fat man in his big fat car does 20ish mpg and does about 100 miles each day. He gets right royally stuffed and pays through the nose.

[Beastlee]

Kieran, that's exactly how I see it. Accounting for the risiculous number of miles some reps do combined with all the jams they sit in the government could do away with speed cameras as they'd be raking it in!

[Nick Mann]

The old myth that cars take more energy to build than they use as fuel still alive too? That's not actually what I said!


4x4s are barely different to other cars in energy taken to produce them. In fact, they take less energy per unit weight because of economies of scale. I appreciate the economies of scale, but I don't believe the energy difference in manufacture between an Astra and a Range Rover is negligible. I don't have any facts at the moment, but I'll have a look.

[RugbyPete]

Eh?!:inquisiti

Little man pops to the shops in his little fiesta and tootles to work afterwards, doing about 45mpg and travelling 10 miles in total. He pays more but as an annual cost his petrol bill doesn't rise that much.

Big fat man in his big fat car does 20ish mpg and does about 100 miles each day. He gets right royally stuffed and pays through the nose.


That's one way to divide the classes. The rich man swans around in his huge luxury saloon killing the planet, the poor man is doing his bit for the planet but not only does he have trouble making ends meet and doing 10 hour shifts, but has a **** car to boot because the system doesn't allow him a nice one.

I think the point the government are making, is as always, the Rich are taking the p*ss and its time to clamp down on those who can afford to pollute our air, mpg isnt even on the checklist. the poor man has to keep an eye on his mpg, even now with his 1.4 eco vtec, charging further to everyone is just more pain to the pocket of mr poor.

As for my v6, its no planet saver. I know this. Hence why I was curous originally as to whos gonna get shafted with this budget.

thankfully, I'm safe in the knowledge, its just the footballers wife who doesn't even know what mpg is, she just likes the roomyness and the colour. when someone tells her its gonna cost £400 a year to tax, she may think twice (thats at least a handbag!)

[Kieran]

That's one way to divide the classes. The rich man swans around in his huge luxury saloon killing the planet, the poor man is doing his bit for the planet but not only does he have trouble making ends meet and doing 10 hour shifts, but has a **** car to boot because the system doesn't allow him a nice one.

Aaaaah.... Now you touch on an interesting point and perhaps one of the underpinnings of this 'green' movement... I do suspect that 'sour grapes' enters into this. I'm pretty sure that if 'Big Fat Man' had a Toyota HumungousMobile that was a diesel hybrid and did 48 to the gallon and produced zero C02, he'd still get shafted somehow... A 'Car Size' tax or something would be next.

/gets on Soapbox

Seems to me that the people like us lot who do well and drive nice cars pay our way anyway - we do more miles and use more petrol - therefore we rightly pay more in tax. But Noooo, that's not good enough for the Pinko, lefty, tree hugging, muesli-eating, unwashed, hippy, commie, bike riding, ignorant, blinkered weirdoes at greenpeace and such places - You can't afford a Audi if you spend half your life chained to a tree - so no one else should be allowed one either! /grr /pan

[I-S]

In fact it's worse than that... they drive around in beetles and VW campers, believing themselves to be saving the planet when those vehicles are every bit as bad as, if not worse than, a big 4x4.

Don't get me started on hybrids... Suffice to say they're not the panacea that the car companies would have us believe.

[Nick Mann]

Don't get me started on hybrids... Suffice to say they're not the panacea that the car companies would have us believe.
Is that because of the envioronmental cost of producing them? :P

Oh it can't be - all cars cost about the same to produce. /pan ;)

[I-S]

Nick - normal cars don't require large amounts of lithium chemistry that requires very careful recycling and wears out to useless in 5 years. Additionally, hybrids are only ever as good as the engine on which they are based on a long journey (ie on a long motorway run a Lexus RX400h will return worse economy than an RX330 due to the increased weight. Otherwise, both are 3.3 V6s). In terms of overall environmental impact, a Mazda 3 1.6d is a better bet than a Toyota Prius.

[RugbyPete]

Ok then Isaac, you seem to have an answer for every other solution being imposed, what's your solution to the problem of the masses driving polluting cars?

[I-S]

I never claimed to have one. The most equitable is a pay for what you use model, replacing all road charges etc with increases in tax on petrol. Maybe rich people will still drive around in Astons and Bentleys and VR4s. Wouldn't you?

However, given that the government is highly unlikely to take this revenue and reinvest it into the road system then I, like anyone else, will resist something that hits me in the pocket for no perceived benefit. Since I'm a single, working homeowner who drives a car, I'm the usual target for the taxman.

I just find illogical solutions (eg picking on 4x4s because you think they're ugly) and technology for technology's sake (eg hybrids) ridiculous. Another example of this is LED headlamps for cars. Sure, LEDs are more efficient at turning electricity to light than incandescent, and even HID bulbs. However, in a car headlamp the heat produced by the bulb is projected out of the housing along with the beam, heating the glass on the way. LEDs, by contrast, produce all of their heat out of the back of the substrate, and it must be put into heatsinks with fans blown over them. Then, in order to stop the lenses icing/fogging, heating elements must be put into the lamp glass. So, a 10W heating element, 5W fan and 20W of LEDs... you could just have used a tried-and-tested 35W HID instead with significantly lower complexity.

[Nick Mann]

Isaac - the pan and wink at the end of my post were designed to make you realise I wasn't being serious! The envioronmental cost of hybrids is significantly higher than other cars, but as you say, not for a simple reason.

I would be interested to know what the envioronmental cost of hydrogen cars with fuel cells will be once the technology has been developed more fully. That could be the way forwards, but not if we continue to produce electricity with coal, gas and atom splitting.

[RugbyPete]

Ok all confirmed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6472999.stm

Its £300 for the guzzling cars

[AncientOfMu]

And £400 from April 2008.

Howerver it is only for vehicles after 2001.

vehicles before that tax goes up £5 a year for the next 3 yrs....

I think :P

Whichever way you look at it we are all gonna be worse off.


Oooooh 2 p off the basic rate of tax :) yipeeeee..... oh hang on a minute hes ditching the 10p band damn....cause i dont earn 300000 a year im gonna be worse off , what a bloody surprise...

[Kieran]

And £400 from April 2008.

Howerver it is only for vehicles after 2001.

vehicles before that tax goes up £5 a year for the next 3 yrs....

I think :P

Yep, that's right. Pre-2001 cars are taxed on engine size.:scholar:

[RugbyPete]

Buy your silly cars while you still can

That or get a 1.3 rotary with 300bhp?? :D

[WildCards]

It's a rather annoying argument as for whatever we do in this country to 'save the planet' the blasted yanks (amongst other countries) will undo it 10 fold because it isn't in their interest to be green at the minute.

How about this idea; You buy whatever vehicle you want and drive it how you want, but have to donate a calculated figure to a carbon offset provider at the end of each tax year, that way peoples freedoms remain intact and the planet benefits.

[I-S]

Ancient - on a UK average wage you'll be better off with the elimination of 10% and reduction of 22 to 20. I've figured it's in the region of £170 per year saving for me, and I'm below average wage.

[AncientOfMu]

My '02 galant is Band F I used to pay £190, that is going up to £205. Just glad its not done solely on Emissions and My V6-24 '02 plate Auto chucks out 243g/km :(.

Do any of the VR4's or galant derivatives fall into Band G?

Just for reference my '96 VR4 is now at £180.... work that one out...

Doesnt really make sense this whole VED scheme