So it's back! Should big car owners face higher tax charges?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3202590.stm

I remember this topic been discussed on this NG before the CONge$tion charge
was introduced.

I still believe large engine capacity engines and above average car length
vehicles should face an extra tax.

Also should company's that provide company cars be charged a double vehicle
tax?

daveF

In article , dave F
writes
So it's back! Should big car owners face higher tax charges?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3202590.stm

I remember this topic been discussed on this NG before the CONge$tion charge
was introduced.

I still believe large engine capacity engines and above average car length
vehicles should face an extra tax.

Also should company's that provide company cars be charged a double vehicle
tax?

daveF


This article refers to the vehicle excise duty (road tax) which is
already cheaper for small cars. As the article says, if you buy a 60K
Merc you won't be worried by a VED of £200 or £300.

I have a company car and pay extortionate levels of personal tax on it.
I need a car to do my job. I can't carry 110KG of demo kit on a bus and
public transport doesn't always go where I want to go. In London I use
the tube if not carrying demo stock otherwise I have no choice but to
use the car. To make my employers pay double NI etc on my car makes then
financially worse off for supplying me with something that is essential
to do my job with and generates income for the Govt. in terms of VAT and
tax on profits and the commission I earn.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Andrew P Smith wrote:
In article , dave F
writes
So it's back! Should big car owners face higher tax
charges?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3202590.stm

I remember this topic been discussed on this NG before the
CONge$tion charge was introduced.

I still believe large engine capacity engines and above
average car length vehicles should face an extra tax.

Also should company's that provide company cars be charged
a double vehicle tax?

daveF


This article refers to the vehicle excise duty (road tax)
which is
already cheaper for small cars. As the article says, if you
buy a 60K
Merc you won't be worried by a VED of £200 or £300.

I have a company car and pay extortionate levels of
personal tax on it.
I need a car to do my job. I can't carry 110KG of demo kit
on a bus and public transport doesn't always go where I
want to go. In London I use
the tube if not carrying demo stock otherwise I have no
choice but to
use the car. To make my employers pay double NI etc on my
car makes then financially worse off for supplying me with
something that is essential
to do my job with and generates income for the Govt. in
terms of VAT and
tax on profits and the commission I earn.

But it doesn't have to be a car does it, whay can't you use a van to carry
your company's goods?

In article , Cast_Iron
writes

But it doesn't have to be a car does it, whay can't you use a van to carry
your company's goods?

I could use a small van but a number of car parks won't allow you to
park a commercial vehicle in it. I think particularly of the NCP by the
Piccadilly theatre which I often use.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , dave F
writes
So it's back! Should big car owners face higher tax charges?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3202590.stm

I remember this topic been discussed on this NG before the CONge$tion
charge
was introduced.

I still believe large engine capacity engines and above average car
length
vehicles should face an extra tax.

Also should company's that provide company cars be charged a double
vehicle
tax?

daveF


This article refers to the vehicle excise duty (road tax) which is
already cheaper for small cars.

Unfortunately it's only cheaper for newer cars. I think the cutoff was 2000
or 2001 - certainly slighter more recent that the age of my car (Sep 1999).
Which means that although my car has an economical diesel engine that does
50 mpg with a correspondingly low level of CO2, I get taxed at the same rate
as if my car were a petrol-engined car in the most polluting band. Still,
it's only £40/year - not enough to rant and rave about. Sad though that the
DVLC couldn't do the job properly and make the scheme apply to *all* cars,
using the manufacturers' published fuel economy and CO2 figures.

I'm very much in favour of a two-tier taxation system for company cars that
charges the company (not the driver) an extra VED on top of the rate for
private citizens. Unfortunately, any increase in VED on company cars would
not be absorbed by the company's profits (as it should be) but would end up
being passed on to the customer - and hence ultimately the private citizen.

In article m, Martin
Underwood writes

Unfortunately it's only cheaper for newer cars. I think the cutoff was 2000
or 2001 - certainly slighter more recent that the age of my car (Sep 1999).
Which means that although my car has an economical diesel engine that does
50 mpg with a correspondingly low level of CO2, I get taxed at the same rate
as if my car were a petrol-engined car in the most polluting band. Still,
it's only £40/year - not enough to rant and rave about. Sad though that the
DVLC couldn't do the job properly and make the scheme apply to *all* cars,
using the manufacturers' published fuel economy and CO2 figures.


Didn't realise there was a cut off date.

I agree that the DVLC/Govt should make the rule apply as you describe.

I'm very much in favour of a two-tier taxation system for company cars that
charges the company (not the driver) an extra VED on top of the rate for
private citizens. Unfortunately, any increase in VED on company cars would
not be absorbed by the company's profits (as it should be) but would end up
being passed on to the customer - and hence ultimately the private citizen.

Same with my company I fear.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message ...
In article m, Martin
Underwood writes

Unfortunately it's only cheaper for newer cars. I think the cutoff was 2000
or 2001 - certainly slighter more recent that the age of my car (Sep 1999).
Which means that although my car has an economical diesel engine that does
50 mpg with a correspondingly low level of CO2, I get taxed at the same rate
as if my car were a petrol-engined car in the most polluting band. Still,
it's only £40/year - not enough to rant and rave about. Sad though that the
DVLC couldn't do the job properly and make the scheme apply to *all* cars,
using the manufacturers' published fuel economy and CO2 figures.


Didn't realise there was a cut off date.

The new emission based rules are only valid for new cars after a certain
date (older cars are rated by engine size IIRC)

I agree that the DVLC/Govt should make the rule apply as you describe.

I think the problem is that before this became an issue not all cars
had the necessary tests done and as modifications were made to
squeeze cars into a lower band, a 1997 car cannot use the 1999
value (and it's unrealistic to go back and test all the earlier cars)

tim

I'm very much in favour of a two-tier taxation system for company cars that
charges the company (not the driver) an extra VED on top of the rate for
private citizens. Unfortunately, any increase in VED on company cars would
not be absorbed by the company's profits (as it should be) but would end up
being passed on to the customer - and hence ultimately the private citizen.

Same with my company I fear.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

"tim" wrote in message
...

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...
In article m, Martin
Underwood writes

Unfortunately it's only cheaper for newer cars. I think the cutoff was
2000
or 2001 - certainly slighter more recent that the age of my car (Sep
1999).
Which means that although my car has an economical diesel engine that
does
50 mpg with a correspondingly low level of CO2, I get taxed at the same
rate
as if my car were a petrol-engined car in the most polluting band.
Still,
it's only £40/year - not enough to rant and rave about. Sad though that
the
DVLC couldn't do the job properly and make the scheme apply to *all*
cars,
using the manufacturers' published fuel economy and CO2 figures.


Didn't realise there was a cut off date.

The new emission based rules are only valid for new cars after a certain
date (older cars are rated by engine size IIRC)

Exactly - and the engine size thing discriminates against diesels which tend
to have larger engines without being more polluting. In terms of fuel
economy (and therefore presumably C02 emission), a 2-litre diesel can be
equivalent to a 1-litre petrol. And I know which I'd rather drive! (I
borrowed a 1.1 petrol Peugeot 106 the other day while my car was being
serviced [£980 for 72k service and new clutch - aargh!] and it was
horrendous: although its engine was quite nippy when the car was going
slowly, the poor thing ran out of puff at about 50 mph and had no 50-70
acceleration which made it a liability for overtaking on the dual
carriageway. It also was very sensitive to the slightest change of
accelerator pressure at high speed. And it felt as if it needed another two
gears - the engine was screaming away at nearly 4000 rpm at 70. And I'd
forgotten just how much benefit power steering is when you're manoevring in
a tight space!)

In article , tim
writes

I think the problem is that before this became an issue not all cars
had the necessary tests done and as modifications were made to
squeeze cars into a lower band, a 1997 car cannot use the 1999
value (and it's unrealistic to go back and test all the earlier cars)

Hmmmm, yes valid point.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was dave F
), in message
who said:
So it's back! Should big car owners face higher tax charges?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3202590.stm

I remember this topic been discussed on this NG before the CONge$tion
charge was introduced.

I still believe large engine capacity engines and above average car
length vehicles should face an extra tax.

Also should company's that provide company cars be charged a double
vehicle tax?


Personally, I feel that big cars should pay /less/ tax, in an attempt to
encourage car-pooling. This would solve a lot of problems.

The number of vehicles on the roads at present with only one occupant is
utterly criminal. Obviously, asking four people to travel in a ****ing
supermini is veering towards the inhuman, but I'd quite happily be driven to
work with three colleagues in an executive or luxury car. Isn't that a
sensible solution?

Appreciate that not everyone's logic works like mine though.

BTN