PETITION: Get the Govverment to change its ways

[inconsistant]

Serious question now with regard to old cars and tax exemption... what would the reason be both politically and economically, from a Governments point of view? Governments tax things, don't tax things, (or turn a blind eye to avoided tax) to stimulate some sort of desired behaviour, so what would the reason be to reduce tax on old cars other than it being 'nice'?

TBH I would think they would be more likely to tax old cars off the road to stimulate new car sales, if they thought they could get away with it, so why might they do the opposite? 

[DSdriver]

Are they trying to bring us into line with Europe, just before we all vote to buggerorf artovit?

[Tamworthbay]

Conspiracy Theory for you here, get your tin hats ready.

 

CAmeron - CApitalist

COrbyn - COmmunist

 

WWWwoooooOOOOOOoooOOOoooo *waves hands around*  bet that's blown your minds.

what does that make Charles Walker? Oh wait there..............

[Guest Breadvan72]

One argument against tax breaks for old cars is that if you give old cars some special benefits then the policy maker's mind might turn to subjecting old cars to special restrictions.  Better, I think, to treat old cars as just cars.  

 

Also, people practising bangernomics because they are skint or canny are not very likely to run as dailies cars that are 25 or even 40 or more years old.  They may run cars that are old and cheap but not that old . People who run cars that are 25 years or more old are usually doing so for fun, not out of need.  I would rather see tax on luxuries than on necessities.

 

Also, what about nutters like me who use cars aged 40 and more as dailies, when the heaps are working?   I cause just as much congestion and smoke spaffage and so on as others, so why not tax me?  It was a joke that, when I had a mega guzzler Jensen that I used as a commuter vehicle in London, it paid neither tax nor congestion charge.  

[Craig the Princess]

Also, people practising bangernomics because they are skint or canny are not very likely to run as dailies cars that are 25 or even 40 or more years old.  They may run cars that are old and cheap but not that old . People who run cars that are 25 years or more old are usually doing so for fun, not out of need.  I would rather see tax on luxuries than on necessities..  

 

 

Not sure about this. A car from the late 80s/early 90s is easily put to use as an everyday car in the way that you couldn't with a 70s car that was becoming tax exempt when the rolling 25 years stopped in 1998. My R8 coupe turns 25 next year, I do roughly 12,000 miles in it with basic servicing.

My first Allegro was the same age when I got it in 2003 and would have needed much more work to do half that mileage.

[Hiram K Hackenbacker]

I can see it from both sides TBH. They dont want to be seen as promoting pollution or giving tax breaks away. Conversely old cars have an industry of their own in parts etc which should be nurtured. Price of cars at the exemption age increases, helps the motor trade at the lower end generally boosting prices /commissions etc. And does building a new car in a factory pollute more or less than getting every last mile out of an old one (with an mot/ emmissions standard to reach evey year)?

 

Price of scrap is so low at the minute, keeping a few borderline old cars out of the system on the road may be beneficial to the metal price??

 

The fact is the exemption was deemed worthy of bringing in at 25 years in 1995 only for Labour to scrap the idea shortly afterwards. Then its brought back, but at a much greater interval. Whats the rationale behind it? Not even sure loads more old cars have made it to 25 years due to the catastrophic effect of the Scrappage Scheme...

[strangeangel]

Hence I decided that when the haunted Rover becomes tax exempt in April, I'll donate the equivalent amount to a charity UKIP.

 

Once I get my '59 Vespa on the road I shall derive great pleasure from not paying my £15 Vehicle Excise Duty.

[captain_70s]

Didn't the Dutch just abolish their rolling 25 year tax exemption and move it to a rolling 40 years with the aim of reducing polution?

[Bobthebeard]

Conspiracy Theory for you here, get your tin hats ready.

 

CAmeron - CApitalist

COrbyn - COmmunist

 

WWWwoooooOOOOOOoooOOOoooo *waves hands around*  bet that's blown your minds.

You seem a tad grumpy today Vulg... Other posts etc. Hope all is well!

[brownnova]

You've just reminded me the Mazda's tax ran out yesterday, and I haven't got round to it yet...

 

Better go do that!! Wish it was tax exempt... Which if the law was 25 years it would be!

[meggersdog]

 

rolling road tax exemption

 

Don't have a rolling road but I do have brake rollers.They are nine years old but when they reach 25 would I get VAT exemption on the calibration ? Is that how it works ?

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

I can see it from both sides TBH. They dont want to be seen as promoting pollution or giving tax breaks away. 

 

By bringing back the 25 year rolling date, they'd be giving away next to bugger all - but it would create a feelgood factor.

 

The scheme was a very welcome surprise when John Major's government launched it, but Major was a decent bloke. Even if he did shag Edwina Currie.

[Uncle Jimmy]

Does anyone pay any tax on Merseyside?

[Uncle Jimmy]

By bringing back the 25 year rolling date, they'd be giving away next to bugger all - but it would create a feelgood factor.

 

The scheme was a very welcome surprise when John Major's government launched it, but Major was a decent bloke. Even if he did shag Edwina Currie.

A brief glimpse into Honest John's post governmental affairs reveals that he is as bigger, wealthier cunt as the rest of them.

Somehow I don't think any government is going to happily let us drive about in Mk2 Golf's and Cavaliers tax free....just yet.

[vulgalour]

You seem a tad grumpy today Vulg... Other posts etc. Hope all is well!

 

Bad back again.  My own fault.

[Guest Breadvan72]

Not sure about this. A car from the late 80s/early 90s is easily put to use as an everyday car in the way that you couldn't with a 70s car that was becoming tax exempt when the rolling 25 years stopped in 1998. My R8 coupe turns 25 next year, I do roughly 12,000 miles in it with basic servicing.

My first Allegro was the same age when I got it in 2003 and would have needed much more work to do half that mileage.

 

OK,  and I agree that a car from 1991 is more practical as a daily in 2016 than a car from 1970 would have been in 1995, and so on, but the usability of a 25 year old car today seems to me to suggest that there is no special reason to exempt cars that are really quite modern from tax.  Heck, my XJS will be 25 next year.  It probably is a classic car because it is a late version of a classic design from the 70s, but it is still more of a car than a show item.  Compare some rather more fragile and precious old thing that does only pop out for the odd show.

[rantingYoof]

This whole discussion wouldn't occur at all, or perhaps as frequently or as passionately, if people generally felt that they noticed a difference after paying their road tax.

 

The basic way to fix this issue is for An Government to properly invest in the country's infrastructure, in a way that brings it up to a spec that isn't laughable when compared to countries of a similar or even lesser wealth.

 

Admit it, whether you're a pinko left-o-matic simpering hang-wringer like me or a neoliberal free-market mouth-frother, in your ideal world people, individuals, businesses, corporations all absolutely have to use the roads, and having a functioning, usable road-network in [your general vicinity] will only ever improve the state of the economy around it, whether that's because more people are being employed to up-keep said roads, or whether persons are able to get from their house to work faster, or whether it's just because the traffic and congestion has improved to the point where people don't arrive where they want to get to wanting to bludgeon everyone to death (or don't arrive at all because they were bludgeoned to death enroute by someone with a lower tolerance).

 

I reckon if people were to notice an increase in the number of lit motorways/dual carriageways/roads in general, proper pot-hole repairs rather than some minimum-wage sloggers working for Geoamey or Serco lobbing a suspicious mixture of crap into the hole and patting it down with a spade, and an actual improvement in traffic flow following a multi-million pound regeneration of roundabouts and other congested areas, then there would be less angst about paying road tax on the whole, and petitions like this wouldn't be as frequent.

 

Of course, what you need to accomplish the above is An Government which is happy to fund the Highways Agency and the local authorities appropriately so this type of work can be done to a good standard and whenever it's needed, rather than as cheaply as possible and only when absolutely necessary.

 

You won't get this under a blue or purple Government, and I need more convincing about a red Government, so it really does look like revolution is the only way forwards after all, unless an entirely privatised and for-profit road-network can feasibly work going forwards, and I need a damn load of convincing about that, personally.

 

 

Pip pip, and all that.

[Lacquer Peel]

Vehicle excise duty as it is, is a bit unfair. A granny doing 3000 miles a year in an old Rover 216 is taxed at at £230 a year, while a businessman (in his suit and tie) travelling 40k a year in a Prius is charged nothing.

[UmBongo]

Vehicle excise duty as it is, is a bit unfair. A granny doing 3000 miles a year in an old Rover 216 is taxed at at £230 a year, while a businessman (in his suit and tie) travelling 40k a year in a Prius is charged nothing.

 

You don't say!

 

This was covered in a thread some time ago.

 

I think that VED should be based on miles covered. It's the fairest way to do it.

[MrDuke]

Admit it, whether you're a pinko left-o-matic simpering hang-wringer like me or a neoliberal free-market mouth-frother, in your ideal world people, individuals, businesses, corporations all absolutely have to use the roads, and having a functioning, usable road-network in [your general vicinity] will only ever improve the state of the economy around it, whether that's because more people are being employed to up-keep said roads, or whether persons are able to get from their house to work faster, or whether it's just because the traffic and congestion has improved to the point where people don't arrive where they want to get to wanting to bludgeon everyone to death (or don't arrive at all because they were bludgeoned to death enroute by someone with a lower tolerance).

 

I have no political leanings whatsoever, but in my ideal world businesses and corporations (and a large proportion of individuals) would be using an extensive railway network. Cheaper and quicker to construct and maintain than roads, and far less pollution generated per ton of cargo (or per traveller), even if every train was hauled by clag-belching Deltics. But being as that idea was rendered mere fantasy by a money-grabbing twunt in the 60s, it'll never actually happen.

 

The fairest, and most efficient, way to collect VED (or whatever they're calling it now) would be to add it to the price of fuel, whether that be dinosaur juice or electrickery. That way, no-one gets away with not paying it, people who travel more miles will pay more, you'll only ever be paying it on the car you're actually driving regardless of how many you have in total, and the whole orgy of red tape can be done away with.

 

Actually, after they've done that, maybe they could nationalise the entire car insurance industry. All the existing VED infrastructure could be used to process insurance payments, and the premiums would only ever rise at the rate of inflation. FANTASTIC!!

[Negative Creep]

It is changing to more of a flat rate next year though, and not before time. The amount of cars that barely have to pay anything is ridiculous

[Cavcraft]

Yes, put it all on fuel which will cripple road transport and every time the government decide to have another pointless war with someone, they'll just keep racking up the price of fuel.

The granny doing 3,000 miles a year is saving money by not buying the amount of fuel other people use, and also she's not polluting us as much as someone doing 15,000 miles a year.

[inconsistant]

Vehicle excise duty as it is, is a bit unfair. A granny doing 3000 miles a year in an old Rover 216 is taxed at at £230 a year, while a businessman (in his suit and tie) travelling 40k a year in a Prius is charged nothing.

The businessman is the real sick man in this so called society.

[MrDuke]

Yes, put it all on fuel which will cripple road transport and every time the government decide to have another pointless war with someone, they'll just keep racking up the price of fuel.

The granny doing 3,000 miles a year is saving money by not buying the amount of fuel other people use, and also she's not polluting us as much as someone doing 15,000 miles a year.

 

Aye, it's not perfect, but I am a raging fantasist. See the other two paragraphs for example.

[garbaldy]

I was always under the impression that driving was not a God given right so I can live with a few potholes.

[catsinthewelder]

I would rather see VED added to fuel prices too,  it seems rather unfair that a skint person with a 15 year old hatchback is paying £230 when a lot of new cars are free,  it's better with the new monthly payments but annoying that they cost more than paying a lump sum.

 

I'm very happy that the 40 year exemption is rolling but agree with BV72 that we shouldn't push too hard,  I like using my 30 year old car as a daily and wouldn't want use and milage restrictions on it.

 

I have no political leanings whatsoever, but in my ideal world businesses and corporations (and a large proportion of individuals) would be using an extensive railway network. Cheaper and quicker to construct and maintain than roads, and far less pollution generated per ton of cargo (or per traveller), even if every train was hauled by clag-belching Deltics. But being as that idea was rendered mere fantasy by a money-grabbing twunt in the 60s, it'll never actually happen.

 

They are trying to reconstruct a better network but HS2 is an important first stage and most of the political left seems to be against it because it has fast trains.   For various reasons it is harder to reconstruct the old lines than it is to build a new one and if you are going to build a new line it surely makes sense to build a faster route than the Victorians did.  Should the government have kept open thousands of miles of loss making railway lines for the last 50 years because people might want to use them now?  I love trains but I know that the sensible answer is no (but they should have protected the routes).

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

I would rather see VED added to fuel prices too,  it seems rather unfair that a skint person with a 15 year old hatchback is paying £230 when a lot of new cars are free,  it's better with the new monthly payments but annoying that they cost more than paying a lump sum.

 

I'm very happy that the 40 year exemption is rolling but agree with BV72 that we shouldn't push too hard,  I like using my 30 year old car as a daily and wouldn't want use and milage restrictions on it.

 

 

They are trying to reconstruct a better network but HS2 is an important first stage and most of the political left seems to be against it because it has fast trains.   For various reasons it is harder to reconstruct the old lines than it is to build a new one and if you are going to build a new line it surely makes sense to build a faster route than the Victorians did.  Should the government have kept open thousands of miles of loss making railway lines for the last 50 years because people might want to use them now?  I love trains but I know that the sensible answer is no (but they should have protected the routes).

 

 

I'm a not left winger, I just inhabit the ambiguous middle ground. I agree that failing to protect the old train routes was shortsightedness verging on the vandalous. Everyone knew the lines may be needed in the future, but that knowledge spoke to councils more softly than the property developers.

 

 

I don't support HS2. HS2 seems to me to be more about opening up the regions to London-based service industries, than anything else.

 

With a fast enough rail link the London service industry will overwhelm the regions like a rampaging bull. The northern professional will cease to exist. Higher paying jobs will be concentrated entirely in London where the forces of agglomeration dictate they belong. They will be the ones who can afford the ticket.

 

Northerners seem to go all misty eyed and Fred Dibnah when they hear the words "train" and "investment" in the same sentence, but HS2 will turn out to be a Trojan horse. It will further eviscerate my region.

 

Back on topic, I agree with you and Breadvan72; the current situation is best left alone. You must be certain the outcome will benefit you before you stir the mud of Government. It could so easily open the door to restricted use - and the tax revenue lost will have to be balanced somewhere else. I'm satisfied to leave it as it is - and not sign the petition.

[Junkman]

Didn't France simply scrap the VED thing altogether over a decade ago?

Weirdly, the country still existed when I went to check last year. Has better roads, too.

[garbaldy]

Yes france does your right but the toll roads are a costly way of traveling and I wouldn't fancy that over here.