An Petitions

[castros_bro]

Petition Reduce Vehicle Excise Duty by 50% for vehicles aged 20 to 39 years

Introduce a 50% VED reduction for cars aged 20–39. High taxes force functional vehicles to be scrapped, creating a "disposable" culture. Keeping existing cars is greener than building new ones, as it preserves embedded carbon. This "Young-Timer" bracket supports the circular economy and UK heritage.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/756814

[BorniteIdentity]

Sorry dude, but it’s piffle. Just because something is built, it doesn’t mean that it’s the best option. We’d still be living in pre-war slums if you extend that logic. 

My cars pollute more. I pay more in fuel duty and more in road tax. That is entirely correct. I don’t much like it, but it’s right. 

It’s ok to like stuff. Some folks like collecting antique lawnmowers and even lightbulbs. But it doesn’t mean that it should be subsidised.

Where are tax system is wrong is it doesn’t reflect weight of vehicle. That would encourage more people into more modestly sized cars and hopefully start to move us away from this endless obsession with SUVs. 

[lesapandre]

It's currently 1.35Million cars according t'web and the petition stands at 50,000 signatures approx.

I make that 3.7% of owners and assorted keyboard warriors have expressed themselves in support.

I'd see this as another one of these 'culture war' things cooked up by the perpetually agitated - 50% seems a very eye-catching figure - based on little logic - 30, 70 or even 100% might equally apply.

Another one of those pseudo-flashpoints we are all supposed to care for but which would be pointless and costly to implement. All to do with the increase in VED etc in April I suppose. The usual foaming-at the- mouth news outlets are all over it. 

And it's probably not a great idea to draw attention to the rolling exemption in case it's axed because that really is worthwhile.

But hey-ho - it gives them something to do with their fingers in the evening I suppose 

[EspenO]

7 hours ago, BorniteIdentity said:

But it doesn’t mean that it should be subsidised.

Duty reductions and subsidies are two very different things. 

[BorniteIdentity]

On 03/05/2026 at 04:18, EspenO said:

Duty reductions and subsidies are two very different things. 

Ugh. You took me too literally but I apologise. 

Ultimately, if the government reduce something - then I think it’s widely accepted that something else pays for it. 

But let’s not get too bogged down. This is a non-starter and a pipe dream. 

[EspenO]

I may have read you a bit unkindly. I’ve become used to people using «susbsidies» as a rhetorical trick when they really mean tax reduction/excemption - in discussions about fuel duty reductions in Norway for example.

No offence taken, and likewise I hope 🙂