Smaller cars get a reduction in tax that will help poor people
if you can't afford to change your car for a smaller one your stuck with it until the said car fails it's MOT and it's not worth having it repaired as normal the poor will suffer and the rich will inherit the roads
or stuck with it until you can't afford the fuel - which will happen sooner and be far more significant than annual road tax. The tax that is raising all the fuss - first of all applies only to cars registered in the last seven years so no old bangers - and second only applies to large fuel thirsty cars.
Tax on a Mondeo goes from £170 now to £210 in 2010. It would get to about that with normal increases. Tax on a ford fiesta goes from £120 to £95 in 2010. Tax on a range rover vogue goes from £400 now to £455 in 2010. The tax changes only have significant effect on large indulgent vehicles and if anything they don't go up enough
Smaller cars get a reduction in tax that will help poor people
if you can't afford to change your car for a smaller one your stuck with it until the said car fails it's MOT and it's not worth having it repaired as normal the poor will suffer and the rich will inherit the roads
or stuck with it until you can't afford the fuel - which will happen sooner and be far more significant than annual road tax. The tax that is raising all the fuss - first of all applies only to cars registered in the last seven years so no old bangers - and second only applies to large fuel thirsty cars.
Tax on a Mondeo goes from £170 now to £210 in 2010. It would get to about that with normal increases. Tax on a ford fiesta goes from £120 to £95 in 2010. Tax on a range rover vogue goes from £400 now to £455 in 2010. The tax changes only have significant effect on large indulgent vehicles and if anything they don't go up enough
If the demand for small cars go up because people are downsizing then sure as eggs are eggs the price of small cars will go up so the 'poor' will still be stuffed.
Why do you feel that cars are still a luxury then giles?
If the public transport system where you live and work cannot get you to where you want when you want then it is a neccessity not a luxury.
IMO This is just another example of a politician out of his depth. It is normal for the budget speech to highlight the 'eyecatching policies' and for everything else to be buried in the acres of small print. Most of these policy changes are so technical, even where a lot of £££ is involved, that it would be impossible for anybody to turn it into a story. Everybody at the Treasury knows that everybody else just turns off. It's all part of the spinner's art. But they have got so careless and arrogant that they thought that something like increases in car tax could be slipped through in the same way. Whatever the rights on wrongs of this, they have been swamped in the publicity because the media and opposition politicians can spot an issue that will not cause the eyeballs to freeze in boredom. A lot of Labour MPs have developed twitching sphincters after Crewe & Nantwich and they are not going to do anything to upset the motorist.
Let's hope the govt don't back down on this one or we can kiss goodbye to ever getting another green proposal through. A further reason why we need an integrated public transport system and a stop to enforced work mobility.
thirdcrank wrote:IMO This is just another example of a politician out of his depth.
I don't think its that thirdcrank. Its a valid attempt to encourage people to drive more fuel efficient cars. The four bottom bands go down in cost. Manufacturers are picking up on that and developing cars that fit into those bands which must be a good thing. The rest go up by £5pa to £55pa over two years. The way road tax goes up most of that would have happened anyway. £55 applies to big cars - not the sort that poor people would drive; cars that cost several thousand pounds a year to run and not ones where owners are going to worry about the odd fifty quid.
There has been some concern about the retrospective application of it but overall it isn't out of sorts with the usual motor tax rises - just biased in favour of smaller cars - the ones that poor people drive. The stuff in the press about it being biased against poor people is rich people (or daft people who have bought cars that they can't afford to run) bleating about it to gain advantage.
Let's face it it's a bogus excuse by:
1 The road lobby to get the proposal killed
2 Labour's opponents to make mischief.
The fact is that the really poor cannot afford petrol or insurance for cars that do under 30mpg anyway, especially not ones that are under 8 years old.
I'm laughing as my ancient Saab firstly increases in value by 10% when I fill the tank, nad secondly is sufficiently old at 11 years that it won't get the increased tax anyway.
I am also slightly skeptical as to whether it is really greener to bring another ton of metal into this world to replace it and save 10 or so mpg. At 4000 miles per year that isn't actually very much CO2. Probably it's a better way to save the world by running cars for a life of 15 years and not 10.
ps slightly off topic -
i read in todays paper that Michael Jackson has been offered a gig / tour for 12million...which would clear his debt & allow him to buy back hos ranch
...where is he at the minute...
...hes renting a mansion!!!...
...hes obviously not in the sh*t that much
WHAT DOESNT KILL YOU .... CAN ONLY MAKE YOU STRONGER
I purposely avoided commenting on the policy itself. My point was that the numpty tried to bury it in the small print and was caught red-handed by the media / opposition who are now crowing. Incidentally, if he had really believed in this policy, it would have been highlighted in the budget speech, not smuggled in. How can you expect to influence people's behaviour through taxation if you keep it quiet?
hamster wrote:I'm laughing as my ancient Saab firstly increases in value by 10% when I fill the tank, nad secondly is sufficiently old at 11 years that it won't get the increased tax anyway.
I am also slightly skeptical as to whether it is really greener to bring another ton of metal into this world to replace it and save 10 or so mpg. At 4000 miles per year that isn't actually very much CO2. Probably it's a better way to save the world by running cars for a life of 15 years and not 10.
Ditto that on all levels. Smacks of pandering the the "green" lobby within the car industry. Mind you I'm going to bite the bullet and get rid of my Saab 9000 and buy an oldish smaller car.
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
Living on £8844 pa
No help with rent, council tax, prescription charges and I take six lots of drugs
Eating or heating, I kid you not haven't had the heating on for the last two years
No holidays last holiday seven years ago
and the rich will inherit the roads
