| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Brownbear |
Car tax increaseThe fact that this is to be retrospective will naturally spark a lot of annoyance among motorists - the justification for it as a 'green tax' is perhaps debateable. If people get rid of older, thirstier cars and replace them with new, economical ones, will the scrapping of cars when they could have lasted another few years have a positive or negative effect on overall emissions?And is there a danger that people will see 'green' as just another way the Government justifies bossing them about and picking their pockets, and react with cynicism to the whole environmental agenda? |
||||||||
| cab |
If the aim was to cut sales of gas guzzlers through higher VED and increased cost of fuel (a heck of a lot of which is tax), then the news today that sales of 4x4s and other similar larger gas guzzlers tell us that its working. Whether the 'lifetime analysis' would suggest that shortening the working life of less efficient vehicles is a good thing is open to debate, of course. I suspect that this will be positive. | ||||||||
| Behemoth |
I refer the honourable gentleman to the bickering we had earlier:
http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?t=32666&highlight= |
||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Re: Car tax increase
IIRC this applies to post 2001 cars which have their co2 emmission shown on the log book. So, up until now it has been easy to check the environmental credentials of the vehicle and know the annual rate of VED. So people could make a decsion at time of purchase. Likewise, the same system was used to set your personal company car taxation from 2001. So yes, I see this as another tax increase dressed up as something green |
||||||||
| cab |
In which I believe I predicted that the result would be less gas guzzlers bought, slowly trickling down through the car population, with resultant pain being disproportionately felt by those with less money to spend on upgrading soon. Or, in other words, the news thus far backs up my stance. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
Cab wins the Mystic Meg Lucky Coconut. | ||||||||
| cab |
Why thank you 
It isn't rocket science though. Fuel is more expensive than it has been (although I strongly suspect that as a proportion of net income it is not at its most expensive), and VED is designed to encourage people not to buy gas guzzlers. At some point there has to be some give, less people will buy gas guzzlers. As that filters down into and through the used car market the cost of the cars that are less economical to run will decline faster, they'll be more immediately appealing to those with less cash, but except for those cars kept running, and running, and running till they can run no more (which ain't all of them) they'll reach a point of being beyond econimic maintenance sooner than they otherwise would. Or, bluntly, if you're running a gas guzzling banger it'll be cheaper to replace it with another gas gussling banger than to maintain it until those cars are mostly out of the system. The downer here is that it affects those with less money proportionately more than thise with more money. But its a green tax, rather than a social or equitable one. |
||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Or it could be solely down to the cost of fuel. And the VED charge is really just a tax grab. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Let's say I have an old banger which does 40mpg and I travel 10K miles per year. I have the choice of scrapping it and buying a new car which does, say, 60mpg. Or I can keep the banger for another 2-3 years. (Let's ignore whether I can actually afford a new car).
What is the overall environmental impact of the 2-3 years further ownership at 40mpg of the old banger vs the production impact of a brand new car plus the lower environmental impact of its 60mpg (a third less fuel over 10K miles)? |
||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
When ansering this question please show your workings out. | ||||||||
| Dee J |
This whole situation almost has the reverse effect for me.... I currently drive a 1998 1.6 Almera. I'm thinking of replacing it with a van. The Almera is a good car, runs well, but (a) has a high mileage - 140000miles and (b) a van would be easier for my business as a self-employed electrician. My target age range of replacement vehicle is 1998-2003. Probably a Berlingo or Kangoo. For me a 2002 vehicle is 'new', but any road tax penalty seems to encourage me to look for an older one! Of course I could look for a pre-72 classic in stead - quite fancy one of those Citroen 2cv vans!
But, sticking to the newer stuff, is there a good online guide giving current and proposed tax bands for different model vehicles. Dee |
||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Yep, and when the government is saying it's actively trying to get the cost of fuel down then VED is just a tax. |
||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
That's another thing that suggests the VED changes are just a tax, it can take some working out to find your vehicles VED band. This link will show the current VED band: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/ved/index.asp and you can use the CO2 amount shown to find the new one here: http://www.whatcar.co.uk/news-article.aspx?NA=231720 |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
Now that my car is destroyed, I'm trading in my truck to get a year-old Nissan Navara double-cab. That will save me one lot of tax, insurance, servicing etc anyway. Does anyone know if they're going to abolish the £180 tax rate for light commercials? | ||||||||
| gnome |
rhis will do the environment a great deal of harm. the extra oney from taxation will not be given to DEFRA or EA (thier budgets have been cut) - it will merely be used to fatten MPs wage packets so they can have more holidays abroard, thus burning more aircraft fuel. | ||||||||
| boisdevie1 |
Perhaps I'm being a bit mean but I shall shed no tears for those who drive big cars because most people DO NOT need a big car or a 4x4. And if VED makes people think long and hard about what vehicle they use then surely that can only be a good thing. | ||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
This isn't just about big cars and 4x4's. |
||||||||
| Helen_A |
Somewhere (maybe inebg?? or could be on the ecologist 'site ) there is a chart showing even with the CO2 savings in fuel use of a newer vehicle, changing your car less than every 12 years (but could be 10 or 15 as my memory is being iffy about it yuck!) leaves you producing more CO2 overall, than keeping a car long term and keeping it on the road even if it is more polluting in CO2 terms than the 'new equivalent' (that phrase is important). This is because of the pollution created in the manufacture of the car itself.
The whole raising from 2001 cars thing has meant that we are keeping our space wagon for the time being. Being a well maintained 98 car it will either be used very occasionally for longer journeys by us and for the occasional business mileage; or it will actually be worth more in a year or two than it is now (and that could mean that we are more able to afford to buy a 2007/8 made vehicle in a year or so, and pay less on the road tax because of that). Well that and because being 10 years old the insurance on it has halved this year compared to last even with the bus. miles on that! Helen_A |
||||||||
| Rob R |
Ah yes, we are talking about the same thread. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
Some of what I have to carry for my business: Several firearms. Gassing equipment. Protective clothing. Warning signs. Hides. Fencing equipment. Fence posts. Rolls of fencing wire. Fox traps. Dead deer. Hunting dog for tracking wounded animals. So what should I use to carry that lot, then? A 2CV? |
||||||||
| Rob R |
Yes, carrying that lot will absolutely run it into the ground, thus helping get rid of another old polluting car. 
|
||||||||
| boisdevie1 |
No. But presumably changes to VED will apply to everyone needing a commercial vehicle. So ultimately you will charge more. And then your clients will pay more for your services. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
Or buy a tractor. | ||||||||
| Behemoth |
"Analysts caution against reading too much into one month's figures and sales of 4x4s have risen over the past year.
Also, the mini category is a relatively small one with only 2,912 of them registered in May, compared with 11,126 4x4s. Some of the rise in sales of smaller cars can be attributed to the launch of the new Hyundai I10 during the month." |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
And at what point in this merry-go-round of taxation and inflation do the greenhouse gases diminish? |
||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I would guess that we won't see that in our lifetime. |
||||||||
| cab |
If cars being replaced with others that have lower emissions would otherwise have been replaced with cars that don't have lower emissions, then more or less straight away. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
You also have to be careful attributing this to VED rather than a general economic downturn/fuel price increase. |
||||||||
| cab |
And, likewise, you have to be careful when ignoring VED, when the stated plan is to use VED and fuel tax. |
||||||||
| sean |
Only if you ignore the emissions involved in making new cars surely. It may reduce the emissions from cars currently on the road in the short term, it'll be a very long time before it reduces lifetime emissions I would have thought. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
As you've already stated VED is not an efficient way to reduce emissions/change people's behaviour, which makes it a poor plan if its aims are trully green. | ||||||||
| cab |
No, I've stated that it isn't how I'd do it, but that to use such a tool in combination with increased fuel tax is rational. |
||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I'm struggling to understand how a law that hasn't been introduced yet has had an impact. Anyone else? | ||||||||
| cab |
Rather depends on the relative emissions in manufacture and use, and of course whether or not new cars would have been bought anyway. I rather suspect that few new cars will be bought solely because they're lower emission, the more likely effect is that a deciding factor in which new car bought is more likely to be emissions. And with more lower emission cars coming into the market, and the value of higher emission cars (less efficient and higher VED) falling faster, their useful lifespan will fall (the point at which it is cheaper to buy another inefficient banger rather than repair the one you've got will come sooner because they're cheaper to buy). Will it be a very long time before it reduces lifetime emissions? Well it isn't going to happen straight away, but I think that its clear that as soon as you influence peoples choice of vehicle in this way then you're having a positive effect. The bad news is that its disproportionately bad for those on lower incomes; thats one of the reasons why I wouldn't do it this way. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
You stated the inefficiencies of the system here:
If BB buys a more efficient car instead of running round in the truck all the time, he'll have to pay more tax, despite being 'greener' and all the many many examples provided on the previous thread. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
In the previous thread you posed the questions above, I now have some figures to answer that numerically:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/13/cncars113.xml If we take a figure of 1.5m cars scrapped ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5300498.stm ) £465/1.5 = £310 per car £735/1.5 = £490 per car I know it doesn't cost £310 to scrap a car, but a lot of people don't and an extra £100 or so to make sure they get that CoD would be money well spent, I reckon, both economically & environmentally. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Ah, it starts to make sense. It is now government policy to get people to drink less. Unfortunately that means less tax revenue from alcholol sales. They are compensating for this by increasing VED. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
Well I'll still be driving a pickup. Because I have to have one for work. |
||||||||
| cab |
Yes I did, and your oversimplification of what I said misrepresents that statement. That the 'system' is not optimum does not mean that it is not a rational approach to solve the problem, nor does it mean that it will not work.
Am I correct that this is due to one class of vehicle being 'commercial', and tax rates being different? Thats always been somewhat of a problem, I think, and if I had my way it would be addressed. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
Get your hand out of my wallet, trike boy...
|
||||||||
| Behemoth |
I might be wrong here but I'm not sure that the people who went out to buy a £35k 4x4 this month suddenly changed their mind and bought a rinkydinky mini car instead. | ||||||||
| Rob R |
I didn't say it will not work, I said it will not work as quickly as it could and for some people it will not work at all for some considerable time. That is a real shame (and you can't expect everyone to be happy about that situation).
That might be a problem but it isn't the one I was referring to. It's more the nature of the tax being a fixed 'lump' annual sum, there's nothing in it to encourage him to use his truck less because he pays that lump sum based on emissions wether he turns the key or not. To me that sends the opposite message to the fuel tax (rather than the joined up thinking proposed). 
|
||||||||
| cab |
I didn't say thats how I'd address it though, did I?
I don't have a good answer for what to do about that, to be honest, I am merely unconvinced we're handling it as well as we could be. |
||||||||
| cab |
I don't expect everyone to be happy about it, nor do I believe that they should be (if I did believe that then I'd probably be entirely in favour of this change myself). Nor do I believe that a green tax is ever likely to be at all times 'green', 'workable' and 'popular'.
Ahh, but you're forgetting that this isn't a single approach, it is dual pronged. As well as higher VED, if your vehicle uses more fuel than it might then you're paying more duty and VAT on that as well. Neither is the complete answer or the whole policy. |
||||||||
| cab |
They perhaps bought something similar but less polluting... And thats one of the reasons why this isn't how I'd go about changing peoples behaviour, because in some ways it simply isn't radical enough. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
Actually, a lot of them are buying chavved-up L200s, which are still classed as commercials, though if this sort of thing keeps going, it won't be long before that changes... 
|
||||||||
| Behemoth |
It would appear they didn't, as total sales fell, which doesn't bode well for us bottom feeders wating to be trickled on:
Volume % change May 179,272 -3.5 Year-to-date 1,038,289 -0.6 Last 6 months 1,176,249 -0.2 Last 12 months 2,397,860 1.3 Annual: Average '97-'07 2,379,069 2007 2,404,007 2.5 2008F 2,335,000 -2.9 2009F 2,325,000 -0.4 • Registrations fell by a modest 3.5% in May or 6,525 units. This was the first fall in volumes since February 2008 and comes after two months of surprisingly robust growth. |
||||||||
| cab |
I believe from talking to chaps who sell cars that both have happened; total volume has gone down, and nibbles from prospective purchasers have tended towards vehicles that will cost less to run (in terms of VED and fuel). Its very early days yet, though. |
||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
There's a 'die hard 4.0' version of the Nissan Navarra you know.
On the subject of the half ton loophole, when I worked in fleet management 8 years ago there was talk of closing it. So don't hold your breath. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
That is not the model I'm buying - I wanted a basic one but they got me something called the 'Avertura' which has all sorts of clever things to go wrong and need repairing in it. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
Apologies, I got that impression from what you said previously about people not seeing the bigger picture.
Nope, I've said it before that I haven't forgotten it but for the record here it is again. Fuel duty is designed to reduce the amount of fuel that people use, a fair enough policy I would have thought, not without it's problems but I can't see a single thing about fuel duty that might actually encourage someone to use it more. You cannot say the same about VED because you pay it once, annually. After you've justified that you need that vehicle VED starts working against the green principle. Fuel duty doesn't do that. |
||||||||
| cab |
It is the statements, based on the negative personal impacts of this tax, that it is not a green tax that elicited that response. That its a tax that'll hit some harder than others (and p*** time off in the process) is entirely seperate to whether or not its motivation is to be green.
Thats why there are both; encourage people to select a more efficient vehicle, and to use it less. Not sure what there is thats contentious in either. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
I've got the stoats warmed up and on a five-minute alert. | ||||||||
| Rob R |
I've spelled it out as simply as I can. I'll leave it at that. |
||||||||
| cab |
Let me rephrase my criticism of what you've said, perhaps it'll be clearer for you. Fuel tax is a direct hit on fuel use. VED is a direct hit on vehicle choice. Fuel tax hits you after you've selected a vehicle. VED hits the value of a vehicle. Its a different mechanism that works in a different way to reduce total fuel use (and carbon emission) over a longer cycle. To infer that it isn't a green tax and just a blow to the pocket misses that bigger picture I referred to earlier on. That the intention is green is clear, and that oughn't be contentious. |
||||||||
| Brownbear |
Well what I was wondering was not whether something was morally right, but whether it would engender cynicism on the part of the general public. | ||||||||
| Rob R |
Not when it is applied reterospectively it isn't. My intentions are to be green, that's alright, I don't feel nearly so bad about not being green now. |
||||||||
| cab |
Morally right? I have no opinion on that here. It'll engender cynicism because its a tax related to one of Britains most damaging addictions; motoring. |
||||||||
| cab |
Yes it is, just not immediately on individuals paying that tax. It hits those vehicles when re-sold and when it comes to the time to decide whether they're worth running any more.
Not a rational inferrence from anything I've said. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Exactly.
Yes, which is what I think someone at Greenpeace was saying a week or so ago - by giving green taxes a bad name the government is changing people's willingness to "do their bit" into a "why bother" attitude. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
It hits the people for making the decision long after they've made it. If I decide to flog my (theoretical) car now because it will be in a higher tax bracket, then it's value will already be lowered, so even if I don't pay the tax & do purchase the greenest car I can I have lost out on a decision I made before he tax was in place. That isn't influencing my future choice, it's punishing a past one. If the new tax was to be applied to new vehicles then it would be much easier to back up your statements about it. Also the case if it were actively making sure that old cars are being scrapped.
Not a rational inferrence from anything I've said.[/quote] Why not? It's essentially what you said people should feel about the tax system as it is- ie they should look at the bigger picture instead of how it affects their individual actions. Originally you asked why people feel the way they do about the tax, these have all been the reasons why, there's no argument against those reasons, which is why Greenpeace & Whatgreencar.com & various other 'green' organisations are concerned about how the tax is being introduced & the public will react to it & future green taxes. |
||||||||
| gnome |
green taxes are a con - all they do is put extra financial burden on the man in the street (or in this case, the man on the road) without acually tackling the real problem. the only diffference this tax will make is that a small number of people may choose to buy a smaller car sometime in the future, and there will be a smal number of people who just can't afford to drive their cheap old bangers anymore, so wil have to rely on public transport. apart from that, people will grumble, but carry on as normal.
surely the way to control what vehicles people use is to issue permits. prove you need a gas guzzler, and you get a permit - if you can't jusify it, you don't get a permit. lets be perfeclty honest here - the UK is a tiny land with a huge population - everyone wants a dozen cars, nobody wants flyovers above their homes or traffic jams outside their front door, and everyone wants more car parks but fewer car parks. it doesnt work does it? |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
That would be a reasonable approach if the objective was to reduce the number of gas guzzlers. However, if the objective is to generate more tax revenue then your proposal is not as effective as the government's proposals for VED. |
||||||||
| Rob R |
The number of gas guzzlers has no effect on their emissions what-so-ever, it's how much they are used that is the problem, which is my main problem with the VED system- if I drive a mile or 10,000 miles in the Landy, the VED is the same.
|
||||||||
| cab |
You're thinking too short term. By reducing the value of less efficient, dirtier vehicles then the effective lifespan of that vehicle is shorter, and more of the less dirty, more efficient vehicles (which are also favoured by our tax system) come on to the market. Punishing people for past choices? Same is true for higher fuel tax really, people pay disproportionately more compared with what they used to. Same principle really, just an 'at once' hit rather than one spread across the year.
The intention of stating that your inferrence was not rational was to politely say that it was irrational. I didn't especially want to pick your comment apart to say why.
And that people must then be happy about it does not follow. Why should it?
The sheer volume of actually quite hysterical reaction to this tax is as much what those organisations have been responding to. You just can't, if you want to keep the public on side, stand up to that. Interestingly, outside of the red tops and tabloid style telly, certain other newspapers have taken a far more measured approach to this tax change. Although, of course, if you want to argue that Greenpeace should be the guiding voice behind what and how we tax in the UK then be my guest. But really, your argument here is unlinked with anything I've said; you're speaking as if you think that I'm in favour of this, when I've made it entirely clear that while this tax is rational, it ain't how I'd go about it. |
||||||||
| cab |
I think that green taxes may often be flawed because they ignore the simple truth that those with more income tend towards being bigger polluters, so where a green tax hits the less well off proportionally harder they're problematic. But that doesn't make them a con, it just means that the principle is not one based on fairness.
Political suicide, I'm afraid. And very difficult to work.
Dunno who this 'everyone' is, but I want none of those things! |
||||||||
| Rob R |
I was beginning to think the very same about you. You seem to be suggesting I've forgotten about the fuel tax & thinking too short term, when in fact I have constantly made reference to the fuel tax, and that I have made suggestions of how the tax could be implemented in a fairer & more effective way. I haven't argued against it, just (tried) to answer your original question as to why people have reacted the way they have. I haven't made a case for or against it being 'rational', just discussed the way it has been implemented. Higher fuel tax is a tax per mile revenue- VED is not, so to say the difference is just that it is paid in a lump instead of throughout the year is quite wrong. VED is a tax on the ownership of having a vehicle registered for the road, that difference is quite fundamental. The sucess of this tax is not going to be in managing the environment but in the way people are managed. Re: people being happy- it should follow because if people are not happy they are less likely to do what you are aiming for- a simple people management point. |
||||||||
| RichardW |
We need real "life time" polution figures to work with. Inc manufature & disposal of its FULL life time. I cant see how making a new item (and disposing of the old one) can be better than carrying on using an older one just on the small actual running polution differences.
I know we all hate the fuel duties but surely its better to scrap ALL car taxes/duties & have it all on the fuel. The more you use (more miles or low economy) the more you pay. Simple to impliment, simple to collect, no avoidance, more will get collected with less costs to collect. Justme |