Budget

Latest Articles

Budget
Page Previous 1, 2

Downsizer Forum Index -> Finance and Property

Author

Message

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 10:49 am Post subject:
Interesting... So perhaps something that incorporates a function of number of seats in the car against fuel efficiency would be a better way of taxing?

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 10:55 am Post subject:

cab wrote:

Interesting... So perhaps something that incorporates a function of number of seats in the car against fuel efficiency would be a better way of taxing?

Nice idea, but as per the other thread, most cars only have one actual occupant for most of the time.

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 10:57 am Post subject:

Jonnyboy wrote:

Nice idea, but as per the other thread, most cars only have one actual occupant for most of the time.

Of course. Shame.

Seems to me like the best way of taxing fuel guzzlers off the road (which is what Brown is half heartedly attempting) is to tax fuel more heavily. But he isn't going to do that.

The idea of linking road tax directly to the weight of the vehicle makes a certain amount of sense.

Jonnyboy

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 23956
Location: under some rain.

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 11:03 am Post subject:
I think that any financial penalty just gives those with cash an opportunity to evade their environmental responsibilities whilst putting the burden on those less able to pay. I think in this, and other areas such as electricity consumption, the government should be bold and ban the worst performers. No excuses, no loopholes, just get them off the road (or out of the kitchen!)

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 11:06 am Post subject:

Jonnyboy wrote:

I think that any financial penalty just gives those with cash an opportunity to evade their environmental responsibilities whilst putting the burden on those less able to pay.

I think in this, and other areas such as electricity consumption, the government should be bold and ban the worst performers. No excuses, no loopholes, just get them off the road (or out of the kitchen!)

See, that would be ideal. But I don't recally ever having a government that bold, or even that imaginative

Andy B

Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 3920
Location: Brum

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 12:19 pm Post subject:

Andy B wrote:

dougal wrote:

Not really a Budget measure, but there was a Budget announcement of support for a pilot study of "smart metering".
Wassat?
Fair question. I found this

Such meters are needed for domestic microgeneration, but that's a long way off for widespread adoption.
More immediately, clearly showing people the cash benefit of turning off extra lights, and suchlike, has to be a good idea.
But a 'pilot study' hardly sounds like a major expenditure for the government... or immediate sweeping action.

And personally, I kinda doubt that �35 extra a year for Road Tax is even going to be noticed by the drivers of gas guzzlers.
Maybe its just a sign of mild official disapproval, which the public are supposed to see as a badge of shame, rather than membership of an elite club...??

What exactly is happening with this road tax thingy, because as i have read it so far ,their will be cars with worse petrol consumption than 4x4's that wont be included ! Like top end BMW's and my mates Subaru thats 4x4 and has worse MPG.

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. I use public transport most of the time, so my use/ pollution would be low compared to many.

dougal

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

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 12:42 pm Post subject:

Andy B wrote:

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.

sean
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 42219
Location: North Devon

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 12:46 pm Post subject:
Can't see it making much odds though. People drive X5s, whatever the new Audi's going to be called (A8?), as a way of saying: "look at my money." an extra few quid on the road fund license isn't going to put them off. Off topic, but did you see that Audi had described the A8 as 'being for people who like the countryside but don't care about the environment'?

Northern_Lad

Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 14210
Location: Somewhere

Posted: Thu Mar 23, 06 12:46 pm Post subject:

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.

tahir

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 45674
Location: Essex

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

sean wrote:

Can't see it making much odds though. People drive X5s, whatever the new Audi's going to be called (A8?), as a way of saying: "look at my money." an extra few quid on the road fund license isn't going to put them off.

Very true

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:

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

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