4x4 Tax

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as MichaelB
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

I hear Gordon Brown and his aides are likely to be putting up 4x4 road
tax today. Good but not good enough.

The chances of them putting up the tax beyond the cost of a tank of
fuel is unlikely I think. Even if it goes up to £200 its not enough to
stop people, who must put £200 of fuel in those things per week, buying
another 4x4.

What have you got against farmers?

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

MichaelB came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

I hear Gordon Brown and his aides are likely to be putting up 4x4 road
tax today. Good but not good enough.

As someone who has a 4x4 and a small car I'd say it really doesn't matter
what level the VED is at, we'll still pay it, but we will do as we have done
this year and only pay it when the vehicle is being used on-road, for six
months of the year instead of twelve. Saved us a bundle, thank you very
much.

To my mind having no VED, but an increase on petrol/diesel taxation would be
a fairer way of increasing revenue than increasing taxation on different
classes of vehicle. That way, if I drive the 4x4 I pay more to do so.

As it happens, the small car we have is currently doing more mileage than
the 4x4, though that will change as the season starts up again. In fact my
bicycle is doing more mileage than the 4x4 and has done for a few months ...
😉

Quoted message said:

The cost of a tax disc should be prohibitive or at least considerable,
such as several thousand pounds per year

Why should it ?

Quoted message said:

especially if the vehicle is registered in the city.

What does where a vehicle is registered have to do with where the vehicle is
used?

We don't, I might add, live in 'the', or any other, city, and buy our tax,
or declare it SORN, on-line ....

Quoted message said:

I live on a housing estate full of chip shop and restaurant owners and
they all have huge big 4x4s. They dont need them and they bought them
purely because its the 'in' thing at the moment (a few years ago they
all have convertables).

You know that for sure ? Have you asked them?

Quoted message said:

I think they think they are making a
'lifestyle statement.'

Sorry, you appear NOT to think at all ...

Quoted message said:

My point being that I dont think

It would appear not.

Quoted message said:

these hardcore morons, who need their
4x4s because they have nothing else to fulfill their esteem needs with,
will just pay the price and maybe welcome it because it makes owning a
4x4 a more expensive and consequently exclusive and indicative of their
wealth.

LOL, further proof of your lack of thought.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

MichaelB said:

I hear Gordon Brown and his aides are likely to be putting up 4x4 road
tax today.

That would be very unjust, given that only one of the 40 worst
gas-guzzlers on sale in the UK is a 4x4 SUV. More just (and more
likely) would be to add a high CO2 band for VED, which may catch a few
4x4s, but which will mainly penalise large executive and luxury cars and
performance cars.

Quoted message said:

Good but not good enough.

Gas guzzlers already pay well over the odds in terms of fuel duty and
VAT on fuel duty. A 20 mpg car already pays about 15p per mile tax
(ignoring 'normal' VAT).

Quoted message said:

The chances of them putting up the tax beyond the cost of a tank of
fuel is unlikely I think.

And why should he, given that that is what fuel duty is for.

Quoted message said:

Even if it goes up to £200 its not enough to
stop people, who must put £200 of fuel in those things per week, buying
another 4x4.

Wht the irrational 4x4 fixation?

Quoted message said:

The cost of a tax disc should be prohibitive or at least considerable,
such as several thousand pounds per year especially if the vehicle is
registered in the city.

Why? Would you apply the same regime to other 'designer' or luxury
goods - Gucci handbags perhaps? Envy has no place in tax policy.

Quoted message said:

I live on a housing estate full of chip shop and restaurant owners and
they all have huge big 4x4s.

Sattellite dishes, wide tellies, and so forth. Yes some people have no
taste, but you should defend theri rught to look charlies.

Quoted message said:

They dont need them and they bought them
purely because its the 'in' thing at the moment (a few years ago they
all have convertables). I think they think they are making a
'lifestyle statement.'

Precisely. Fashions come and go, but we don't penalise poor taste with
high tax.

Quoted message said:

If they were intelligent people they might have
realised that they just make themselves look selfish, which they might
not care about, and like sheep, which they would care about but given
the fact they cook food for a living they are too thick to realise. I
love my neighbours 🙄 .

Perhaps tax should be inversley proportional to IQ.

Quoted message said:

My point being that I dont think these hardcore morons, who need their
4x4s because they have nothing else to fulfill their esteem needs with,
will just pay the price and maybe welcome it because it makes owning a
4x4 a more expensive and consequently exclusive and indicative of their
wealth.

Would you excessively tax high spec bikes, say those which cost over £250?

Quoted message said:

Afterall I think the nobel prize team this year are giving out 4x4s to
the winners.

There are the morons who think they look cool in ostentatious cars and
there are the morons who irrationally criticise the rights of others to
choose.

--
Matt B

MichaelB said:

I hear Gordon Brown and his aides are likely to be putting up 4x4 road
tax today. Good but not good enough.

The chances of them putting up the tax beyond the cost of a tank of
fuel is unlikely I think. Even if it goes up to £200 its not enough to
stop people, who must put £200 of fuel in those things per week, buying
another 4x4.

What have you got against (for example) Lada Niva / Subaru Justy owners
anyway?

T*ss*r

Paul - [censored] said the following on 22/03/2006 09:15:

Quoted message said:

To my mind having no VED, but an increase on petrol/diesel taxation
would be a fairer way of increasing revenue than increasing taxation on
different classes of vehicle. That way, if I drive the 4x4 I pay more
to do so.

The bit about no VED is fine, but we do already have a massive tax that
is based on how much fuel you use - the bigger your car, the more tax
you pay. I can't remember the exact figure, but petrol is taxed at
something like 350-400% (compared to VAT at 17.5%)

What bugs me is not so much the increases in taxes on motoring, but the
reasoning that this extra revenue will be used to make things better,
such as providing better public transport. If the money really was
spent on visible improvements, I wouldn't mind, but it isn't so I do!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

MichaelB said:

I hear Gordon Brown and his aides are likely to be
putting up 4x4 road tax today. Good but not good enough.

yesterdays discussion at work revealed this to be an increase in tax on
the most polluting vehicles (over 250g), which just happens to encompass
Discos and Ranger Rovers and Grand Vitaras and so on.

It was widely reported as a tax on 4x4's because, IMHO, a new tax on
Lamburghinis and Aston Martins wouldnt sell as many newspapers.

Phil Clarke said:

MichaelB said:

I hear Gordon Brown and his aides are likely to be
putting up 4x4 road tax today. Good but not good enough.

yesterdays discussion at work revealed this to be an increase in tax on
the most polluting vehicles (over 250g), which just happens to encompass
Discos and Ranger Rovers and Grand Vitaras and so on.

I happened to share a lift in a Discovery this weekend; it was LPG
which brought the cost and pollution down a lot but it was still 17mpg
average. Problem is what happens if everyone cottons onto LPG, I'm sure
they won't be so generous with its duty.

Pyromancer said:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as MichaelB
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

I hear Gordon Brown and his aides are likely to be putting up 4x4 road
tax today. Good but not good enough.

The chances of them putting up the tax beyond the cost of a tank of
fuel is unlikely I think. Even if it goes up to £200 its not enough to
stop people, who must put £200 of fuel in those things per week, buying
another 4x4.

What have you got against farmers?

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Nothing. Farmers dont live in cities.

Paul - [censored said:

"]MichaelB came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

I hear Gordon Brown and his aides are likely to be putting up 4x4 road
tax today. Good but not good enough.

As someone who has a 4x4 and a small car I'd say it really doesn't matter
what level the VED is at, we'll still pay it, but we will do as we have done
this year and only pay it when the vehicle is being used on-road, for six
months of the year instead of twelve. Saved us a bundle, thank you very
much.

To my mind having no VED, but an increase on petrol/diesel taxation would be
a fairer way of increasing revenue than increasing taxation on different
classes of vehicle. That way, if I drive the 4x4 I pay more to do so.

As it happens, the small car we have is currently doing more mileage than
the 4x4, though that will change as the season starts up again. In fact my
bicycle is doing more mileage than the 4x4 and has done for a few months ...
😉

Quoted message said:

The cost of a tax disc should be prohibitive or at least considerable,
such as several thousand pounds per year

Why should it ?

Quoted message said:

especially if the vehicle is registered in the city.

What does where a vehicle is registered have to do with where the vehicle is
used?

We don't, I might add, live in 'the', or any other, city, and buy our tax,
or declare it SORN, on-line ....

Quoted message said:

I live on a housing estate full of chip shop and restaurant owners and
they all have huge big 4x4s. They dont need them and they bought them
purely because its the 'in' thing at the moment (a few years ago they
all have convertables).

You know that for sure ? Have you asked them?

Quoted message said:

I think they think they are making a
'lifestyle statement.'

Sorry, you appear NOT to think at all ...

Quoted message said:

My point being that I dont think

It would appear not.

Quoted message said:

these hardcore morons, who need their
4x4s because they have nothing else to fulfill their esteem needs with,
will just pay the price and maybe welcome it because it makes owning a
4x4 a more expensive and consequently exclusive and indicative of their
wealth.

LOL, further proof of your lack of thought.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

Your first point just looks at the pollution aspect but what really bothers me is the safety aspect and 4x4 cars are particularly dangerous due to their size and weight. They are terrible pollutants too and your statistic is quite meaningless. If you compared one to a small car it wouldn't look at all green. I would pick on SUVs more than any other inefficient vehicle because they are a dangerous car for everyone even the selfish individual inside.

Its unfair to just lump up the cost on fuel because less well off people will struggle whereas wealthy people will just be annoyed by the fact they have higher fuel bills. Wealthy people are normally the people with inefficient cars sp why punish the less well off?

If you cant figure out why I suggested people in the city should pay more for a 4x4 then you must really be a thicky 4x4 owner but the reason is because people in the city dont need then like farmers may etc... (although the only farmer I know has a mondeo and a tractor).

So why do you think people who used to own convertables and sports cars all now own 4x4s? Have they all migrated their businesses to a muddy hill or something? These people are my neighbours I know them better than you and they have bought them because they think it makes them look good. And to each other it porbably does because they are all stupid like you.

As someone who drives one for work occasionally I know how they appeal to the simpler side of man with their power and size. I can understand why simple people who like big teles and fast cars would also like big 4x4 cars.

I have a friend who owns a new Range Rover because he likes people to think he is a footballer. He drives around town on Saturday night so that everybody looks at him. Unlike the Gucci bag, as your little friend was talking about, this fashion accessory pollutes the environment and can caused some serious damage in an accident which they are more likely to get into because of their size and weight.

You can talk about my lack of thought all you like. I am an academic and more thoughtful than a dimwit you.

Steve said:

T*ss*r

Personal insults. How impressive.

Paul Boyd said:

What bugs me is not so much the increases in taxes on motoring, but the
reasoning that this extra revenue will be used to make things better,
such as providing better public transport. If the money really was
spent on visible improvements, I wouldn't mind, but it isn't so I do!

Not public transport - that pollutes too. If investment, make that
in facilities that reduce the need for travel. Above all, make
broadband internet available everywhere as a strategic goal,
so fewer people have to commute.

In terms of plain market forces, more expensive fuel will itself
stimulate public transport, by shifting the economics. But that's
not going to happen so long as motoring prices are pretty near
an all-time low in proportion to incomes.

My proposal: a shift of the tax burden. Add much more tax to
destructive activity (such as burning fuel), but take it off
productive activity (such as earning an income, or employing
people). This should be tax-neutral in terms of total
proportion of the national economy going to Mr Brown:
any *net* changes to which should be clearly labelled,
and independently monitored.

A nice medium-term goal would be to eliminate entirely the
nasty, regressive stealth tax known as "national insurance",
and replace it with taxes on pollution, and on monopolisation
of finite assets such as land. NI (including the employers
contribution, aka tax on jobs) now amounts to around half
of all income tax for basic-rate taxpayers, and is
proportionally higher for lower incomes.

--
not me guv

MichaelB came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

As someone who drives one for work occasionally I know how they appeal
to the simpler side of man with their power and size. I can understand
why simple people who like big teles and fast cars would also like big
4x4 cars.

So there's only you who drives one for work ? Is that the only reason to
have a 4x4? You appear to think the only people who buy them outside of
their occupation do so because they are big?

Quoted message said:

I have a friend who owns a new Range Rover because he likes people to
think he is a footballer. He drives around town on Saturday night so
that everybody looks at him.

Which makes him a pillock .. but doesn't make everyone who drives a 4x4 the
same though.

Quoted message said:

Unlike the Gucci bag, as your little
friend was talking about

? Sorry, you lost me there. Which friend, which Gucci bag?

Quoted message said:

this fashion accessory pollutes the
environment and can caused some serious damage in an accident which
they are more likely to get into because of their size and weight.

You can talk about my lack of thought all you like. I am an academic
and more thoughtful than a dimwit you.

LOL, right. Your arguments and manner of presentation make you appear
somewhat of a fool, no matter how 'academic' you say you are.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

"MichaelB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve said:

T*ss*r

Personal insults. How impressive.

Would that be the same MichaelB who wrote:

"I am an academic and more thoughtful than a dimwit you."

?

clive

Paul - [censored said:

"]MichaelB came up with the following;:

Quoted message said:

As someone who drives one for work occasionally I know how they appeal
to the simpler side of man with their power and size. I can understand
why simple people who like big teles and fast cars would also like big
4x4 cars.

So there's only you who drives one for work ? Is that the only reason to
have a 4x4? You appear to think the only people who buy them outside of
their occupation do so because they are big?

Quoted message said:

I have a friend who owns a new Range Rover because he likes people to
think he is a footballer. He drives around town on Saturday night so
that everybody looks at him.

Which makes him a pillock .. but doesn't make everyone who drives a 4x4 the
same though.

Quoted message said:

Unlike the Gucci bag, as your little
friend was talking about

? Sorry, you lost me there. Which friend, which Gucci bag?

Quoted message said:

this fashion accessory pollutes the
environment and can caused some serious damage in an accident which
they are more likely to get into because of their size and weight.

You can talk about my lack of thought all you like. I am an academic
and more thoughtful than a dimwit you.

LOL, right. Your arguments and manner of presentation make you appear
somewhat of a fool, no matter how 'academic' you say you are.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

I re-did my above post why not read it.

Maybe you should tell me why you feel the need to own a big 4x4 vehicle, the kind I am talking about.

Quoted message said:

LOL, right. Your arguments and manner of presentation make you appear
somewhat of a fool, no matter how 'academic' you say you are.

Says you. Thats an opinion not a fact.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:48:47 +0000, Phil Clarke
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It was widely reported as a tax on 4x4's because, IMHO, a new tax on
Lamborghinis and Aston Martins wouldnt sell as many newspapers.

Is the right answer.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Clive George said:

"MichaelB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve said:

T*ss*r

Personal insults. How impressive.

Would that be the same MichaelB who wrote:

"I am an academic and more thoughtful than a dimwit you."

?

clive

He is one. It was a statement not an insult.

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:48:47 +0000, Phil Clarke
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It was widely reported as a tax on 4x4's because, IMHO, a new tax on
Lamborghinis and Aston Martins wouldnt sell as many newspapers.

Is the right answer.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I dont think so. There are far more antisocial 4x4s than Lambourghinis on the roads. That is the right answer.

Nick Kew said the following on 22/03/2006 11:34:

Quoted message said:

A nice medium-term goal would be to eliminate entirely the
nasty, regressive stealth tax known as "national insurance",

....and council tax, which in my case is roughly equivalent to 4.2% on
top of my income tax.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Phil Clarke said the following on 22/03/2006 10:48:

Quoted message said:

It was widely reported as a tax on 4x4's because, IMHO, a new tax on
Lamburghinis and Aston Martins wouldnt sell as many newspapers.

And a tax on Jaguars might affect a certain Deputy PM!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/