# So who here's going to get hit with the proposed Â£400 tax?



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

My R32 was reg'd in Jan 06, so I fall *just* outside the April 06 threshold and I carry on paying Â£210, however it's certainly scuppered any plans I had of changing my car now!

Doing only around 3000 miles a year, I am not sure I can justify Â£400 odd quid a year just for the privilege to drive something?!?

:?


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Tight arse :wink: I guess I'll be wearing the Â£400 or whatever it actually turns out to be :?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Me x2 or 3. Vote the cnut out at the earliest opportunity. Somehow, whilst Tony could always win an election, GB has all the charm of a squished slug, and will be (I trust) a Michael Foot / Neil Kinnock of the 21st century.

Won't get the tax reversed, but it'll make us all feel better.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

...although I should add, Â£400 or thereabouts is possibly the lower of most people's bills when they consider depreciation, insurance, petrol and (in the case of TVR) renting another car whilst theirs is off the road.

Without being too smug, if you don't want to pay Â£400 to own a TVR, you aren't very committed. It really isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

jampott said:


> ...although I should add, Â£400 or thereabouts is possibly the lower of most people's bills when they consider depreciation, insurance, petrol and (in the case of TVR) renting another car whilst theirs is off the road.
> 
> Without being too smug, if you don't want to pay Â£400 to own a TVR, you aren't very committed. It really isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.


That's a good point, and why for me it's pointless taxing the bigger cars excessively. So what - people who can afford to purchase and run a 911 or an X5 4.8 etc etc, are hardly going to get too concerned over a Â£210 road tax charge, or Â£420, or whatever it is going to end up at.

It's very difficult to price us out of our cars, we like them too much [smiley=sweetheart.gif]


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> It really isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.


Everybody's personal circumstance is different Tim, and living on my own* I sacrifice a lot of stuff people would class as day to day goods/bills, so that I can continue with my car - for want of a better word - obsession. I know it's my choice to live close to my means, but recently I am having to look at finding a point where I have to say 'enough is enough'.

With fuel at a quid a litre and council tax going up a huge amount, my disposable 'fun' income soon gets swallowed up and I just end up like a Pelican (a huge bill in front of me everywhere I turn!) each month. So an increase of 100% in car tax is hardly a welcomed bill. Â£40 a month (there or thereabouts) to drive on a congested derelict network of roads that have civil servantâ€™s hidden behind every bush, is a hell of a lot.

I know the above sounds crazy, but Iâ€™ve always justified it with the enjoyment I get out of driving my car - the problem is that under this government the costs are starting to outweigh the enjoyment, and I canâ€™t see a new government changing things even if they get in.

The worse thing of all is that new generations of â€˜Petrolheadsâ€™ simply wonâ€™t get to enjoy the cars that we have, because they will be taxed to the hilt.

I remember somebody saying something to me when I was mulling over buying my TVR back in 2005 â€" they said â€œdo it now because in a few years cars like that will be outlawed or impossible to drive on Britainâ€™s roads!â€ At the time I didnâ€™t think much of it, but 2 years later and the â€˜outlawâ€™ is starting to take shape.

It may only be Â£400 to you Tim, but personally I see it as the beginning to an end of nice/fast cars in this country.



*Soon to change, but has been the case for the past few years.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

kmpowell said:


> My R32 was reg'd in Jan 06, so I fall *just* outside the April 06 threshold and I carry on paying Â£210, however it's certainly scuppered any plans I had of changing my car now!
> 
> Doing only around 3000 miles a year, I am not sure I can justify Â£400 odd quid a year just for the privilege to drive something?!?
> 
> :?


Didnt realise there was a cut off. Mine was registered in March 06! Newest you can buy and pay the lower tax, should help resale! Yay!

As for my next car, screw em, Ill continue buying with my heart and not let the brain get a look in. V8 tree killer anyone? :lol:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

kmpowell said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > It really isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.
> ...


If any of us had any common sense we would buy a kickass track car and a cheap runabout for road use. Thats the only way petrol heads will survive in the UK IMO.

And as a suggestion....










plus










Which you have to admit is tempting. Will a Cooper S take a towbar?

Trouble is you would HAVE to take the Exige out so it would end up on the road for at least the summer anyway. 

PS, dont do it...



> Soon to change, but has been the case for the past few years


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Leg said:


> Didnt realise there was a cut off.


Yep, It applies to cars with over 250 CO2 emissions, and reg'd April 06 onwards.

Also, this is daft becusse a new Golf R32 with 259 CO2 doing 3000 miles a year will release less CO2 than a new Golf GTi (that has around 200 CO2) doing 15,000 a year.

It's just a soft way to generate revenue. simple. :?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

kmpowell said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Didnt realise there was a cut off.
> ...


It is, I do 20000 a year thereabouts. Anyone able to calculate how many dead squirrels that equates to please?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > It really isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.
> ...


Sorry Kev, but it isn't the beginning of the end of ANYTHING (in general) although whether it affects you personally is, I guess, personal choice.

I live on my own, so that's hardly an excuse for anything. Many people do. I just don't think your obsession can be that advanced if you will chuck the towel in for Â£200.

Like I said, you should be more concerned with depreciation and finance charges. You lost much more than Â£400 in the few (9?) months you owned your first TVR.

I know the Â£400 won't affect most people - which is probably why the government can get away with charging it. Liken the charge to the tax of cigarettes. Why don't the government tax them beyond the means of most people? Because they NEED the revenue, so can't afford for people NOT to be able to afford it - but still, it is an "easy" tax as smokers are an easy target. Just as the owners of expensive cars are, too (for the most part).

That said, even the most obnoxious amongst us must understand that there is a very real "cost" to the environment to owning and running such a car. The tax is an attempt to persuade people to change their habits slightly, as well as making manufacturers comply with stricter environmental policies. It is also a way of offsetting the cost of dealing with the problem, or at least making those who are (more) responsible contribute a bigger percentage towards dealing with it.

I'm sorry that you think Â£200 takes you over the limit regarding ownership of any particular brand of car - but, as I said, that is personal choice. You can afford it, you are just choosing not to. You can be as pissed off with GB as much as you like, and it won't change anything.

The bottom line is, however, if you can't afford to run a particular car, or the extra Â£200 pushes you over the povertyline, there's a chance you are living beyond your means in the first place. That's fine if you want to / can do, but don't blame anyone else if you have to wind your spending back at some point. :?


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

jampott said:


> I live on my own


You two arent endearing yourselves to me with all this bragging about living on your own. I bet you can do as you please, scratch your balls whilst watching telly and no one gives you a long list of jobs every Saturf*ckingday morning eh? Lets not even go down the frequent sex route either!

[email protected] I hope you're lonely.



jampott said:


> even the most obnoxious amongst us


Oh, and dont drag me into it, Im just here for the entertainment


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> I know the Â£400 won't affect most people


Surfing the usual haunts today (Pistonheads, Tyresmoke etc), I was surprised how many this is going to effect, and how many people are thinking as I am. A lot of R32 owners reconsidering the RSI or R36 etc etc Just the tip of an iceberg, but how big is the iceberg!?!



jampott said:


> I'm sorry that you think Â£200 takes you over the limit


I'm not saying it takes me over the limit, I'm saying that there must be a line I draw at some point. I just feel that I'm close to that line regardless of being able to afford it - as the cost is looking like it could outweigh the enjoyment.

Saying all this though, it should bolster up used car values for cars reg'd before Apr 06.

:?


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Leg said:


> ......no one gives you a long list of jobs every Saturf*ckingday morning eh? .......


Oi, hurry up and get the grass cut, or we'll be late for the supermarket :wink:

:lol:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

A shamless plug for thinkcar, but I posted THIS a few weeks back, which relates to this subject.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > ......no one gives you a long list of jobs every Saturf*ckingday morning eh? .......
> ...


Have you bugged my house?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I didn't know there were that many people who thought Â£200 was "expensive" when running a Â£40k+ car.

There is a line you must draw, which is why I keep saying... if Â£200 takes you over that line, you obviously don't want a Sagaris as much as you think you do. If they put Â£200 on the price of the car, or the finance was Â£200 extra in interest, you wouldn't think twice would you? So why baulk at paying it as a tax?

Doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## senwar (Apr 21, 2003)

jampott said:


> I didn't know there were that many people who thought Â£200 was "expensive" when running a Â£40k+ car.
> 
> There is a line you must draw, which is why I keep saying... if Â£200 takes you over that line, you obviously don't want a Sagaris as much as you think you do. If they put Â£200 on the price of the car, or the finance was Â£200 extra in interest, you wouldn't think twice would you? So why baulk at paying it as a tax?
> 
> Doesn't make any sense to me.


Sorry but I actually find this as one of the reasons we, in this country, are forever dumped on from a great height.

Why should we accept this? Why, just because you can afford it, should you have to afford it? Its crap. On top of the ridiculous fuel charges we pay it stinks.

I'm affected (didn't realise I would be till today), but wouldn't have changed my choice of car which I only got on Thursday.

But in all reality, as I say, whether you can afford it or not should not be the issue. Its a disgrace the way the general public are treat in this country.


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

Car tax was increased on cars not too recently but it didn't stop anyone getting the car they wanted. I think kev is just making a point that there has to be alimit for people as to how much they feel it is worth it.

I'm still amazed that they do not tax the fuel more and leave a standard general tax ie tax the ones who drive the most, use the petrol.

I mean a classic sports car that lives in a garage most of the year does not cause ice bergs to melt.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

senwar said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't know there were that many people who thought Â£200 was "expensive" when running a Â£40k+ car.
> ...


Truly unfair taxation can be effectively protested against. Poll tax anyone?

Whilst we don't LIKE it, there is a certain logic in what is being done here. Granted, I'd prefer to see a higher tax on petrol - therefore penalising people who do the most miles - but it stands to reason that you can't please everyone.

The "general public" voted for these jokers in the first place, so I hope no Labour supporters are present and arguing against this policy. I'm well aware that we're suffering the highest levels of taxation for some time. I have a BA in Business Economics, so I have an above-average understanding of the mechanisms behind taxation and policy - certainly enough to know that we're being royally shafted, and as much as the Labour Party crowed that the Tories had "wasted" the revenue from years of Oil & Gas supply, so the Labour Party have wasted the so-called "Golden Years" of stable global growth, and certainly haven't done as much for the country as they'd have us believe.

But, as I said, a "majority" (*) voted for these wankers, so we've little choice.

(*) actually they didn't. Labour got under 50% of the vote, let alone below 50% of the *possible* votes. The Conservaties had a higher number of votes cast in the last General Election, yet Labour forms a government with a strong (but reduced) "majority". When less people voted for them. Isn't Democracy great?


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> you obviously don't want a Sagaris as much as you think you do.


Not sure why you keep making reference to the Sagaris Tim. Yes I nearly bought one, but there are a few other cars I have/am considering too. I am not talking specifically, I am talking in general.

What you have to bear in mind is this tax effects any car over 250 CO2, not just super/exotic cars. So anybody buying a new R32 for example for Â£25k will be effected, so will a BMW 335i buyer etc etc. This tax doesn't just effect exotic cars, it's also chipping away at the Â£25k-Â£30k sports end of the car market which is accessible by your Joe Average's in the world.

Tim, from what I know you have worked damn hard, had the breaks and are now lucky enough to be in a league above Joe Average, you are buying an R8 and do well from your job. But even you will have a line, and even you will have to turn round one day and say "sorry but I'm not spending that anymore". Or are you saying that you will pay taxes regardless of what they cost?

Oh, Finance, depreciation etc in this argument is irrelevant - they have to be taken into consideration *whatever* the tax level may be, so they are a constant. What we are talking about here is a tax that bears no justification to the country we live in - and it is that tax that is now beginning to become at an excessive cost for Joe Average.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > you obviously don't want a Sagaris as much as you think you do.
> ...


Sagaris / Golf / BMW 3 series... it doesn't matter what car I'm talking about.

Read my other comments. The government wants to raise revenue without putting up Income Tax. They do it indirectly. I, for one, would prefer a higher cost of petrol / diesel - but anything which slightly reduces the levels of traffic, allows more funding for the roads AND offsets the "cost" of dealing with the environmental issues isn't necessarily a "bad" thing.

This isn't a rich-man / poor-man argument. Far from it. I just don't think Â£200 over the course of a year is a shocking amount when you consider what we pay for insurance, finance and depreciation.

Those last two ARE important and very relevant to the argument. Motoring has a number of "costs" - and you should consider the total cost carefully when deciding which car to drive, and how much you can afford to drive it. If you accept that there is a "cost" to the environment for driving a car which polutes, I don't see why "paying" that cost (through taxation) is markedly different from paying interest charges or suffering depreciation.

Of course if you directed your argument at the manufacturer and got them to produce "Evo" cars with lower polution levels, everyone would be a winner.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

Leg said:


> Wondermikie said:
> 
> 
> > Leg said:
> ...


No, it's on the list of standard nags that they are taught at Wife Training School.



kmpowell said:


> .........it is that tax that is now beginning to become at an excessive cost for Joe Average.


I know you are unhappy at this today, but in a few days time you might think different, hopefully. Your love of cars isn't Joe Average though, so unlike some people you'll stump it anyway, like we all will.

I know that for an extra Â£200 or whatever, around 50p a day, these tossers wouldn't stop me from getting what I wanted.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> I know that for an extra Â£200 or whatever, around 50p a day, these tossers wouldn't stop me from getting what I wanted.


Quite right. If the finance cost Â£200 more, or the manufacturer put an extra Â£200 on the cost of the car, or it depreciated by an extra Â£200, nobody would bat an eyelid, IMHO.

Car Tax is an unfortunate but mandatory COST of owning a car. It wasn't until relatively recently that changes were made which actually benefitted some people (with low poluting cars).

But as most Â£25-Â£30k+ cars cost THOUSANDS to run every year, Â£200 really is a drop in the ocean. I'm not saying it is a welcome addition - just saying it isn't the highway robbery (oops) that some people suggest, and represents a policy stance as much as anything else.

Kev - would you be really pissed off if the government double the duty on ciggies?


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> Kev - would you be really pissed off if the government double the duty on ciggies?


I haven't bought a packet of **** for nearly 3 years now (one of the reasons how I managed to afford my TVR), so no I wouldn't. However, the arguments for the costs to the NHS from passive/active smoking are lot stonger and justified than the tree huggers and their ridiculous 'Cars killing the planet' argument.

This is simply just a bandwagon that the goverment has realised is an easy excuse to get away with tax tax tax.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

I fully intend to be in the queue for the last drop of petrol at Â£5000 a litre when they finally tax us into submission. F*ck em.

If they want more money from drivers of fast cars, thats fine with me. All I ask is for something in return, goods for cash rendered as it were. So heres an offer Mr Brown, increase it by Â£300, not Â£200. All I ask in return is a 'Gold' class lane on the M1 with a 150mph limit.

Suits me.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

What I don't get about this increase is why they haven't gone all the way. Putting an R32 in another bracket is reasonable as it's no surprise that a tuned 3.2 is gonna cause more emissions than a stock fleet car e.g. 1.8 Mondeo.

I don't understand how and why they didn't keep going up the scale to the very worst polluter e.g. Vipers etc


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

scoTTy said:


> What I don't get about this increase is why they haven't gone all the way. Putting an R32 in another bracket is reasonable as it's no surprise that a tuned 3.2 is gonna cause more emissions than a stock fleet car e.g. 1.8 Mondeo.
> 
> I don't understand how and why they didn't keep going up the scale to the very worst polluter e.g. Vipers etc


Emissions have nothing to do with it other than to jump on the bandwagon of (misinformed) public opinion. Just an excuse. They could as easily have taxed us more on beef seen as cows farting causes more damage to the atmosphere than cars. Imagine them trying to get that one through. Nah much easier to tax the nasty men in their nasty cars. [email protected]


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Kev - would you be really pissed off if the government double the duty on ciggies?
> ...


So by that argument, it is fair to say that a driver of a low-poluting car won't be too pissed off by the Car Tax raise either... :roll:

The roads won't support an exponential rise in car ownership - I'm with Leg on this one. Double it again. Raise petrol duty as well. Tax some of the poor chavs right off the road and leave it empty for the rest of us. It'll be worth it then... :lol:

In all honesty, if it wasn't affordable for 17yr olds to drive cars, there wouldn't be so many of them killed on the road. Fact.

So putting up Car Tax is an excellent safety measure... :lol:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> Putting an R32 in another bracket is reasonable as it's no surprise that a tuned 3.2 is gonna cause more emissions than a stock fleet car e.g. 1.8 Mondeo.


So, you are saying that my 3.2 R32 doing 3000 miles a year is going to cause more pollution than a rep in his 1.8 mondeo/vectra doing 20,000 miles a year?!?

Right, well that justify's it then! Sorry but that argument is just bollocks. A car is only a pollutant if it's used - and the less it is used, the less polluting it is.

:roll:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Ahhhh an empty M1, no speed limit, I dream of an empty M1 with no speed limit........there are cherubs there, and scantily clad nymphs with harps, angels, I see angels, hang on...I see angels, its that bloody Tej behind me, oy bugger off this is my dream.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

kmpowell said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > Putting an R32 in another bracket is reasonable as it's no surprise that a tuned 3.2 is gonna cause more emissions than a stock fleet car e.g. 1.8 Mondeo.
> ...


So pay the Â£400 and do 30k miles in it. Get your fucking money's worth! I will. I'm moving house so I can drive the R8 daily... fuck the lot of them.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

kmpowell said:


> So, you are saying that my 3.2 R32 doing 3000 miles a year is going to cause more pollution than a rep in his 1.8 mondeo/vectra doing 20,000 miles a year?!?


Screw the pollution, tell the f*cking idiot that the motorway has an inside lane will you. Oh and while ure at it, tell him it ISNT FOGGY and foglights dont make a Vectra/Mondeo look 'sporty', well not unless we are in some strange parallel world where sporty means sh1t.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

The other thing about this (old news from before Xmas) for people going into London regularly, is the plans for congestion charge increase to Â£25 a day for band G cars, so a few hundred quid on road tax is going to be peanuts for them anyway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6146442.stm

As has been said previously, we're the ones who voted in these muppets in the first place, without those votes then Tony, Gordon and Chairman Ken would be a distant memory. Lets hope "the people" can be bothered to go out and vote next time.


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Wondermikie said:


> As has been said previously, we're the ones who voted in these muppets in the first place, without those votes then Tony, Gordon and Chairman Ken would be a distant memory. Lets hope "the people" can be bothered to go out and vote next time.


Not I. The only red thing I like is my seats thanks very much.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Given we haven't had the budget yet, can someone point me to where this (as I see it, notional) Â£400 figure has come from - reading the thread it seems like fact that an R32 say will be liable for Â£400 p.a. road fund licence. I can't find this anywhere (although I guess I might do come Weds ;-) ).

Personally, "whatever". As Tim says, and extra ~Â£200 year isn't really a significant part of running cost of either of my cars.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > Putting an R32 in another bracket is reasonable as it's no surprise that a tuned 3.2 is gonna cause more emissions than a stock fleet car e.g. 1.8 Mondeo.
> ...


No



> Right, well that justify's it then! Sorry but that argument is just bollocks. A car is only a pollutant if it's used - and the less it is used, the less polluting it is.
> 
> :roll:


The argument that you came up with is indeed bollox.

No I'm not suggesting that. I've always said it should be on fuel. I'm also a reasonable low mileage driver and it also frustrates me that many are polluting more than I but pay less road tax.

What I'm saying is that if you own a car thats sporty, tuned, big capacity etc then if this is the way they're going to do it then you should expect to pay more and it makes no sense that they limit it at this level.

It just proves that it's a farce as it's totally unjustifiable.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> No I'm not suggesting that.


Sorry Paul, that's the way I read your post.  Must be something to do with so much input from jampott on this thread and the expectation of goading and arguments! 



scoTTy said:


> It just proves that it's a farce as it's totally unjustifiable.


Agreed.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

clived said:


> Given we haven't had the budget yet, can someone point me to where this (as I see it, notional) Â£400 figure has come from - reading the thread it seems like fact that an R32 say will be liable for Â£400 p.a. road fund licence. I can't find this anywhere (although I guess I might do come Weds ;-) ).
> 
> Personally, "whatever". As Tim says, and extra ~Â£200 year isn't really a significant part of running cost of either of my cars.


http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default ... ryId=16035 [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I'm not goading anyone. I can honestly say that, even if I have to pay a bit extra to run a nice car, I will do so. I can see why the government wants to tax the motorist a bit more, and if it DOES drive cars off the road (which I doubt) or make manufacturers go greener, then that's a bonus.

But the fact is, I can (and will) afford the extra money. In the grand scheme of things (which Kev, you keep ignoring) Â£200 when you consider how much it costs to run a nice car these days, is a fucking pittance and shame on you for suggesting its somehow life or death, or that I'm saying this to wind you up...

Regardless of what people are "saying" on Tyresmoke, Pistonheads etc, if ANYONE is considering NOT buying their R36, GTI, BMW, Sagaris etc all for a measly Â£200, they probably can't afford it anyway. That isn't snobbish, but the truth as I see it. I estimate depreciation, insurance and fuel costs for your average "nice" car costs upwards of FIVE FIGURES per year. A fat lot of difference Â£200 will make. C'mon, you aren't talking sense.


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

Taxation is always a balance.

To genuinely reduce consumption, and hence pollution, the tax needs to go on the fuel. This is logical and sensible, except that it will hit the low earners etc as much as everybody else. Putting it on higher pollution vehicles will actually achieve virtually nothing in terms of reducing pollution, but will raise a small additional amount of revenue and only hit the "rich". This latter point is significant as it will appeal to traditional Labour supporters. (In the same way that the Fox hunting legislation was all about shafting the toffs whilst leaving everybody else completely non-plussed)

Moreover the level of taxation is significant. The chancellor derives a great deal of income from road users, fuel companies, tyre and exhaust manufacturers and fitters, spares manufacturers, car manufacturers, deliverers and distributors. What he needs to do is keep people consuming fuel and vehicles, because he wants the revenue so he cannot raise taxes too much on anything.

The green issue is as important to the question of road pricing as weapons of mass destruction were to the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## ResB (Apr 17, 2005)

288 COÂ²'s for me. Guess I'll have to get rid of the Porka. Can't afford to run it on this basis.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

jampott said:


> I'm not goading anyone. I can honestly say that, even if I have to pay a bit extra to run a nice car, I will do so. I can see why the government wants to tax the motorist a bit more, and if it DOES drive cars off the road (which I doubt) or make manufacturers go greener, then that's a bonus.
> 
> But the fact is, I can (and will) afford the extra money. In the grand scheme of things (which Kev, you keep ignoring) Â£200 when you consider how much it costs to run a nice car these days, is a fucking pittance and shame on you for suggesting its somehow life or death, or that I'm saying this to wind you up...
> 
> Regardless of what people are "saying" on Tyresmoke, Pistonheads etc, if ANYONE is considering NOT buying their R36, GTI, BMW, Sagaris etc all for a measly Â£200, they probably can't afford it anyway. That isn't snobbish, but the truth as I see it. I estimate depreciation, insurance and fuel costs for your average "nice" car costs upwards of FIVE FIGURES per year. A fat lot of difference Â£200 will make. C'mon, you aren't talking sense.


I'm looking into changing my car, so I have done some calcs on my current car - my Z4 has cost me, over the last 14 months, Â£638 per month including depreciation, insurance, finance, tyres, etc etc but not including fuel.

I couldn't care less about the extra Â£200, if I get a puncture it'll cost me more than that.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Wondermikie said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > Given we haven't had the budget yet, can someone point me to where this (as I see it, notional) Â£400 figure has come from - reading the thread it seems like fact that an R32 say will be liable for Â£400 p.a. road fund licence. I can't find this anywhere (although I guess I might do come Weds ;-) ).
> ...


As I said, can someone point me to the actual figures, given they are causing so much debate. "is expected" doesn't sound very definitive to me ;-)


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

An extra Â£200? Personally I won't lose any sleep over an extra 55p a day; I'll just cut down on the deep fried Mars bars...


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

Garh!

Missed this :x

Can't be arsed to read all the posts - Fact is all people that can afford to run expensive (targeted by the legislation) cars will continue to do so because they can afford it, so it won't make a jot of difference.

Just a case of more revenue for that complete halfwit who is robbing this country blind to hide his incompetence and hopefully the majority of the population who are forced then into Micra's will get rid of the twat come election time :twisted:


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

As i see it non of this has to do with cutting down on CO2 that is just a smoke screen used to raise taxes and raise money for Tony and friends :evil:


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

YELLOW_TT said:


> As i see it non of this has to do with cutting down on CO2 that is just a smoke screen used to raise taxes and raise money for Tony and friends :evil:


what no 3 word answer? :lol: :wink:


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

digimeisTTer said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > As i see it non of this has to do with cutting down on CO2 that is just a smoke screen used to raise taxes and raise money for Tony and friends :evil:
> ...


not this time :wink:


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

I dont object to Â£200. I dont object to more. What I object to is nothing in return for my investment.

If I pay the TT Shop to mod my car, I expect and get a return. A better car.

If I pay Dave to come and clean it. I expect the paintwork to gleam and the leather to look fantastic and smell great.

If I pay increased taxes in the name of congestion or road taxes then I expect congestion or the roads to improve. I certainly expect a concerted effort to try and improve them.

But its bullshit.

We pay, more and more and more, yet nothing improves. Ive been driving in and out of London on business for 10 years and its worse than ever. Why? Because there are more cars. Why are there more cars? Because the public transport system is shit.

The M1, M62, M6, M4 - all of them more crowded and liable to foul up than ever. Why? Ive been paying for improvements for years but it hasnt improved? Why? Because the government doesnt want it to. How can they tax for congestion, if there is no congestion? How can they introduce road taxing if there is no need? They cant, so why sort a problem that generates money?

Its as simple as this. If the objective is to raise money, stop bullshitting us. If the objective is to get cars off the road, then offer an alternative.

I think most of us just object to being lied to and conned. I know I do.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> Leg said:
> 
> 
> > Didnt realise there was a cut off.
> ...


Kev, i did hear something about this yesterday but only in passing. What's the laymans lowdown on this new tax?? Is it likely to happen (see introduced at the next budget).

If i guess correctly, cars reg'd before April 2006 are excempt from the higher tax which means my plans to move into fresher A8's every 6 months is OK for the next 12-18mths??


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Think i've worked out from now reading the entire thread that pre April 06 cars will if introduced be exempt from this new tax.

Phew, that's my current plans in tact 

What i do totally agree with you on Kev is this LINE. However mine was & would not be for the sake of an extra Â£200 but more akin to OTT running costs (consumables) & depreciation (also modifying to a degree).

When i add up all the money i've spent on consumables, modifications, depreciation, finance interest & more general running costs over the last 4yrs, i could probably have bought a fleet of Golfs or Mondeos or the like & now my business mileage has shot up it's suicide to run an expensive car.

Now i love driving/owning top marques & the thrill of driving a very fast car both on the road & more so on a track, however unless you're blessed with real wealth & financial independance then it's a tough call in current times & after much heartache i've decided i need to invest my available funds in other areas such as property so as to guarantee a better future for me & my family. I guess i'm just now getting old.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Property? A guarantee?

Hmmm... Maybe a few years ago, but I think the ship has sailed as far as the UK market is concerned...


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> Property? A guarantee?
> 
> Hmmm... Maybe a few years ago, but I think the ship has sailed as far as the UK market is concerned...


Far from gone. Looking for medium term returns so me thinks money will be very safe. It's a guarantee that property will NOT depreciate which is a start, plus we're looking abroad as our 1st purchase this Spring/Summer.

With a 10-15yr plan it's highly likely that even if values level out for the next few years their will be another mini-boom before 2020 so my investments will be just fine.


----------



## r14n (Jan 10, 2003)

A simple way to raise funds would be to tax EVERY foreign registered truck that arrives in the UK.

Driving around the UK roads with huge fuel tanks for the week, doing 8-10 mpg, kicking out diesel fumes, not spending a single penny whilst here.
Mainly driven by double manned teams of Poles, Hungarians and other emerging European countries.

Simply add the "tax" to the price of their ferry / tunnel charge, and hey presto, all the money the bandits in Downing Street need for the planet to be saved, 
or whatever they are planning on doing with the cash. ( Tony's retirement plan / pension ?)


----------



## jbell (May 15, 2006)

Leg said:


> Wondermikie said:
> 
> 
> > As has been said previously, we're the ones who voted in these muppets in the first place, without those votes then Tony, Gordon and Chairman Ken would be a distant memory. Lets hope "the people" can be bothered to go out and vote next time.
> ...


What Leg said         

"New" Labour my arse - It's just the old one with bad pop songs.

100 TAX RISES IN 10 YEARS, THEY ARE NOW TAKING 43P PER Â£ YOU EARN, IT WAS ONLY 32P WHEN THEY CAME IN.

Sorry for shouting


----------



## PhilJ (Sep 2, 2002)

An extra Â£200 in the scheme of things is sweet FA compared with the overall running costs (including depreciation) of many cars that will fall into this higher category. Insurance costs seem to be getting more competitive, so this should offset some of this cost anyway.

Even if this tax rise does force some enthusiasts out of their preferred choice of car, then go with something a bit older, or something lightweight and efficient, like a Lotus or Caterham. There are still plenty of options.

The UK is still a good place to live for petrolheads, due to the UKâ€™s SVA process and the variety of small manufacturers and tuners this allows.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

W7 PMC said:


> kmpowell said:
> 
> 
> > Leg said:
> ...


Expect three things:

1. The mooted starter amount of Â£200 or whatever, will rapidly grow in subsequent budgets following introduction. Expect that to be Â£1000 within 3 years. That's a slap for being rich and driving a gas guzzler. Deal with it. :wink:

2. Whatever the CO2 threshold, Expect the next model year R32s etc to _just _sneak in below that. In fact expect a whole tranche of models to be released tantalisingly below the limit. Car manufacturers have been poistioning models according to local tax breaks like this for years. Audi, BMW etc will all be ready.

...whether they then have to 'upgrade' ecu SW at first service to release full engine potential, is another matter.

3. Expect more performance diesels.

4. Expect track days to grow and also subsequently get taxed for emissions/noise in some way - the local authorities would see these as a rich seam of income.

Â£200 is nothing. But it is a start.


----------



## juggler (Sep 29, 2006)

> I remember somebody saying something to me when I was mulling over buying my TVR back in 2005 â€" they said â€œdo it now because in a few years cars like that will be outlawed or impossible to drive on Britainâ€™s roads!â€ At the time I didnâ€™t think much of it, but 2 years later and the â€˜outlawâ€™ is starting to take shape.
> 
> It may only be Â£400 to you Tim, but personally I see it as the beginning to an end of nice/fast cars in this country.


That's exactly the thought that made me buy a TT instead of another sensible, cheap, reliable diesel hatchback. This is my last chance to drive a fun car.

First the roads will get so busy that driving is no fun
- then performance cars will be taxed to death
- then petrol will get so expensive that few can run a fun car
- and then legislation will make sports cars illegal
- and then the planet will be f*cked, and I'll have helped kn*cker it a teeny tiny bit more than I would have if I'd stuck to the 306TD.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

clived said:


> Wondermikie said:
> 
> 
> > clived said:
> ...


 :roll:  the Government "leaks" the info on Monday, watches the news/forum/email/etc reactions, and as long as there isn't rioting and looting in the streets, then they confirm it on Wednesday in the budget statement :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Ive just swapped to a DSG car and its in the lower band so - fingers crossed.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> 7.78 As with fuel duty rates, the Government today announces VED rates for this year and the next two years to further sharpen environmental signals to motorists to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles and continue to support the development of low-carbon market,
> including:
> 
> â€¢ raising the rate for the most polluting cars (band G) to Â£300 in 2007-08 and Â£400 in 2008-09; and reducing the rate for low-carbon band B cars to Â£35 in 2007-08, with that rate then frozen for the subsequent two years;
> ...


So, no Â£400 VED until 08/09 tax year, and only then of course if you're in a G band car, which means it has CO2 emmisions > 225 g/km and was registered on or after 23rd March 2006.

Think I'll hang on to my pre-graduated banding, 288g/km (when un-modded ;-)), Â£175 /year RS4 for a bit then ;-)


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Just to get this straight (you'd never believe i work with numbers :lol: ) If you have a high polluting car (band F) registered before 23/3/06 then the *max* you can pay is Â£190 + Â£10 then + Â£5 etc even if your car pushes 225 g/km and more

Band G only applies to most polluting post 23/6/06



> Diesel car TC49
> Cars registered on or after 1 March 2001 based on CO2 emissions and fuel type.
> 
> Please note: These rates apply only to cars that have been type approved within category M1 of Annex II to Council Directive 70/156/EEC and which have been registered on the basis of a type approval certificate that shows its carbon dioxide emissions level in terms of grams per kilometre driven.
> ...


Does this seem right ?

******edit just read the thread in the TT forum


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Pirates and highway robbers. This will make feck all difference to the environment - the only thing it does is raise taxes again.


----------



## TTej (Sep 10, 2003)

They are w4nkers we all know that. If they really wanted to make us leave the cars all they need to do is raise the price of petrol. And i dont mean 2p or 5p i mean make is so expensive that even looking at the pumps will bring people to tears.

If a tank cost you Â£500, nah forget that if a full tank cost you Â£700 would you take the car? It would hurt you so much that the car would stay at home and youd take a bus walk anything.

The Â£200 yes is is unfair as i want about 5 cars outside so that means its and extra Â£1000 but it wont pull any of us out our cars. Its acceptable, people will cope with it and the government moves on.

Recently i was so pissed off with Sony changing the chip i cancelled my order and wont buy one. i voted with my feet/cash. To be honest we need to do the same here, i know i wont be here for many years more, i love this country but i love my cars more. and i will keep moving until my habit for super unleaded and Pirelli tyres can be fullfilled without steath taxes and the rest of the money sucking tactics these a$$holes use on us.

If you all move aswell soo the government will realise that the tax system id forcing the brains and talent out of the country.

Oh, has anyone looked into registering your new car on the continent?? 
No Uk Taxes
No UK parking tickets
No speeding fines
Car is not set to uk laws (tints, missing front plates)

Seems a better idea every day.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Â£10 more for equiv E band diesel than petrol. :roll:

Good job the lease co picks up that unplanned extra expense.

Still, I had better drive home on heavier throttle settings than normal, just to sho Brown what a futile exercise his is...


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

garyc said:


> Still, I had better drive home on heavier throttle settings than normal, just to sho Brown what a futile exercise his is...


He cant lose :evil: you use your car more or the same amount he gets more money out of you. You use it less he says look what I am doing saving the planet :evil:
Bring back the petrol depo blockades and go slows show them what we realy think of the government


----------



## Rhod_TT (May 7, 2002)

He doesn't want to tax us off the road - he want's to generate the most tax he can. I.E. push it as far as he can without masses of us giving up our cars.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> Â£10 more for equiv E band diesel than petrol. :roll:


I thought that "VED rates for petrol and diesel cars are aligned." meant there wouldn't be a difference any more as "as the differential in nitrogen
oxides and particulate matter emissions for new cars is expected to fall to close to zero once Euro V and VI emission standards become mandatory."

I can't find the Petrol / Diesel disparity in the report....?


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

TTej said:


> If you all move aswell soo the government will realise that the tax system id forcing the brains and talent out of the country.


So what has _you _leaving the country got to do with this statement then Tej? :wink: :lol: :twisted:


----------



## TTej (Sep 10, 2003)

NaughTTy said:


> TTej said:
> 
> 
> > If you all move aswell soo the government will realise that the tax system id forcing the brains and talent out of the country.
> ...


that 'you' didnt include you either, so us thickos can stay :roll: :roll: :wink:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Cayman S has 254 CO2 and Cayman has 222 CO2.

Do you thin if I take the "S" badge from the back I will be ok?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> Cayman S has 254 CO2 and Cayman has 222 CO2.
> 
> Do you thin if I take the "S" badge from the back I will be ok?


Blob of green Tippex on the V5 should sort it ;-)


----------



## Blade_76 (Aug 11, 2004)

I have to say, what this tax increase, new insurance groups and my wonderful journey up'north on Monday, I am seriously beginning to wonder is it REALLY worth having a fast car?

My journey from Reading to Manchester, the Road Angel was going mental, got to the point where I thought "F**k this", turn the bloody thing off and just stick to the speed limit! Practically every bloody sign post on the M42 near the NEC had a camera, then on the M6 there is a long stretch of road works with Avg Speed Detectors (40MPH), what a pain in the ar*e!

The fun of driving and the increasing "Big Brother" is making things rather crap over here. As someone already suggested, the only way to enjoy your fast car now is to use it for track days, I for one am not going to buy a Â£40k+ car to only use for track days!

As Jampott said, most people who buy Â£40k+ cars are not going to be worried about Â£200 on top of there road tax, the Chelsea Tractor brigade will carry on regardless! But these things are all starting to add up now, fuel no doubt start creeping up again (as it already seems to be around here).


----------



## QuackingPlums (Mar 10, 2004)

Blade_76 said:


> Practically every bloody sign post on the M42 near the NEC had a camera


These only work when the variable speed restrictions are in place don't they? Besides, at that time of the morning I'm surprised you could get anywhere near the speed limit on that stretch... :roll:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

clived said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > Â£10 more for equiv E band diesel than petrol. :roll:
> ...


----------



## Blade_76 (Aug 11, 2004)

QuackingPlums said:


> Blade_76 said:
> 
> 
> > Practically every bloody sign post on the M42 near the NEC had a camera
> ...


Pass, I have no idea, all I know is that I came very close to chucking the sodding RA out the window! :lol: Besides, I travelled up at midday and came home early hours, was pretty quiet :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

I've had 2nd thoughts and decided that the increase in RFL means I can no longer afford my R8.


----------



## Blade_76 (Aug 11, 2004)

jampott said:


> I've had 2nd thoughts and decided that the increase in RFL means I can no longer afford my R8.


As a long standing member of the forum and someones who's replies never fail to make me laugh, I suggest we all chip in one pound each to help Jampott, in return we all get to have a go in his R8....

We could do this as a yearly thing if you like? :roll:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Blade_76 said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > I've had 2nd thoughts and decided that the increase in RFL means I can no longer afford my R8.
> ...


Are you a long standing member? And are you happy laughing at yourself? :wink:


----------



## Blade_76 (Aug 11, 2004)

jampott said:


> Blade_76 said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


See, he's done it again... The man is a genius, should be on stage... I am guessing you look like Peter Kay?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Blade_76 said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Blade_76 said:
> ...


Not quite so Northern.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Perhaps he has a long, standing member.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Kell said:


> Perhaps he has a long, standing member.


Are you suggesting he missed out a comma? 8)


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

No, as I'm well aware of the original grammatical Faux Pas.

I was merely trying to put my own twist on it.

Not on his member though.


----------



## Blade_76 (Aug 11, 2004)

Ok, am bored of this now...

As JAMPOTT is a long standing member of the forum and someone who's replies never fail to make me laugh, I suggest we all chip in one pound each to help him out. In return we all get to have a go in his R8....

*DISCLAIMER:* I am not saying that Jampott has or doesnt have, a long standing member.

I am off to sign up for a 'ICS you can' course on grammar...

Edited: Thanks to Jampott.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Blade_76 said:


> Ok, am bored of this now...
> 
> As JAMPOTT is a long standing member of the forum and someone who's replies never fail to make me laugh, I suggest we all chip in one pound each to help him out. In return we all get to have a go in his R8....
> 
> ...


Your 2nd ellipsis has 1 "." too many.

Not to mention your sig...


----------



## Blade_76 (Aug 11, 2004)

jampott said:


> Blade_76 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, am bored of this now...
> ...


Thanks.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Blade_76 said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Blade_76 said:
> ...


That's fine 

Just wanted to make sure you didn't waste your money on a grammar course.

But thanks for drumming up support for my plight.


----------



## R6B TT (Feb 25, 2003)

I reckon I might as well go for value for money.

Decent Muscle Cars are silly money now, anyone know of a good Dodge Viper for sale ?

8 litre V10 - eat your heart out Gordon Brown :twisted:


----------

