Jump to content

More tax rises being slipped in


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

They are still insured though.  If one hits your car it'll be on their liability.

The fact they choose to effectively operate their own reinsurance is irrelevant.

So not insured then in the traditional sense, no different to me crashing into someone while uninsured and paying up out of my own pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 311
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

LOL How about knob size. I'd be quids in there. Bill Gates named a company after mine.

What the general public sees is a different picture though? They see the Promenade, they see horse tram expenditure, they see the Richmond Hill surfacing cock up, they see illiteracy in painting

Baker should walk for this or even be sacked. Such crass insensitivity at a time when people have lost their jobs and many families are on the bread-line; his inability to capture the public mood and

Posted Images

28 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

They are still insured though.  If one hits your car it'll be on their liability.

The fact they choose to effectively operate their own reinsurance is irrelevant.

So not insured then in the traditional sense, no different to me crashing into someone while uninsured and paying up out of my own pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, finlo said:

So not insured then in the traditional sense, no different to me crashing into someone while uninsured and paying up out of my own pocket.

Er...no.

They are insured in the traditional sense.   But the underwriter is themselves and the pool of money set aside in lieu of premiums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just bringing this back over from the Rob Callister thread.

2 issues here. Is the problem with assessing vehicle duty by weight; or is the problem with the actual proposed rates of taxation?

We know that taxing by emissions is bandwagon bollocks, albeit very lucrative for DOI. A Merc Citaro running 18hrs a day pays @ £170pa. A family car running 2 hrs a day can be paying more than that, what's making more pollution and contributing more wear to the roads?

So would assessing by weight be a better method IF the proposed rates were more "friendly"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Just bringing this back over from the Rob Callister thread.

2 issues here. Is the problem with assessing vehicle duty by weight; or is the problem with the actual proposed rates of taxation?

We know that taxing by emissions is bandwagon bollocks, albeit very lucrative for DOI. A Merc Citaro running 18hrs a day pays @ £170pa. A family car running 2 hrs a day can be paying more than that, what's making more pollution and contributing more wear to the roads?

So would assessing by weight be a better method IF the proposed rates were more "friendly"?

It makes sense from a broad brush categorisation approach, you're basically saying an Up gets taxed less than a Polo that gets taxed less than a Golf which gets taxed less than a Touareg etc.

The problem is, quite a lot of bigger, yet fairly efficient stuff falls into the 'expensive as hell' category. Whilst the small sports cars that might get in the teens for MPG, will pay pennies in tax by comparison.

 

Edited by AcousticallyChallenged
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Whilst the small sports cars that might get in the teens for MPG, will pay pennies in tax by comparison.

A Mazda Rx8 for example will get quite a nice tax reduction

Link to post
Share on other sites

HIf they propose to use a portion of the funds for road maintenance, then taxing by weight is surely the fairest way? An electric vehicle will weigh more than one of equivalent size powered by fossil fuels, so will therefore wear the road surface out more. Whilst it won’t please many, it’ll also be easier to administer, as we don’t have emissions testing to catch those who alter their vehicles.

Edited by Lightening McQueen
Grammar correction
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2021 at 8:35 PM, finlo said:

So not insured then in the traditional sense, no different to me crashing into someone while uninsured and paying up out of my own pocket.

All well and good until you kill or seriously injure someone. Most policies carry £20m public liability cover.

16 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Just bringing this back over from the Rob Callister thread.

2 issues here. Is the problem with assessing vehicle duty by weight; or is the problem with the actual proposed rates of taxation?

We know that taxing by emissions is bandwagon bollocks, albeit very lucrative for DOI. A Merc Citaro running 18hrs a day pays @ £170pa. A family car running 2 hrs a day can be paying more than that, what's making more pollution and contributing more wear to the roads?

So would assessing by weight be a better method IF the proposed rates were more "friendly"?

The UK is toying with this. But it’s the rates that are bonkers. My Disco sport would go up from £170 to over £500. That isn’t proportionate. 

16 hours ago, Banker said:

Callister has just posted that he’s trying to get paper pulled from this week’s sitting after listening to the people!!

Why don’t they listen before ?

Edited by Derek Flint
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Derek Flint said:

The UK is toying with this. But it’s the rates that are bonkers. My Disco sport would go up from £170 to over £500. That isn’t proportionate.

I think doing it by weight is the next best thing to doing it by fuel tax, broadly speaking, the heavier the vehicle the more likely its greater fuel consumption and wear and tear imposed on the roads. "The user and polluter pays".

@AcousticallyChallenged pointed out that it's a broad brush but the DOI have to use that; you can't create niches and special pigeonholes for everybody.

The rates are ludicrous though and definitely need revisiting. Rob C's "1%" my arse. I suspect that somebody has had a rush of blood with their enthusiasm for The Grab, revenue is everything, especially now Alf has turned his gaze to DOI matters in capital funding and BV.

Bollocks to them, if they've got a shortfall they can flog some minibuses.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I think doing it by weight is the next best thing to doing it by fuel tax, broadly speaking, the heavier the vehicle the more likely its greater fuel consumption and wear and tear imposed on the roads. "The user and polluter pays".

@AcousticallyChallenged pointed out that it's a broad brush but the DOI have to use that; you can't create niches and special pigeonholes for everybody.

The rates are ludicrous though and definitely need revisiting. Rob C's "1%" my arse. I suspect that somebody has had a rush of blood with their enthusiasm for The Grab, revenue is everything, especially now Alf has turned his gaze to DOI matters in capital funding and BV.

Bollocks to them, if they've got a shortfall they can flog some minibuses.

I think the bigger issue is that people have been encouraged to by newer enviro friendly low emission / electric / hybrid cars and would effectively now be shit on and told "thanks for buying your efficient new quasqui, you'll now be paying twice as much as the guy with the polluting 15 year old fiesta".

I dont mind paying to tax my cars.  But they all pretty new and it seems potentially unfair to be getting slapped with much increased taxes when the drive was around environmentally friendly purchases.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...