Budget

Latest Articles

Budget
Page Previous 1, 2

Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property

Author

Message

Andy B

Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 3920
Location: Brum

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 12:47 pm Post subject:

dougal wrote:

Andy B wrote:

Actually having read the budget stuff properly i have no problem with it ( Ish ) Because it isnt just aimed at 4x4's like all the news reports said but at all gas guzzlers. I still think he should have aimed it at petrol consumption though.

It *is* aimed at *fuel* consumption!!!

Errr, thats where the carbon comes from...

But it is calculated differently (I believe) from the standard mpg figures.
And its going to reflect the *weight* of fuel (lb or kg) and so the amount of carbon, consumed rather than the fuel's *volume* (in litres or gallons - as the fuel is sold and taxed), hence accounting for the difference in *density* between diesel and petrol - and even gas.

What i meant was overall useage, like people who drive 100 yard to the corner shop instead of walking. Or drive to work when their is a perfectly crap bus service to catch.

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 12:51 pm Post subject:

Northern_Lad wrote:

dougal wrote:

It *is* aimed at *fuel* consumption!!!

Errr, thats where the carbon comes from...

...but diesel gives off less carbon by volume as petrol.

It's the only standard way of implementing such an aproach though.

...but it takes that into account as the bands are g/km of CO2 emissions.

dougal

Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 12:57 pm Post subject:

Andy B wrote:

What i meant was overall useage, like people who drive 100 yard to the corner shop instead of walking. Or drive to work when their is a perfectly crap bus service to catch.

That's what Road *Fuel* Duty is supposed to catch...

The thing with designing taxes is to "get as many feathers from the goose while minimising the amount of squaking".
There has to be a balance between direct and indirect taxation, taxation based on ownership and on usage, while somehow making sure that the needs of those who cannot afford to pay are addressed.

Its a balancing act, and because tax rates have to be set at precise levels, almost everyone thinks that the balance point should be set, to a greater or lesser extent, differently!

dougal

Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 7184
Location: South Kent

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 1:22 pm Post subject:

Northern_Lad wrote:

...but diesel gives off less carbon by volume as petrol.

Err no.
Burn a litre of petrol and a litre of diesel.
You will get more carbon from the diesel.
And from an efficient car engine that will be as CO2, even though some of the carbon is released as particulates, and a tiny amount as CO.

I have just looked at the figures for the Citroen C3
Comparing the 1.4 HDi (diesel) with the 1.4i (petrol)

The diesel is better on carbon emissions by 24%
But its mpg fuel economy figures are better by 43% urban, 32% outside, and 36% combined.

So that diesel is more efficient than that petrol engine, but the mpg figures overstate its advantage because diesel is something like 10% more dense than petrol.

EDIT even more clearly seen with the C1
1.0 petrol and 1.4 diesel give identical emissions (ie carbon consumption) figures at 109g/km
Mpg figures are
51, 69, & 61 overall petrol
53, 83, & 69 overall diesel

and a non-contentious reminder that its currently easier to use a biofuel in a diesel than a petrol engine.

Mrs Fiddlesticks

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 10460

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 2:16 pm Post subject:

do you think there will be a rush for 4wd owners to have them converted in to LPG?

There was a sensible comment from the Countryside Alliance about all this. It pointed out that a higher road tax on these type of cars will affect those who live and work in the country and who need that sort of vehicle to do their jobs.

I've got the impression the real issue with big cars is more to do with clogging up the cities with 'chelsea tractors' .

I drive a 4 litre Jeep, old and rarely washed, its not a status symbol. I don't use it every day by anymeans. I shop no more than once a week if that, so its not being used in urban situations much. We have a Polo 1.4 for OH's commute and most long journeys. But the Jeep is the only thing we can fit a rotavator in to, to take it up the plot. Chicken bedding and other plot based sundries ( compost, fence posts, plants, tools etc, etc) would be an interesting challenge in the polo. We live in a small village with no shops; its 20 mins to the nearest town/supermarket. In order to be able to live the self-sufficient, rural life we want to,we need a car that can cope with large loads,passengers and awkward country lanes.

I'd happily pay per mile or for entering a town/city rather than being punished generally for using a vehicle (which I know is a gas guzzler) that I feel we genuinely need to use.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

View Latest Posts