| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Behemoth |
Residents back higher parking fees for 'gas guzzlers'http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6265837.stm |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
This bit annoys me, if you bring in laws like this at least give the people affected a reasonable time frame to make the necessary changes. A cynic would think they want to penalise people rather than alter behaviour. 
|
||||||
| sean |
How long does it take to sell/trade-in your car and buy another then? A day, two days maybe. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
If you want to make a huge loss, then yes it would. | ||||||
| Behemoth |
When you're buying off the forecourt yes. But when you've got design your spec and detail, decide on the colour of the trim and finish etc and research you liability bands etc, the lead times are longer. The world is not Devon 
|
||||||
| sean |
Exactly. I used to work in Richmond. If you've bought a new BMW X5/Porsche Cayenne/Range Rover Vogue Se you're going to take a huge hit when you sell it anyway. Tough. | ||||||
| sean |
And presumably you'd have until your current permit expired to do something anyway. They'd be incredibly unlikely to make it retro-active. | ||||||
| Andy B |
Does that mean that i can fit 2 atsras into the same ammount of parking space as 1 toyota surf? Dont think so, the surf is about 18 inches longer and i dont know of a car that would fitinto that space. | ||||||
| sean |
It's not keyed to footprint, it's linked to emissions. | ||||||
| Andy B |
But when its parked its not emiting owt! |
||||||
| sean |
And if you've got off-road parking you don't need a permit. The owners don't teleport the sodding things out of the borough. | ||||||
| Andy B |
So you pay more for emmiting more, easy, that way if you drive lots no matter what you drive you pays more. Why complicate things. This sounds like car envy to me. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
It happened with air tax. Anyway, why do it at all. current taxation is linked to emission. Just petition the chancellor rather than thinking up a new way to shaft people in one particular borough. |
||||||
| sean |
The link is pretty feeble though. And what's wrong with the idea of local democracy? | ||||||
| Andy B |
A really horrible dictator is the only way to save the planet, democracy is out. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
It proves a point though. Nothing wrong with local democracy where it is solely a local issue. This is purely an additional tax burden to one already implemented at a national level. |
||||||
| sean |
Which the council have the right to levy. Maybe you (or the residents of Richmond) should lobby the chancellor about it. |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Another bit of rather daft legislation IMHO.
A pre-2001 1.6l car, like many less well off people run, will pay 30% more for a permit. The same as someone who owns a pre 2001 3.0l car that might only do 5mpg. If you have a modern car that has carbon emissions of 224 CO2 g/kg you pay 50% more but if your car produces 225, i.e. 1 g/kg more then you pay 200 more. Yet again what is really daft is the way cars are targeted. For example, you have a newish sports car that's just over 3.0l you pay extra car tax, you pay extra fuel tax, you pay extra parking costs and extra congestion charge. But if you like jetting off to New York for a weekend of shopping you pay £40 tax for a trip that uses the same energy per person than is required to heat an average house for 6 months. |
||||||
| Armchair |
People who own expensive sports cars or 4x4s usually own expensive homes, which are more likely have offroad parking, therefore negating the need for a parking permit. Joe Bloggs who lives in a 100 year old terraced house probably can't afford to buy I house with offstreet parking, or exchange his 20 year old Ford Cortina for something more fuel efficient.
I'm all for taxing (or indeed banning? That's a subject for another thread, I feel) vehicles that have low mpg ratings, but this sounds more like a tax on the less wealthy rather than an effective green tax. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
The fact that they might doesn't make it any less pointless or vindictive. |
||||||
| sean |
So what's your suggestion for getting people to drive lower emissions vehicles? It may not be ideal, but it's something. Two thirds of residents said that they'd consider moving to a cleaner car if it was introduced. Richmond council doesn't have control over air travel or power generation so encouraging people to act where they can have an influence seems fair enough to me. | ||||||
| Jonnyboy |
My point is that the road tax system is already in place to do this. Current sales of 4x4's are down 15% on previous years.
It's yet more overkill, people who have legitimately and legally purchased these vehicles will probably find their value greatly reduced as a result. There is no compensation, no help or advice on changing, no exemption for lower mileage drivers. etc, etc, etc. Simply more tax. It's cynical, it's penalising a tiny minority and I'm bloody sick of it. |
||||||
| sean |
Relax. No-one in Richmond was going to buy your car from you anyway.
The increased cost is on high-emissions vehicles. Not 4x4s per se. And I can't believe that you're seriously suggesting compensation, help and advice for people shifting to a car with a smaller engine. |
||||||
| Behemoth |
Some information about the Council Proposals:
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/council_government_and_democracy/council/contacts_consultation_feedback/current_council_consultations/co2_consultation.htm |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Why not, why does it have to be all stick and no carrot? Ireland brought in a compensation payment for people scrapping old cars and buying newer ones. There's no reason why they couldn't introduce some system. |
||||||
| Behemoth |
I bet that was European money - he said with deep cycnism based on a total absence of facts. | ||||||
| sean |
But the carrot is lower road tax, lower fuel bills, cheaper parking permits. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
The stick can't be a carrot. That's having your cake and eating it, so to speak.
This is a negative approach to altering behaviour, which often creates resentment and obstinance. Which means people may keep their cars and pay the tax. the environment doesn't get any better but the coffers get nice and full. Cynical indeed, eh? |
||||||
| sean |
Why not? All those things are incentives to drive a smaller car. |
||||||
| tahir |
Have to say I'm with Sean on this one | ||||||
| Treacodactyl |
If you actually read the details the aim of the scheme is to raise more tax. I would hardly call a 1.6 Audi A4 a gas guzzler but owners will pay 50% more tax. That'll be nice for the owner especially if they have any neighbours who drive huge inefficient cars that are parked off road.
As it doesn't take into account miles travelled by the vehicle it doesn't mean the tax is always greener. Can the council assure people that a pre 2001 car driven for a few miles a year should be scrapped and is it more environmentally friendly to buy a new one? Perhaps they should take mileage into account or would that mean having to think about something for a change? I would also like to know if the council has looked at itself to raise the necessary cash. Perhaps it could cut the amount of money and CO2 spent on street lighting for example? In any case it will go ahead because it's always easier to attack minorities than to bring in something fair. 
|
||||||
| Behemoth |
But a 'fair' scheme would 'penalise' the poor with unavoidable medium to high milage. | ||||||
| Treacodactyl |
In what way? The current scheme will penalise the poor regardless of mileage. If you're claiming the scheme is green then surely mileage should be taken into account. After all a parked car doesn't emit CO2. | ||||||
| monkey1973 |
Here's an option.
New cars have a CO2 rating when they are introduced. Older cars, which are MOT'd (ie over 3 years old) have emission tests carried out. Surely these emission figures could be multiplied with the mileage and a suitable cost factor to give an annual tax bill. The worst cars doing the highest mileage would be penalised more. Sounds fair to me. |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Yep Monkey, seems much fairer. Realistically though tax on fuel seems the simplest solution. | ||||||
| Behemoth |
If the tax is based on mileage not ability to pay it is 'unfair'. The tax burden of 25k miles for a person who can afford a house with off road parking in Richmond would be proportionally far less than that on average Joe Public with a 100 year old terrace house doing the same mileage.
As pointed out the nonsense is to link a parking tax to the type of vehicle and it's potential impact not its actual. It's better to exercise those controls through road tax and fuel duty. I'm just stirring a bit I'm not advocating fueld duty rates proportional to your income. The world is unfair and there is no perfectly fair form of taxation that keeps everybody happy. |
||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Are you suggesting we should subsides people's car transport? 
|
||||||
| Behemoth |
No |
||||||
| monkey1973 |
But surely that is still the case with increased fuel duty, say. The well-off are always going to be proportionally better off.
I agree, it does seem ridiculous
How very true |
||||||
| Behemoth |
Until the revolution and my benevolent environmental dictatorship! |
||||||
| monkey1973 |
Sign me up master! |
||||||
| monkey1973 |
I found this quite interesting |