Gas Guzzlers

What, another £20 a year? Not too much of a deal breaker for someone using a £50k+ range rover,cayenne, db9, etc I would've thought.
Its a bit like the london congestion charge. How many people willingly pay an extra £7 or so (lets face it,thats only as much as a baguette & a poncy coffee), to avoid our wonderful public transport system?
matt.

quote:

Originally posted by manicatel:
What, another £20 a year?

Hmmm i thought it was more than that. or should i say, i was told more than that.

Oh well.........

The increase in road tax would be applied to 4x4 (whoever that applies to) vehicle's emissions and not the fuel useage.

If you drive trhe sort of car that the hike refers to you've got off lightly!

Yes the usual stupid linkage that gas guzzler and high CO2 are the same.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Yes the usual stupid linkage that gas guzzler and high CO2 are the same.

Sorry, not that technically minded.

quote:

Originally posted by jasons:

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Yes the usual stupid linkage that gas guzzler and high CO2 are the same.

Sorry, not that technically minded.

There was an example on the TV moons ago that a 911 Turbo produced less harmful emmisions than a 2CV over a set distance. The Porker would be doing 20mpg, the 2CV about 40mpg, but the former would be 'greener'. I think that's the point BigH47 was trying to make.

Cheers,

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Yes the usual stupid linkage that gas guzzler and high CO2 are the same.

But they are still depleting a finite resource faster.

Not necessarily, Rasher, as that all depends on total usage.

Cheers,

Steve

I am lucky enough to have two gas guzzlers and get clobbered twice!

Bugger!

Swapped my Grand Cherokee for a Prius late last year - so I'm laughing!

So this was brown's token green statement.

He's introduced a new zero rate for cars emitting less than 100g/km of CO2.

Apparently, humans emit more than that

When is he gonna slap tax on aviation fuel?

Poncemobiles are one thing - 747s and A380s are quite another...

My Biggest Gripe is with empty buses belching thick black clouds of noxious diesel.

In my area there are always complaints about the bus service. I am surprised that there are any passengers to complain. When i (environmentally friendly) walk to work (now more often as weather improved) i am aghast at how many buses pass me with one or two passengers on them. This is at 8-8.30 am each work day.

If you want to see and use a Private Enterprise public transport system that works go to hong Kong. Cheap Plentiful frequent and used by the whole population eeach day.

Trouble is is cars and using them is so darned expensive that Public Transport has a chance.

regards David

Remember a tax on energy is a tax on transport, mobility and ultimately economic prosperity.

I'd prefer to see taxes being imposed on waste not on use.

4 x 4s are a waste of resources and are ill-adapted for their most common use. As such they should be taxed punitively.

In contrast 747s and A380s transport large numbers of people over long distances in a short period of time and are well adapted for their intended use. As such their use should not be taxed. All increased taxation on aviation fuel achieves is ensuring that international travel is the preserve of the rich. This in turn would spell disaster for those parts of the world whose economies depend so heavily on tourism.

I admire the Germans for making recycling compulsory - there is no reason not to recycle just as there is no reason to waste fuel.

Environmentalism should be about conservation and efficiency not preservation and stagnation.

In every era there is a version of fascism that justifies limiting freedom and prosperity for ordinary folks. In the new millenium it seems to come in a shade of green.

Why not just abolish road tax and put the duty on fuel directly? Then people will pay in proportion to the efficiency of the vehicle and the mileage driven.

This would most likley have sweeping effects on the road transport industry though. It would also shut down a whole civil service department.

I guess Gordon didn't want to upset the fuel delivery drivers by upping fuel duty.

quote:

Originally posted by BLT:
Swapped my Grand Cherokee for a Prius late last year - so I'm laughing!

and so are we

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
In contrast 747s and A380s transport large numbers of people over long distances in a short period of time and are well adapted for their intended use. As such their use should not be taxed.

Why? Why is it that aviation fuel is tax-free, yet (I might be wrong on this) rail and road (coach/bus) fuel IS? Also, jetting around on holidays is hardly a life neccessity, whilst getting to work is.

I'll grant you that planes can be fairly person/fuel efficient, but they're totally shafting the ozone layer. What's the good of people being able to go somewhere on holiday if they'll die of skin cancer anyway?

Bring back ocean liners and airships is what I say! Just make sure you don't fill the airships with hydrogen and paint the outsides of their skins with metallic powder paint, then earth them during a lightning storm...

is two-jags hurting yet?

Milan

quote:

Why not just abolish road tax and put the duty on fuel directly? Then people will pay in proportion to the efficiency of the vehicle and the mileage driven.

Isn't that unfair on the people who live in remote rural areas and who have large distances to cover, who already pay more for fuel and who already get less services for their taxes than those in urban areas?

No easy solutions.

Jim

Yes it's unfair on those required to travel long distances. It would also give hauliers from the rest of the EU an unfair advantage upon our roads as well as putting our fiscal regime even more out of step with theirs.

I do agree with the new banding of road tax though except that fast cars should be taxed at £210 but 4x4s should be taxed at £1000 per year unless you live on a farm.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
Yes the usual stupid linkage that gas guzzler and high CO2 are the same.

They are the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Hammerhead:
There was an example on the TV moons ago that a 911 Turbo produced less harmful emmisions than a 2CV over a set distance. The Porker would be doing 20mpg, the 2CV about 40mpg, but the former would be 'greener'.

This is a tax designed to reduce CO2 emmissions, which contribute to global warming.

Whether they put out more SO2 (Sulphur Dioxide), etc is not relevant to this.

cheers, Martin

I have to say that most of the 4x4's I see on the road are full of children with mum at the wheel doing the school run. You do get the occasional 'work' one.

I mean, i live in the middle of a town for goodness sake so where in the hell do u need a 4x4?. Steep drive perhaps?