DVLA Car Tax

[big_mac]

it's quite possible that they will re-introduce the £400+ charge in 2011, officially it was only delayed and not scrapped.

[tazman3]

Originally Posted by big_mac

it's quite possible that they will re-introduce the £400+ charge in 2011, officially it was only delayed and not scrapped.

true but i will have had nearly three years of grinning driving the 190 by then...

guess i will make my mind up then whether to keep or not...

[Tatts]

Time to scrap road tax & put extra tax on fuel?

That way people pay for what they use. Some will gain, some will lose.

It would also generate revenue from vehicles not licenced in the UK. Just look how many foreign cars you see around & about. Also, HGV vehicles entering the country would have to pay a 'Duty Penalty Fee' if their fuel tanks are over half full.

[StevenWilliams]

Originally Posted by Tatts

Time to scrap road tax & put extra tax on fuel?

That way people pay for what they use. Some will gain, some will lose.

However I believe the tax increases are meant to be a green tax and we already have had this added to the fuel so it's just another way of charging us for the same thing.

I read a report in new scientist (I think thats right) a few years back that there is an alternative to reducing CO2 and thats to adsorb it or to convert it into something else like nature does. I seem to remember that theoretiucally a tonne could be gotten rid of for the cost of pennies if it was done in mass scale.

[Petrow]

Originally Posted by StevenWilliams

I read a report in new scientist (I think thats right) a few years back that there is an alternative to reducing CO2 and thats to adsorb it or to convert it into something else like nature does. I seem to remember that theoretiucally a tonne could be gotten rid of for the cost of pennies if it was done in mass scale.

Sorry, but New Scientist has become a pseudo-science magazine as far as global warming is concerned. It is totally one-sided in its reporting. I used to buy it - right from its start in the 50's - but I've given up in despair.
Yes, there are people who have proposed various ways of sequestering CO2, but there is no point in trying to get rid of the stuff. It is not a pollutant - it is an essential ingredient for all life on Earth. There is not one shred of evidence that it affects global temperatures. Its present level is very low - about the lowest it has ever been in the history of the Earth. More would be a good thing. Commercial greenhouse owners add CO2 to their greenhouse atmospheres because it helps the plants to grow. Plants thrive on CO2. They take the carbon, then throw out the oxygen, which is a poison to them. But animals like us thrive on the oxygen the plants produce. Only fools like politicians and unthinking so-called environmentalists would want to limit this wholly beneficial natural process.

[StevenWilliams]

Originally Posted by Petrow

Sorry, but New Scientist has become a pseudo-science magazine as far as global warming is concerned. It is totally one-sided in its reporting. I used to buy it - right from its start in the 50's - but I've given up in despair.
Yes, there are people who have proposed various ways of sequestering CO2, but there is no point in trying to get rid of the stuff. It is not a pollutant - it is an essential ingredient for all life on Earth. There is not one shred of evidence that it affects global temperatures. Its present level is very low - about the lowest it has ever been in the history of the Earth. More would be a good thing. Commercial greenhouse owners add CO2 to their greenhouse atmospheres because it helps the plants to grow. Plants thrive on CO2. They take the carbon, then throw out the oxygen, which is a poison to them. But animals like us thrive on the oxygen the plants produce. Only fools like politicians and unthinking so-called environmentalists would want to limit this wholly beneficial natural process.

Not being an expert I wouldn't know wither way. Just in case, I drive a Green car. At least I'm doing my bit.

[calibrax]

Originally Posted by P63500S

i agree £245 sounds just about bearable

£245 is outrageous especially considering only a tiny proportion of it is actually spent on the roads.

Unfortunately you've fallen for the old trick the Government and councils pull all the time. It does the same trick with council tax every year, and we ALL fall for it! here's how it works :

1) Government leaks to the papers that there will be a huge increase (say 50%).
2) Public outcry, papers help to stir it up, petitions are made, etc.
3) Government announces increase will only be 15%.
4) Public sigh with relief and are happy, not realising they've just been shafted by an increase of 5 times the rate of inflation.

Originally Posted by Tatts

Time to scrap road tax & put extra tax on fuel?

Good idea, in theory - except that whenever there is a change in the way of doing things there is always an overall increase. It happened when rates became poll tax, and again when it changed to council tax. The total cash taken in by the Government would increase, as would the amount the average driver would end up paying. I have no doubt about that.

[bigmark]

does having lpg make your tax cheeper on any car ?

[Typhoon190]

IMHO they should never have back dated the road tax hikes. Suddenly increasing the road tax on a 6year old motor from £210 to £415 (or £440 at worst) was...is totally unreasonable.

If these tax rules do go through, hopefully they will only affect cars registered from the date of the increase.

[Fraser Mitchell]

As far as I can work it out, the new higher rates apply to cars registered on or after 2006, in the same way as when Brown introduced the new higher band, (I forget what letter it is !!). So there is still some degree of retrospection but not so much as before.