Structure of new annual car tax

Mr Magnolia

Does anyone know how the Government are going to structure this? I think it's coming in the next budget.

I've heard they may base it on emmissions, which I think is fair. I've also heard they may base it on the Cubic Capacity of the vechile, which I think would be a disaster personally.

I'm also wondering how commercial vechiles will fit into the mix?

Anyone hear anything on the grapevine?

daymobrew

RTE report that, for the moment, it will continue to be based on engine size, with emissions based tax forthcoming.

trellheim

a 10% hike across the board will raise the cash the councils need and give the greens a nice happy feeling.

There's probably no point doing anything else until they get an emissions tax rolling.

AFAIR there hasn't been a rise for a few years so small mercies.

mackerski

How is this new? We already have a system that penalises larger engines, regardless how clean or economical they may be. The Greens held out the carrot of reforming this along polluter pays principles. So this comes down to a mixture of emissions and fossil fuel usage, and is taxed on that basis in other countries.

To keep the existing flawed model and skew the large engine (or, to be fair, the non-small-engine) loading still further isn't a reform of the existing model, it's a further twist of the knife. Why would anyone announce a do-nothing measure to the media?

trellheim

Because the Greens need the good press. Note conflict of interest: I drive a 4 litre engined car.

It's a big car; Yes it is but I pay for it -1300 odd a year. I have a Cinquecento 900cc too and pay 151 a year for that. C'est la vie.

mackerski

trellheim wrote: »

Because the Greens need the good press. Note conflict of interest: I drive a 4 litre engined car.

Sure, but I can't see why "We're not delivering the promised reforms, more of the same for now" amounts to good press. The Greens have caught enough flak for becoming more FF than FF themselves, this is just another example.

My conflict: 2.5 litre. It was exempt from road tax for the first 3 years of its life in Germany owing to its low emissions, and the carbon tax on petrol hit me in the pocket in proportion to the pollution I caused. Much like the Greens seemed to be advocating before they were assimilated...

OTK

Anyone think it's likely there will be a large hike on petrol? In the UK a litre is around €1.42, so we could add 20% without making a price disparity with the North.

engine size isn't a perfect method of measuring relative pollution but it's mostly right and better than nothing. The dept of transport has said it is not ready to implement an emissions based system yet.

MICKEYG

Same rubbish again. Why no abolish road tax and increase the price of petrol. The more you travel the more you polute the more you pay. The less efficient the engine (not the bigger the engine) the more you pay. Simple, fair and cheap to collect (no need to employ hundreds of car tax collecting civil servants). Why does the guy with a 3 litre car who does 6,000 mile a year pay more than the sales rep with a 1.8 litre car who does 40-50,000 miles a year.

Tolls should operate in the same way. Its not just motorways that cost money to build/maintain. Get rid of tolls and let the tax on petrol pay for maintenance. The more you use your car the more you pay - again, simple and fair. Cheaper too as no need to employ toll collectors or maintain and adminster the ezy pass system. Better for environment to as we use more fuel slowing down and speeding up at tolls.

mackerski

OTK wrote: »

Anyone think it's likely there will be a large hike on petrol? In the UK a litre is around €1.42, so we could add 20% without making a price disparity with the North.

I'd consider that fair, but only based on a corresponding drop in road tax (and ideally a downward trend in VRT too). If you want to follow other countries' best-practice, you need to retain the balance, not pick and choose bits.

OTK wrote: »

engine size isn't a perfect method of measuring relative pollution but it's mostly right and better than nothing. The dept of transport has said it is not ready to implement an emissions based system yet.

How is it mostly right? I started driving in old cars with small engines, no catalytic converters and pretty poor emissions. As time goes by, my engine sizes have gone up and my emissions down. Why should the guy in the Morris Minor get a free ride on my tax bill?

That the department isn't ready for a change I believe, but I fail to see why that should be my problem. They've had long enough to think about the problem. So I now get to pay a further 10% while they play with their abacus for another few years? That'll save the planet...

OTK

mackerski wrote: »

I'd consider that fair, but only based on a corresponding drop in road tax (and ideally a downward trend in VRT too). If you want to follow other countries' best-practice, you need to retain the balance, not pick and choose bits.

The govt is trying to raise revenue to meet a budget deficit so why go for something revenue neutral? I wasn't suggesting that we set our fuel tax the same as the UK because they have best practice in taxation, just that it's not a good idea to set fuel taxes any higher than the UK due to cross-border losses.

How is it mostly right? I started driving in old cars with small engines, no catalytic converters and pretty poor emissions. As time goes by, my engine sizes have gone up and my emissions down. Why should the guy in the Morris Minor get a free ride on my tax bill?

Mostly right because most small engined cars emit less than most large engined cars. Most people don't drive Morris Minors.

That the department isn't ready for a change I believe, but I fail to see why that should be my problem. They've had long enough to think about the problem. So I now get to pay a further 10% while they play with their abacus for another few years? That'll save the planet...

That's pretty much it. It's a way to raise a few quid and blame it on the greens. It's unlikely to make people decide not to own a car but it may dissuade some from a larger engined vehicle. Sadly, it's a flat tax so there is an incentive to drive more once you've paid the tax to 'get your value'.

The tax has to be administrable. Given the problems getting something as simple as, for example, the penalty point system set up, any new tax structure is going to take ages to introduce and probably won't work that well even then. So just raise the rates 10%.

Mr Magnolia

My gripe: I've a 2ltr TD car producing half the emissions of a 2ltr Petrol. Either this is for a cleaner better environment or it's not.

Supercell

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

My gripe: I've a 2ltr TD car producing half the emissions of a 2ltr Petrol. Either this is for a cleaner better environment or it's not.

Really?, I was under the impression that Diesels were worse polluters?
I'm a diesel car driver btw so have no axe to grind here!

Mr Magnolia

No, apparently the above is true. I'll try and dig out some facts tomorrow if someone hasn't found them by then

E92

Anyone who thinks modern diesels are dirty is so far back in time its a miracle they're able to use a computer let alone the internet. Seriously, though its ridiculous. The current legislation(Euro 4, many diesels since 2003 have met this standard, 3 years before they needed to btw, compulsory for all vehicles since 1/2006) solved the problem of particulates. The new Euro 5 legislation(from 1/2009), which is some diesels already meet(you'll all note that there are no Euro 5 petrols on sale at this present moment in time, the first ones are due soon with the Fiat 500) like the Audi A5(which has been on sale since the start of the year) will solve the problem of Nitrous Oxides.

Now even with this new legislation, they still won't be as good as petrols for Particulates and Nitrous Oxide as Petrols(the Euro series of legislation has different limits for petrol and diesel), but they are better on CO2(not technically, because if you have a petrol doing 50 mpg and a diesel doing 50 mpg, the diesel pollutes around 10% more CO2, but diesels use around 30% less fuel than sister petrols, so they do fare around 10-15% better on the CO2 department usually as a result), much better on Carbon Monoxide(the Euro limits are twice as high for petrols as they are for diesels), and Hydrocarbons.

See herefor more.

And FWIW about the "big engines are dirty" thing, I suppose that explains why a BMW 325i with a 3.0 litre engine uses less fuel than a 1.6 litre Toyota Avensis, right:rolleyes:?

And lastly can I suggest that Mods move it to the Motors forum and merge it with countless threads we've had about it there?

RainyDay

MICKEYG wrote: »

Why no abolish road tax and increase the price of petrol. The more you travel the more you polute the more you pay. The less efficient the engine (not the bigger the engine) the more you pay. Simple, fair and cheap to collect (no need to employ hundreds of car tax collecting civil servants). Why does the guy with a 3 litre car who does 6,000 mile a year pay more than the sales rep with a 1.8 litre car who does 40-50,000 miles a year.

Hear, hear.

Mr Magnolia

E92 wrote: »

And lastly can I suggest that Mods move it to the Motors forum and merge it with countless threads we've had about it there?

I would respectfully request that the thread remains here. I placed here for a reason, if the mods felt that it should be in motors it would be in there already.

D'Peoples Voice

E92 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks modern diesels are dirty is so far back in time its a miracle they're able to use a computer let alone the internet.

Yeah it's all here
http://cars.about.com/od/thingsyouneedtoknow/a/ag_BLUETEC.htm
http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/dccom/0-5-7179-1-627596-1-0-0-0-0-0-8668-7165-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/04/vw-unveils-next-gen-tdi-engine/
http://www.biodieselnow.com/blogs/biodiesel_vehicles/archive/2007/04/05/mercedes-e320-diesel-wins-world-green-car-of-the-year.aspx

Mr Magnolia

Longfield wrote: »

Really?, I was under the impression that Diesels were worse polluters?
I'm a diesel car driver btw so have no axe to grind here!

I've had a look:

BMW 320i = 146g/km
BMW 320d = 128g/km

Toyota Corolla 1.4 petrol = 158g/km
Toyota Corolla 1.4 Dsl = 128g/km

So there is a considerable difference, though not as much as I expected to see. Still it depends on how they bench mark the system. Consider that the Toyota Prius (hybrid) has 104g/km emissions and the Lexus Hybrid with 186g/km.

E92

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

Consider that the Toyota Prius (hybrid) has 104g/km emissions and the Lexus Hybrid with 186g/km.

MINI Cooper D : 104 g/km. (Diesel)

VW Polo Bluemotion 1 : 99 g/km CO2. Who says hybrids are the greenest? And remember hybrids have considerable(negative) enviornmental implications when they're scrapped. All those batteries asnd the extra weight(over a non hybrid version of the same car) have to go somewhere you know!

And the Lexus GS450 hybrid uses more fuel than a non hybrid petrol BMW 530i. needless to say a diesel version of the BMW uses even less fuel) Both have engines close enough in size(3.5 for the lexus, 3.0 for the BMW). Lexus 35.8 mpg, BMW 37.7 mpg for the Auto, 36.7 for the manual.


And not forgetting the Lexus LS 600 h(hybrid), CO2 219 g/km, Audi A8 2.8 petrol(non hybrid) 199 g/km of CO2.

The whole point of all of that was to demonstatre that there are plenty of non hybrid cars that match and sometimes even better their hybrid rivals for CO2 emissions, yet because they're not hybrids, their entitled to SFA of a tax reduction, even though they are as clean and sometimes even cleaner.

Mr Magnolia

You do realize I'm not defending the hybrids E92? I'm pondering a bench mark re: Hybrid figures.

E92

@Mr Magnolia: Don't worry, I did know you weren't trying to defend them, sorry it came across as I was questioning your judgement(it was meant to back up your well founded suspicions)!

Mr Magnolia

Grand so

*hugz*

martin1016

MICKEYG wrote: »

Same rubbish again. Why no abolish road tax and increase the price of petrol. The more you travel the more you polute the more you pay. The less efficient the engine (not the bigger the engine) the more you pay. Simple, fair and cheap to collect (no need to employ hundreds of car tax collecting civil servants). Why does the guy with a 3 litre car who does 6,000 mile a year pay more than the sales rep with a 1.8 litre car who does 40-50,000 miles a year.

This is only equitable way forward - the greens Prius will emmit the more emmisions that Berties S Class if driven 2.8 times further. The current tax is a luxury tax yet the do not have the integrity to call it so but pass it off as an environmental issue.

Taxing the high end cars off the road will kill R&D as that is where the new and most innovative technologies are affordable to develop and test. The curent method makes cars too expensive (VRT, annual road tax, restrictive insurance criteria), thus people buy the one that matches their most demanding need while in actual fact this requirement may be used only a few times a month. An equitable system would facilitate ownership of more varied vehicles and therefore more approriate modes of transport, smart cars, electric cars for city runs, urban commuting etc and larger vehicles for long distance driving, towing etc. Under the current taxation system owning, taxing and insuring multiple vehicles makes no sense.

BTW, I run a company and would support the tax on fuel even with reps and vans on the road.