Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers'

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Mon 19 Mar 2007 08:39
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - midlifecrisis
Reports that there is going to be a 'significant' hike in tax for 'gas guzzlers'. Should we all take a punt at what we think Brown will class such a vehicle to be! My bet is that anybody with a normal family saloon is going to be hit very hard. Can't have the working man clogging those roads and preventing the political elite from getting where they want to go.

I can feel my blood boiling already!!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 08:44
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - DP
I thought the same thing. I know an automatic 2.0 Mondeo qualifies as a "gas guzzler" under Ken's proposed £25 congestion charge bracket.

Cheers
DP
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 08:48
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - jc2
I see the new Olympics site will be "traffic-free"-no cars allowed.Whats the betting MP's will go there by car?-"for security reasons".
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 08:50
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Pica
and their vehicles will need to be gas guzzlers.

What exactly quantifies a GAS GUZZLER? someone doing 3000 miles a year in a V8 or someone doing 15000 miles a gear in a 1.6?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 08:53
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Armitage Shanks {p}
I think the people who are going to be hurt by this are farmers who actually need some high emission vehicle (Landie or whatever) to conduct their business and make a living. Also it doesn't seem fair that people who already own such vehicles should suddenly be caned with a tax increase. The mechanism exists, or could be easily created, to apply such punitive levels of taxation to new vehicles bought after a certain date. Then people would know what they were letting themselves in for, rather than being mugged by Robber Gordon. I bet none of the extra money raised will be spent on anything to do with planting trees, CO2 reduction, affordable public transport or anything even vaguely useful. No change there then!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 08:59
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - KMO
Whinge whine whinge tax moan whinge politician whinge.

The top band G was introduced only for new cars from March 2006, which is basically what you were asking for. Anyone buying band G after that date should have known they were leaving themselves exposed to punitive tax rises.

And all the bands were only introduced for new vehicles. There's plenty of moaning in the other direction from people whose cars would have been band B, but were bought before 2001, so have to pay more...
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 12:34
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - midlifecrisis
KMO- If I drove a Hummer then I wouldn't complain, but a family saloon is run by.....families! The great global warming swindle continues. Perhaps we need a 'poll tax' style revolt. Everybody I speak too is getting heartily sick of Brown and his 100 tax rises. I wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 23:58
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - KMO
Can't be many family saloons in band G, surely. Part of the reason for band G's introduction was to separate off the real guzzlers ready for punitive taxation.

A quick check of the Toyota Avensis, choosing a family car at random, reveals the following choices:

Band C: 2.0 D4-D
Band D: 2.2 D4-D, T180
Band E: 1.8 VVT-i manual
Band F: 1.8 VVT-i auto, 2.0 VVT-i manual & auto

So quite a lot of choice there that avoids bands F and G, which are going to be the main targets.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 08:53
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - henry k
I know an automatic 2.0 Mondeo qualifies as a "gas guzzler"........

>>
When will an extra tax be put on ALL conventional automatics cos they use more fuel ?
( I now drive an 98 2.0 Mondeo auto after driving manual cars most of my life)
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 09:38
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Alebear
My 2.4 Volvo s80 does far better mpg than my 2.0 SAAB 9-5. Naturally I pay a higher tax rate on the Volvo.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 09:38
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Roger Jones
What does Bully Brown care? He doesn't drive and, I believe, doesn't have a driving licence. One of the first things he did as Chancellor was to freeze the VED exemption for classic cars so that it stopped rolling forwards on a 25-years-old basis -- petty, spiteful, the act of a detail nurd with a grudge. And he's going to be PM -- words fail me.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 10:13
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Brian Tryzers
> What does Bully Brown care? He doesn't drive and, I believe, doesn't have a driving licence.

That's a specious argument. I don't have a disability but I'm glad the state makes some provision for those that do.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 10:58
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Roly93
As I've said in other posts, Brown only knows how to figure out ways to ask for more money cus he can. Whether this money is wisely spent seems to totally elude Brown and his government. Brown considers anyone with a family income of over £15,000 a year to be decadent and to be targeted to the hilt. Brown is like most of our local government politicians in that he is a car hater and wants to inflict his personal view on the nation, again cus he can. Talk about meglomania !!
Okay if people choose to drive a 6 litre V8 perhaps they should get stung a little, but these budget hikes are just a thinly veilled new way of getting another billion £ for the Blair junta to waste on nonsense.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 12:55
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - NowWheels
>> I know an automatic 2.0 Mondeo qualifies as a "gas guzzler"........
>>
When will an extra tax be put on ALL conventional automatics
cos they use more fuel ?
( I now drive an 98 2.0 Mondeo auto after driving
manual cars most of my life)


It's there already, though not labelled as such. If the automatic version has higher emissions than a manual one, then the increase may push it into a higher tax bracket. Not all autos are more polluting (some CVTs and DSG automatics get about the same results as a manual car), and not all conventional autos seem to have the same effect on CO2 emissions, so it makes more sense to just measure the actual emissions rather than worry about why they are higher or lower.

My Nissan Almera 1.8 automatic has CO2 emissions of 187g/km, against 183g/km for the 1.8 manual ... so the manual ends up in band E, and the automatic in Band F ... which is a bit embarrassing for me, because I end up in the second-highest current band: see www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowTo...4

A Mondeo 2-litre manual emits 193g/km, and the automatic emits 218g/km, so although the difference is wider, both are in the same band. That sort of effect is inevitable in a banding system, and if you really want to pay more VED, that could be achieved by narrowing the bands.

(As an aside, I wonder why putting an automatic gearbox in a Mondeo increases the CO2 emissions so much more than in an Almera? Unless the Almera figure is a freak caused by a bad test, it does suggest that not all conventional autos have the same effect on emissions).


I think that the banding is a good idea, but so far it has mainly been used to give discounts to less-polluting vehicles: everything below band E has had it VED reduced under the CO2-based scheme. (It's probably one the lesser-noticed points of the current system that it has mainly been used to give discounts; it looks likely o me that the total VED take has so far been reduced by this scheme).

It's illogical that there should be only four bands below the "average" band E, but only only two bands above the "average" ... and also illogical that the increase in VED rates for more polluting cars does is proportionately less than the discount for the least polluting.

Since the intended purpose is to drive people towards less polluting cars, there should be several higher bands: H, I, J, etc. The current banding lumps together everything over 225g/km, and there ought to be higher bands at at (say) 250, 300, 350 to increase the penalty for the most polluting vehicles.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 18:04
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - teabelly
Tail pipe emissions are a distraction from the real cause of pollution - manufacturing of the vehicle in the first place! The toyota prius is a fine example of a gross polluter with low tail pipe emissions.

Fuel tax is the only fair way as it hits those with heavy right foots, large mileages and inefficient cars in exact proportions. What is forgotten in all this is that some asthmatic 1 litre car will probably last only 80k before conking out but the 2 litre + cars will probably last at least 250k before expiring. It is far more wasteful to keep on building new cars than it is to look after older vehicles. Anything vehicle over 15 years old should be tax exempt to discourage people buying newer cars and encourage them to keep their cars much longer and save energy that way. Luckily everything made before 2000 is in a flat twin rate - either above 1.5 litre and above or not. You could also reduce road tax for people who have owned their vehicle for longer so that it encourages people to stick with what they've got rather than keep changing it.

If tax rates are hiked too far then the rate of evasion is going to increase even more. There are already 2 million uninsured drivers floating around so there must be at least those people not taxing their cars, others declare sorn and others will be plate cloning to avoid the hassle.

If this stupid idea is taken to its logical conclusion then there are going to be thousands of people cramming their families into unsuitable vehicles just to save on tax.

If manufacturers all produced all their cars in the low emission band right now HMG would have a fit as the green argument is just an excuse to steal people's hard earned to fill their budget deficit.
teabelly
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 20:57
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - NowWheels
Tail pipe emissions are a distraction from the real cause of
pollution - manufacturing of the vehicle in the first place! The
toyota prius is a fine example of a gross polluter with
low tail pipe emissions.


Very true: the Prius a brilliant piece of marketing, but no answer to pollution problems: all it does is to displace them.

Similarly, I wonder if the rush towards common-rail diesels is really a good thing. Will the reduced emissions when they are in use make up for the number that have to be scrapped when their complex injection system becomes economic to replace, when an old-fashioned non-turbo, non-CR diesel would still be chugging away? It'd be interesting to see a comparison of energy used over the life-cycle.

I don't think you are right, though, that fuel tax is the only fair way to reduce emissions. Increasing the standing charge on having a vehicle outside in the street is a disincentive to buy a more polluting car in the first place.

Nor are economical cars necessarily going to wear out more quickly: many a Peugeot diesel with an XUD engine did 300,000 miles plus.
If this stupid idea is taken to its logical conclusion then there are
going to be thousands of people cramming their families into
unsuitable vehicles just to save on tax.


The definition of suitable is rather subjective. The roads are full of MPVs and 4X4s carrying families which, a generation or two ago, would have been delighted to climb into a a Ford Anglia or a Vauxhall Viva, vehicles smaller inside than today's Fiesta. In the seventies, my dad sold his old Cortina when he inherited a nearly-new Vauxhall Chevette, and it coped remarkably well with two teenagers+dog; we just carried less luggage. The assumption that a family has to have a Mondeo or an MPV is a product of affluence, not need.
If manufacturers all produced all their cars in the low emission band right now
HMG would have a fit as the green argument is just an excuse to steal people's
hard earned to fill their budget deficit.


I doubt it. There are about 30 million cars on road, and I dount that more than 10% of them would fall in to any new band which was sited above the current band G (which starts at 225g/km). New bands would probably start at about 250g/km, and if all those cars pay an extra £100 a year, that's 3 million cars at £100 each -- which means only £300million to the Treasury, or about 0.1% of the government's total revenue.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 22:16
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - henry k
The definition of suitable is rather subjective. The roads are full of MPVs and 4X4s carrying families

>>which, a generation or two ago, would have been delighted to climb into a Ford Anglia or a Vauxhall Viva, >>vehicles smaller inside than today's Fiesta.

Yes but the world has changed a little since then. People are not all size 0 and there are a few more kiddy seats around today. :-)
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 00:04
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - KMO
The toyota prius is a fine example of a gross polluter with low tail pipe emissions.

Untrue. The Prius certainly is a bit more expensive to build+dispose of, in energy and pollution terms, than a bog-standard petrol car but not that much. Maybe 15-20% tops.

But construction and disposal only account for about 10-15% of a car's total lifetime CO2 emissions. The Prius is still a clear net win over a conventional petrol car; 2-3% extra because of construction, netted against 20-30% off because of efficiency. Probably not so clear-cut against diesels though.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 08:08
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - DP
The Prius is still a clear
net win over a conventional petrol car; 2-3% extra because of
construction, netted against 20-30% off because of efficiency.


Not according to a study conducted recently in the US, and certainly not when total environmental impact is taken into consideration alongside emissions.

www.impactlab.com/modules.php?name=News&file=artic...1

Cheers
DP

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 09:09
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - nortones2
DP: is this the same study that "found" that a Jeep uses fewer resources overall than a Prius? The same one that weighted the figures so that the extra construction costs of the Prius outweighed the savings made on the running costs, so "legitimising" gas guzzlers?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 09:44
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - DP
nortones - could well be. I don't claim the study to be unbiased or scientific, just that it offers another view.

It does raise some interesting points though. The environmental devastation around the nickel smelting plant in Ontario where Toyota source nickel for the Prius batteries has been well documented by the BBC and other non-stakeholders. It's also quite true that a Prius in typical everyday driving conditions uses more fuel than a good modern small capacity turbodiesel, and barely any less than a modern lean burn small capacity petrol engine. Various magazines have seen considerably less than 50 mpg from their test examples.

I don't know whether their other claims are accurate, but the two fact based shortcomings above are enough for me to dismiss the Prius, and other similar hybrids as little more than a "right on" fashion statement.

Cheers
DP
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 13:45
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - moonshine

I disagree with your statement about small engined cars conking out - I had a 1 litre VW polo that did 150K while I had it, my cousin then used it for few years and took it up to 180K, he then sold it and its still been seen driving around.

But I do agree that the major source of emissions is making the cars in the first place, we should be encouraged to make our cars last longer.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 11:31
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - artful dodger {P}
Has anyone told 2 Jags Prescott yet?


--
Roger
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 12:35
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - midlifecrisis
Two Jags doesn't care. He just fills in his expenses form and the tax payer sorts it for him.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 17:00
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Sofa Spud
The answer is simple. If one wants to increase tax on vehicles that emit more 'harmful' gases and, less controversially, those that drink more of our finite oil resources, as implied in the term 'gas guzzler', the answer is to use increase fuel tax and / or to band VED according to the official fuel consumption figures. Ultimately, fuel rationing for private motoring, using electronic methods as with banking etc. would be tha answer.

I'm not advocating these measures be taken now - but when the oil starts to get scarce and biofuels only go part-way to filling the shortfall, what alternative to rationing will there be?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 19 Mar 2007 23:30
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Fullchat
If the government were REALLY serious about pollution why do they build an olympic stadium with all the environmental costs when there are perfectly good ones already built in other parts of the world??????
--
Fullchat
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 07:58
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Leif
When Beckett was head of the environmental part of government, it was she who chalked up the most air miles. With hypocrites like that we are doomed.

As we have said on numerous occasions the big mistake was to privatise rail. We should be subsidising investment in rail, rivers and sea transport IF we want to get traffic off the road. Mail now goes on the road when it used to go by rail. And the long term underinvestment in road building by Nu Labor does not help. But if we now subsidise rail, doesn't it just go into the pockets of the privatised companies' managers?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 08:09
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Pica
I noticed on the local news last night that South West Trains are increasing non-peak fares by around 20%. This is a great incentive to use them
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 12:06
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - artful dodger {P}
>>I noticed on the local news last night that South West Trains are increasing non-peak fares by around 20%. This is a great incentive to use them

In the same vain, it has been announced there are to be two new council tax bands. I thought they had simplified the system to:
Supporters of the Labour government - Nil charge
Non-supporters of the Labour government - Even higher charges
Having just received a political leaflet that stated the council tax in my area has risen by 155% since the year 1993/4 to 2006/7 and covers the period since the Labour group took power. Where has all the extra money been spent as there are many claims of lower levels of service. It certainly has not been used for road maintainence, patch and fill is the norm now rather than resurface.

Does anyone believe that the increasing tax of gas guzzlers will be spent on environmental measures? I certainly do not think so, it will go into general taxation. It is just another indirect tax to try and help the Chancellor balance his books without raising income tax (you can guarantee this will be mentioned in his speach for the 11 year running).


--
Roger
A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 11:09
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Roly93
If the government were REALLY serious about pollution why do they
build an olympic stadium with all the environmental costs when there
are perfectly good ones already built in other parts of the
world??????
--

Well said ! We are constantly told that this will benefit us - how come ??
Most of us are not large construction company owners or live in the east End of London, so how does it benefit us, other than relieving us of more money that we would otherwise be racking our brains as to how to dispose of !
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 12:26
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - SteVee
NowWheels wrote:
>>A Mondeo 2-litre manual emits 193g/km, and the automatic emits 218g/km,<<
The Mondeo 1.8 is around 187 g/Km - just the wrong side of the 185g/Km limit - However, my Mazda6 is bang on the limit at 185g/Km, so is in band E.
I must admit this was a deciding factor for me - I would not buy a car in the higher VED bands because I want to be liable for as little tax as possible.

While we may blame Brown for some of this, I don't hear any politician suggesting anything more supportive of the so called gas guzzlers - in fact I'd suggest they're being remarkably tolerant of consumer's 'right' to choose. I must also add that I'm not a supporter of the current administration - where is the opposition ?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 12:47
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - colin-e
We have a Discovery 2.5 TD5, which I now have to use every day.

For us, it no longer makes financial sense to have a small run around for the school run, a 4X4 for towing a horsebox (and trailer loads of hay), and a family car for days out (and my 928 for the weekend).

The increases in tax (RFL and on fuel), ever increasing insurance (does it ever go down?), and maintenance costs for multiple vehicles are a major burden.

The answer - get a 7 seat Discovery, and use it for everything! One insurance, one fuel bill, one set of maintenance, and one road tax.

I need a car to get around our land, and to work, and yes, dammit, I enjoy driving.


Go ahead Brown - do your worst. Put up road tax, and I'll just drive more - to get my money's worth out of the extra cost of road tax. You will try to get people to hate me 'cos I'm an "evil 4X4 driver", but I won't worry, as in reality I'm a hard working family man, trying to go about my lawful business.

And if you put up the tax on my classic Porsche 928 - I'll use that more too! (I'm not paying £400 per year in tax, to drive less than 1000 miles a year - I'll make sure I use my full 3000 mile allowance!).




----------------------------------
Colin-E
----------------------------------
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 13:00
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - rogue-trooper
why not just have a very simple formula

g CO2 (as HMG is obsessed with CO2) multiplied by the tonnage of the vehicle.

therefore a Range Rover Sport (not having the figures to hand) pumps out 375g and weight 2 tonnes, so would be £750 a year. Simple.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 13:27
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - henry k
IMO one effect will be earlier scrapping of medium / large autos.
That will really help the green scene.

I cannot believe that and extra £4 a week in VED ( as been suggested) will put many people off buying, from new, such larger cars.
This is small beer compared with posers paying huge insurance premiums for a "trendy" motor.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 13:29
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - DP
Simple.


That's why he'll never go for it! ;-)

Cheers
DP
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 13:51
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - moonshine

I live in the London Borugh of Havering and so I have been forced to pay aprox £20 towards the cost of the olympics, no doubt I will have to pay even more this year. I can see no benefit to me what-so-ever! Hoever, I can see several downsides, increased council tax, increased traffic and pollution etc.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 14:21
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Honestjohn
If he introduces new higher bands, for example over 275g/km and over 300g/km with extra punitive rates it will grab headlines but not much money. The real money is in taxing Focus and Mondeo man sitting behind a petrol engine.

HJ
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 20 Mar 2007 18:43
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - NowWheels
If he introduces new higher bands, for example over 275g/km and
over 300g/km with extra punitive rates it will grab headlines but
not much money. The real money is in taxing Focus and
Mondeo man sitting behind a petrol engine.


Which is why I guess that apart from a small increase (£15 or so) for the mid-range bands, Brown will bring in the higher bands. Good headlines of the "Brown hammers 4X4 drivers" variety, without hitting any individual Mondeo man too hard ... even though the small increase on the mid-range will be what rises the money.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 07:30
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Manatee
Exactly. The feeble minded mob that clamours against 4x4s and votes on Radio 2 to ban them don't stop to think that they are providing the shelter for Brown to raise their VED and claim he's giving them favourable treatment.

I do take climate change seriously but this is a nonsense, a fraud, and an exploitation of mob politics.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 06:29
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - L'escargot
The real money is in taxing Focus ......... man sitting behind a petrol engine.


It'll be worth it just for the pleasure of driving something that isn't a diesel!
--
L\'escargot.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 13:03
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - ForumNeedsModerating
>>But I do agree that the major source of emissions is making the cars in the first place, we should be encouraged to make our cars last longer.

Just taking that very sensible point & running with it - why isn't a whole-life-carbon-cost-footprint-thingy calculation done for
every new car, (like the mpg calcs. but taking true construction/servicing/disposal costs into account) so one 'number' can show
its total impact - and VED, car tax or whatever can be levied on that.
'Natural' justice already factors in high emission vehicles, inasmuchas, they pay more fuel tax per mile already, via their higher
specific consumption.

Or is that too joined-up & simple for the mult-ilayered mega-bureaucracy we support?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 13:22
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - daveyjp
Band G up to £300 this year, £400 next. Band B down 30%.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 13:36
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - madf
>woodbines
a complete car lifespan carbon tax is a waste of time - if most cars are made outside the UK......
madf
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 13:41
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - KMO
Note that petrol cars are being bumped up to match diesels, whereas alternative fuel retains the discount. So this coming year:

2007-08 alternative / standard
A: £0 / £0 (no change)
B: £15 / £35 (-£15 for alternative/diesel, -£5 for petrol)
C: £95 / £115 (+£5 for alternative/diesel, +£15 for petrol)
D: £120 / £140 (+£5 for alternative/diesel, +£15 for petrol)
E: £145 / £165 (+£5 for alternative/diesel, +£15 for petrol)
F: £190 / £205 (+£10 for alternative/diesel, +£15 for petrol)
G: £285 / £300 (+£85 for alternative/diesel, +£90 for petrol)

2008-09 alternative / standard
A: £0 / £0
B: £15 / £35
C: £100 / £120
D: £125 / £145
E: £150 / £170
F: £195 / £210
G: £385 / £400

2009-10 alternative / standard
A: £0 / £0
B: £15 / £35
C: £105 / £125
D: £130 / £150
E: £155 / £175
F: £200 / £215
G: £385 / £400
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 13:44
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - NowWheels
Band G up to £300 this year, £400 next. Band B down 30%.


And £5 a year increase on some bands, for the next three years. I didn't quite catch which, it I think it was something like Bands D-F.

I was surprised that he didn't create any new, higher bands, but went straight for high increases on band G. That's going to hit a lot of petrol cars with engines in the 2-3 litre range.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 13:47
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - KMO
Er, yes. I think they're rather the target...

Don't forget Band G is new, and only applies to cars registered after March 2006.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 13:49
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - daveyjp
To repeat KMO:

The top band G was introduced only for new cars from March 2006, which is basically what you were asking for. Anyone buying band G after that date should have known they were leaving themselves exposed to punitive tax rises.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 14:01
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Honestjohn
It's changed.

There doen't seem to be any differential between petrol and diesel, only 'alternative' and 'standard' fuel.

The new rates apply to all 'cars' first registered after 1-3-2001 with exceptions below.

For 2007-2008 Band E £185, Band F £205, Band G £300

For 2008-2009 Band E £170, Band F £210, Band G £400

Band E 166-185g/km

Band F 186g/km + (cars first registered before 23-3-2006)

Band G 226g/km + (cars first registered on or after 23-3-2006)

HJ

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 14:11
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - NowWheels
To repeat KMO:
The top band G was introduced only for new cars from
March 2006, which is basically what you were asking for. Anyone
buying band G after that date should have known they were
leaving themselves exposed to punitive tax rises.


Band G also kicks in higher than I had realised: e.g. the 2.5 litre Ford Focus ST and the Volvo S80 2.5T petrol 6-speed manual are both 224g/km, putting them in is in Band F (by a whisker) . E.g. a BMW 330i is Band F, and a 530i is Band G

I doubt that the £400 figure will be the end of the rises, and as someone else suggested above, the s/h values of these cars in five years time or so may take a battering.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 14:14
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Xileno {P}
So if we switch to smaller engines, won't he lose out on tax revenue on lost fuel sales?

There must be an answer somewhere.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 14:19
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - KMO
Eventually, yes. But over time he can start hiking taxes to compensate on band F, then band E, then band D, gradually turning the screws, pushing people towards smaller engines.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 14:43
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - rogue-trooper
So if we switch to smaller engines, won't he lose out
on tax revenue on lost fuel sales?
There must be an answer somewhere.



Yes - therefore road pricing will be pushed.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 15:06
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - ForumNeedsModerating
>woodbines
>>a complete car lifespan carbon tax is a waste of time - if most cars are made outside the UK......
>.madf

But the market price of any widget (barring subsidy) takes into account the total cost of making/marketing - whether that be
Malaya or Manchester. Similarly, the fuel consumption, servicing cost & practicabe service life (however you define that)
can be known & factored into the final number(s) too.

So a tax or incentive could be based on whole-life cost-per-mile, no?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 15:07
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Ed V
Of course, once we no longer smoke or drive and consume no non-food consumables, tax receipts will be halved, and would have to be recouped via income/other taxes.

But worry not, there will always be something that you do that the Government feels justified in taxing because it's bad for you/us/the world/our party/MPs pensions etc. Ultimately they need 40% [and rising] of the country's total earnings and the only issue is how they get them with least uncomfortable [for them] squealing.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 21 Mar 2007 15:11
Blagger Brown and 'Gas Guzzlers' - Honestjohn
I'm stopping this thread so the discussion can continue in the thread headed 'Budget'.

HJ
Reply | Report as offensive | Link