4x4's to pay £1800pa road tax...
- Thread starter Martyn
- Start date
Part of the problem with the argument is that it tends to end up focused on 4x4's, when they are not (alone) the issue. Indeed, there are more arguments for having a 4x4 then for the high emission executive cars. It is this simplistic approach that clouds the issues involved, and end up taking the argument down the wrong track.
What would be helpful would be a relatively fair and balanced report comparing emissions from food miles, private aircraft use (can you imagine how much lead is coming from that), commercial road use, private car use...... A whole range. That might inform people like me a bit better, and persuade me of some arguments. At the moment it's all a bit piece meal, with people basicly shouting at me, telling me to stop what I'm doing, and that I'm a bad person for ever having thought about doing it in the first place! Does such a report exist? There seem to be some very informed people on this board, so perhaps some one could help me out?
And there are so many issues that need addressing to bring the world to a fair and healthy place. If some one is less passionate about this particular one, it doesn't mean they aren't trying to "do their bit" in another arena. I may not appear to be changing on this issue, but it doesn't mean I'm changing on another. I suspect the same is true for other people as well.
Paul
What would be helpful would be a relatively fair and balanced report comparing emissions from food miles, private aircraft use (can you imagine how much lead is coming from that), commercial road use, private car use...... A whole range. That might inform people like me a bit better, and persuade me of some arguments. At the moment it's all a bit piece meal, with people basicly shouting at me, telling me to stop what I'm doing, and that I'm a bad person for ever having thought about doing it in the first place! Does such a report exist? There seem to be some very informed people on this board, so perhaps some one could help me out?
And there are so many issues that need addressing to bring the world to a fair and healthy place. If some one is less passionate about this particular one, it doesn't mean they aren't trying to "do their bit" in another arena. I may not appear to be changing on this issue, but it doesn't mean I'm changing on another. I suspect the same is true for other people as well.
Paul
if you listen to the beeb & gov spokes people they've stopped (more or less) saying 4x4 now refer to " the most polluting cars"
My 90 does28 or so mpg, so should be ok. If the dispute I'll get it on a rolling road to prove it.
All as it runs on recycled veg oil will I get environmental discount.
My 90 does28 or so mpg, so should be ok. If the dispute I'll get it on a rolling road to prove it.
All as it runs on recycled veg oil will I get environmental discount.
If the money that they are propseing to charge would actually go into a project to help the enviroment , it wouldnt be too bad . But you know it wont so the whole thing is pointless , it will force people to drive without tax , which in turn will cost the goverment (read tax payers) a lot more than it is worth .
This is definately not worth while . What needs to be sourced is an alternative fuel/engine that does not produce the harmfull emmisions .
I have 2 4x4s , both do around 35/40 miles to the gallon , so where does that leave me ? Normal tax , i doubt it . If this gets through it will be yet another example of what a waste of space our government is .
Pumbaa
This is definately not worth while . What needs to be sourced is an alternative fuel/engine that does not produce the harmfull emmisions .
I have 2 4x4s , both do around 35/40 miles to the gallon , so where does that leave me ? Normal tax , i doubt it . If this gets through it will be yet another example of what a waste of space our government is .
Pumbaa
MagiKelly
Making memories since '67
How's this for an idea. Why not just levy a tax on the fuel. That way the people who are burning the most, pay the most. Simple. So simple in fact it is already the case. So those driving high mileages or gas guzzling cars are already paying more, to try and encourage them to use less fuel.
If you want them to be more discouraged then put up the tax on the fuel.
Anyone who is actually interested in saving energy and efficiency would not introduce whole new procedure for gathering more money, creating more paperwork etc when there is already an efficient and existing way or applying tax to fuel use that is directly linked to the fuel used.
Surely I am not the only one who sees this
If you want them to be more discouraged then put up the tax on the fuel.
Anyone who is actually interested in saving energy and efficiency would not introduce whole new procedure for gathering more money, creating more paperwork etc when there is already an efficient and existing way or applying tax to fuel use that is directly linked to the fuel used.
Surely I am not the only one who sees this
I am coming round to the idea that "saving the environment from global warming" is a total waste of time.
What's it matter if the climate does overheat? It's been that way before,the arctic was tropical forest for goodness sake.
It may be uncomfortable for us humans but that's alright 'cause it's our fault this time.
To me a far worse problem is the destruction of habitat for the rest of the life forms.As a parasite species we are rapidly taking over the living spaces of all the others.A few more degrees and a few more storms are not as bad as acres of concrete or soya or wheat.
All our concerns seem to be focused on how we will be affected.This is the barrier that must be overcome to get some sense into the discussion.
What's it matter if the climate does overheat? It's been that way before,the arctic was tropical forest for goodness sake.
It may be uncomfortable for us humans but that's alright 'cause it's our fault this time.
To me a far worse problem is the destruction of habitat for the rest of the life forms.As a parasite species we are rapidly taking over the living spaces of all the others.A few more degrees and a few more storms are not as bad as acres of concrete or soya or wheat.
All our concerns seem to be focused on how we will be affected.This is the barrier that must be overcome to get some sense into the discussion.
Re increased fuel duty: I think the standard objection to this is that it risks being regressive - people who aren't that well off but have to commute to work end up a much higher percentage of their income. The other interesting thing about fuel duty, at least as it is currently structured, is that it competely swamps any signal in the price of fuel itself. So we have a situation where the price of oil has gone through the roof, but consumers don't really notice because the fuel duty overwhelms the effect.
As for why climate change is bad, even ignoring the human aspect (which is appallingly misanthropic in my opinion - the people who will do the most suffering are not the people who's fault it is)... The last time climate changed this much, species were able to adapt by migration. That is no longer possible on anything like the same scale, due to habitat destruction and islandisation. Entire ecosystems will simply dissappear. It's not just the climate change, it's the climate change in conjunction with all the other environmental destruction we've caused that's the real kicker. The global ecosystem's ability to withstand change is already severely damaged, we're already into a mass extinction event, and climate change is only just getting started.
As for why climate change is bad, even ignoring the human aspect (which is appallingly misanthropic in my opinion - the people who will do the most suffering are not the people who's fault it is)... The last time climate changed this much, species were able to adapt by migration. That is no longer possible on anything like the same scale, due to habitat destruction and islandisation. Entire ecosystems will simply dissappear. It's not just the climate change, it's the climate change in conjunction with all the other environmental destruction we've caused that's the real kicker. The global ecosystem's ability to withstand change is already severely damaged, we're already into a mass extinction event, and climate change is only just getting started.
Too many people spend too much time worrying too much about what other people are doing, all the while taking the 'holier than thou' stance.
My hatch does 23 to the gallon, where is the anti hot hatch lobbyists, shock horror, thare arn't any, obviously its not cool to be anti hot hatch, yet.
Also they conveniently forget to point out that we are among the highest taxed on fuel in the world, so anyone who chooses to drive a vehicle with high fuel consumtion is already paying through the nose for the privelege.
I need a breath of fresh air now. Shall I take the 23mpg hatch or the smokey old Rangie....
My hatch does 23 to the gallon, where is the anti hot hatch lobbyists, shock horror, thare arn't any, obviously its not cool to be anti hot hatch, yet.
Also they conveniently forget to point out that we are among the highest taxed on fuel in the world, so anyone who chooses to drive a vehicle with high fuel consumtion is already paying through the nose for the privelege.
I need a breath of fresh air now.
Shall I take the 23mpg hatch or the smokey old Rangie....
gregorach said:
My points exactly.
We are concentrating on one tiny part of the problem and ignoring the rest.
There have always been extinctions,there will always be extinctions,it's part of the life of the planet,it's natural.Some things die out,some climb to the top of the chain and then they go.We will be extinct in our turn.
Look at the amount of diversity at the moment.That is after at least one mass extinction.The next one will be after a natural event,like an asteroid strike,or more likely an enormous volcanic eruption.
I'm not misanthropic at all,I just think we take ourselves far too seriously.We are only one species and to the planet we are as important as the fruit fly.
I agree with MagiKelly 100% and have been saying this for years along with the motoring organisations.
Remove the road fund license completely thereby removing those who dodge it and increase the tax on fuel to cover it. In one move you have not only removed a problem but you are helping the environment too. The vehicles that burn the fuel pay more and those that don't, well don't This would be a huge incentive for people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
I take your point Gregorach about those who are less well off but would it really make a difference if they don't have to pay road fund license? They are not being penalised and have the same choice as everyone else.
Before anyone has a go at me you should probably know that I own a Landrover which I have as a hobby and limit to 2000 miles per year. And even worse, I drive over 20k miles a year for my job so what I am suggesting would adversely affect me. I see it as an incentive to find a job nearer to home.
Remove the road fund license completely thereby removing those who dodge it and increase the tax on fuel to cover it. In one move you have not only removed a problem but you are helping the environment too. The vehicles that burn the fuel pay more and those that don't, well don't
This would be a huge incentive for people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.I take your point Gregorach about those who are less well off but would it really make a difference if they don't have to pay road fund license? They are not being penalised and have the same choice as everyone else.
Before anyone has a go at me you should probably know that I own a Landrover which I have as a hobby and limit to 2000 miles per year. And even worse, I drive over 20k miles a year for my job so what I am suggesting would adversely affect me. I see it as an incentive to find a job nearer to home.
Hi Bootstrap
Would never work for 2 reasons:
1 It is a logical step.
2 What would all those cival servants find to do at that currently issue exise licences?
Although seriously it would be a huge step forward.
Happy travels, Pothunter.
Would never work for 2 reasons:
1 It is a logical step.
2 What would all those cival servants find to do at that currently issue exise licences?
Although seriously it would be a huge step forward.
Happy travels, Pothunter.
i did that 18 month ago when my boy was born i used to drive 40k plus a year for work now i ride a bike to work every day best move i ever made.Bootstrap Bob said:
I say dump the 4x4 and get a mountain bike
granted jon p would have a hard time hauling bricks around on a mountain bike
ducks and runs for cover :theyareon
bambodoggy
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
jdlenton said:I say dump the 4x4 and get a mountain bike
granted jon p would have a hard time hauling bricks around on a mountain bike
ducks and runs for cover :theyareon
Lol....I'd have a heck of a job towing my 1.5T stump grinder or my chipper and various chainsaws on a mountan bike too!!!!!
I do use my motorbike to do most of my quoting on though so I guess I'm doing my bit too. We've also desided to have our next holiday in Cornwall rather than Marakesh where we were planning to go so that's good too.
I heard somewhere that one medium to long haul flight emits roughly the same ammount of carbon per person as if that person drove a car all year.... so even if you don't drive at all but you take one holiday abroad each year you're as bad as any motorist out there!
We recycle all our newspapers, plastic bottles, tin cans and glass and our veggie matter is composted. Our house is heated via a carbon neutral woodburning stove and all the chippings and grinding spoil I create at work goes to a recycling place where it's turned into bricketts and then goes on to fuel powerstations.......I wouldn't say I am 100% green but I do as much as I can and I feel I do a fair ammount in the name of "greeness" and so I don't feel to bad about driving my 4x4. It would be nice to have it for work only and have a greener car for domestic use but that in itself is cost prohibitive for me with two lots of MoT, Tax, insurrance and service etc and also means I've used up all those other resourses in the manufacter of yet another car.
Enviromental issues are seldom as black and white as many that shout the loudest on both sides would have us believe....there's more shades of green in there
The problem with the Chelsea tractor lot is that taxing them won't work....they already can afford to buy a nice big shiney expencive 4x4 (and other high polution cars) and run them and pay more fuel duty as they use more and pay the higher road tax band and live in Central london.......these people have money and if they want a 4x4 then they'll have one...meanwhile those in the country where it might be useful to have one will no longer be able to afford one. Yet another case of taxing the poor while the rich can afford it.
Just my thoughts anyway....
Bam.
MagiKelly said:How's this for an idea. Why not just levy a tax on the fuel. That way the people who are burning the most, pay the most. Simple. So simple in fact it is already the case. So those driving high mileages or gas guzzling cars are already paying more, to try and encourage them to use less fuel.
If you want them to be more discouraged then put up the tax on the fuel.
Anyone who is actually interested in saving energy and efficiency would not introduce whole new procedure for gathering more money, creating more paperwork etc when there is already an efficient and existing way or applying tax to fuel use that is directly linked to the fuel used.
Surely I am not the only one who sees this
Wot he said
MagiKelly said:How's this for an idea. Why not just levy a tax on the fuel. That way the people who are burning the most, pay the most. Simple. So simple in fact it is already the case. So those driving high mileages or gas guzzling cars are already paying more, to try and encourage them to use less fuel.
If you want them to be more discouraged then put up the tax on the fuel.
Anyone who is actually interested in saving energy and efficiency would not introduce whole new procedure for gathering more money, creating more paperwork etc when there is already an efficient and existing way or applying tax to fuel use that is directly linked to the fuel used.
Surely I am not the only one who sees this
People (voters) would notice any new increase and not be happy.
At the moment it's split between Road Tax and petrol.First you increase the petrol duty;a little while later you increase the road tax;then you increase the petrol and so on.Then you introduce new vehicle tariffs so no one is really sure if they are paying more or not.
And you want to spoil it for them.
uppy_dog Naughty MagiKelly 
I hope they don't start on other things that cause pollution...I wonder how much greenhouse gas is produced by us lot having knives made, leather tanned, boot soles made, clothing manufactured, water bottles created, getting to and from bush moots, flying Mors in to the UK etc etc
LS
LS
I'm a little amused by the concept of limiting 4x4 ownership to people who "really need" them. If we apply that logic to to eferything in life all the shops will be pretty quite at the weekends, after all, who "really needs" just about anything you care to name?
If we all look at our kit, are we really that green? Knifes from all round the globe, shirts from New Zealand, cooking pots from China, hats fom Australia and South africa, training courses run in exotic locations, all requiring huge amounts of transport.
Those who live in big cities, with comprehensive and useful public transport systems may be able to cope without a car, but every bite of food you eat, every stitch you stand up in, has been transported to you, and not on a donkey cart - well, maybe the first part of the journey from the sweat shop.
If you live in a more rural area there usually isn't any option but to travel by car to and from work.
Its a bigger problem than just picking on the next handy minority group you fancy having a dig at.
If we all look at our kit, are we really that green? Knifes from all round the globe, shirts from New Zealand, cooking pots from China, hats fom Australia and South africa, training courses run in exotic locations, all requiring huge amounts of transport.
Those who live in big cities, with comprehensive and useful public transport systems may be able to cope without a car, but every bite of food you eat, every stitch you stand up in, has been transported to you, and not on a donkey cart - well, maybe the first part of the journey from the sweat shop.
If you live in a more rural area there usually isn't any option but to travel by car to and from work.
Its a bigger problem than just picking on the next handy minority group you fancy having a dig at.