ALL new cars will now pay road tax,
In the last 25 years there's only been 300 miles of new motorway, he says. By 2017 three quarters of new cars will pay no vehicle duty in the first year. This is "not sustainable" he says. From 2017, new cars will pay emissions-based vehicle excise duty, he says, £140 on average. No extra revenue will be raised, but it will be "more secure", and the money will be spent on roads, he adds.
|
|
First MOT to be at four years.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33438840
Video clip of announcement
VED to be spent on roads
|
|
Honestly, I like this government. Not without its faults, but with more sense than we've seen in a long time.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 8 Jul 15 at 14:16
|
New RLF makes a bit of sense.
Currently you can buy a Luxury Car - say £40K+ and can pay £30/yr RFL
whilst someone running a "1.6GL banger", say 14+ years old, might pay £200+ /year.
new rates Zero / Standard /Premium - average around £140
Based on combination of emissions & OTR Price!
No detail yet but looks better than the current way.
|
"whilst someone running a "1.6GL banger", say 14+ years old, might pay £200+ /year."
They still will. New scheme is applicable to new cars only. No change for old cars
|
|
I meant the NEW MB/BMW/Jaguar would equally be paying £2-300+ per year instead of as little as £30 for a BMW 5 Series.
|
Will the zero, standard and premium bands still be based on emissions? I assume so, otherwise the whole way the market has developed will change.
I can't imagine that "it's a BMW so it'll go into the premium band" will be the approach?
|
|
Only zero emmisions cars will be in the lowest band, 95% of new cars will pay tax under the new system.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 8 Jul 15 at 18:57
|
Can't help but feel they've missed an opportunity if diesel is really the fuel of the devil. Instead of focusing on price charge an amount/cc of the engine and a premium for diesel over petrol if they are serious about the emissions and getting people putt of diesels.
Maybe have a tax break for genuine high mileage usage at 35 or 40 thousand miles ensuring those around the 20k/annum mark don't suddenly have meetings at the other end of the country to bump over the limit as was seen with the 18k limit.
|
Missed the edit:
Putt of diesels should read out of diesels
|
|
Extra tax for diesels is a minefield, privately owned, company leased cars, light vans, heavy commercials, buses, or fuel to hit all of them? It is not a good idea to upset motorists too much, they are voters. Commercial vehicle taxes just put up prices for everyone.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 8 Jul 15 at 22:48
|
I thought this thread was related to cars not HGVs and buses.
My point was if diesel is as bad as we are lead to believe in the press releases then some tax incentive to switch would have been introduced.
|
I still think it's unfair to tax bikes. My 582cc Honda pays around £50 whilst a pal's wife had a Sirion and paid SFA !
|
>> I thought this thread was related to cars not HGVs and buses.
>>
>> My point was if diesel is as bad as we are lead to believe in
>> the press releases then some tax incentive to switch would have been introduced.
>>
If diesel is the fuel of the devil any measures would not be effective unless applied to all users. I do not believe it is, how often do you see a smoky diesel car, or any other road vehicle (except ancient buses). Petrol is just as bad for small particulate emmisions. What is good or bad depends on which way the political wind and tax policy is blowing.
|
The current headline issue with diesel isn't smoke/particulates but nitric oxide/nitrogen dioxide - NOX. There's a political wind behind that but driven by proven science rather than tax.
The problem is being deal with by use of modified catalytic convertors with a urea solution known as 'adblue' as the catalyst.
As the tax changes apply to new vehicles only I'd guess the current thinking is that the Nox reduction technology levels the playing field.
|
>>There's a political wind behind that but driven by proven science rather than tax.
>>
More likely driven by professional lobbyists and personal interests.
|
>> Honestly, I like this government. Not without its faults, but with more sense than we've
>> seen in a long time.
>>
Osborne is certainly the best Chancellor we've had for a long time.
|
>> Osborne is certainly the best Chancellor we've had for a long time.
I doubt the families who are hard working but depend on tax credits agree. The budget blows the Tories=Workers Party meme straight out of the water.
|
Good and popular are not the same.
The country has got the money the country has got. I'd rather have a chancellor who understood that than a Labour one who pretended something different.
|
>> >>
>> I doubt the families who are hard working but depend on tax credits agree. The
>> budget blows the Tories=Workers Party meme straight out of the water.
>>
Most won't be effected, amounts will be frozen but many people went years without a pay rise anyway which was necessary as we had been paying ourselves more than we were worth. Limiting amounts to the first two children will only apply to new claimants, not existing ones and much of it will be made up by income tax cuts - which stops the expensive business of taking with one hand and giving back with the other.
It's a pity he didn't do something about unemployment benefit - refuse three job offers and you can go and starve for all we care.
|
>> Limiting amounts to the first two children will only apply to new claimants,
So oi's alright to impoverish the kids of new claimants so long as existing ones are protected?
>> much of it will be made up by income tax cuts
No according to the IFS; www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/09/living-wage-will-leave-tax-credit-claimants-1000-worse-off-says-ifs
>> It's a pity he didn't do something about unemployment benefit - refuse three job offers
>> and you can go and starve for all we care.
The sanctions regime already does that in theory though in practice many others are caught as well.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 9 Jul 15 at 20:12
|
>> >> Limiting amounts to the first two children will only apply to new claimants,
>>
>> So oi's alright to impoverish the kids of new claimants so long as existing ones
>> are protected?
I suppose the theory is that if you don't already have more than two children, and you can't afford to keep more, you won't have them. Exactly the kind of decision that many of us have made - not many employers give a pay rise to people for having more children.
The trouble is of course that the blameless children stand to lose out as well as the feckless parents.
>> >> It's a pity he didn't do something about unemployment benefit - refuse three job
>> offers
>> >> and you can go and starve for all we care.
>>
>> The sanctions regime already does that in theory though in practice many others are caught
>> as well.
Contrary to popular belief, I don't think they make it easy. I know a local lady, a 60 odd yr old widow, who is currently unemployed for the first time in decades and claiming, or attempting to. The time and money (for travel) involved is unbelievable. They have given her an unobtainable phone number to call on one occasion, and attempted to sanction her for being late for an appointment when she had been given an incorrect address for the "JCP" which she did not even know stands for "Job Centre Plus" which she could have found without an address. I suspect that there is a minority of professional claimants who know all the tricks and can navigate their way around the system, but it's tough on the genuinely needy.
In-work benefits have created as many problems as they solved, if not more. It has always troubled me that there have been many families working in poverty, let alone the unemployed and disabled. It obviously troubled Gordon Brown too. Brown is an easy figure to mock but he has always been committed to reducing poverty. The problem is that there is a market in labour. In-work benefits merely subsidise employers and keep wages low, which as I might have remarked before is not new news, and when it was tried in the early nineteenth century the same thing happened and it was one of the things that led to the establishment of workhouses.
Increasing the minimum wage and tax free allowances seems the right approach. Whether the implementation is fair and balanced is another question.
|
>> Contrary to popular belief, I don't think they make it easy. I know a local
>> lady, a 60 odd yr old widow, who is currently unemployed for the first time
>> in decades and claiming, or attempting to. The time and money (for travel) involved is
>> unbelievable. They have given her an unobtainable phone number to call on one occasion, and
>> attempted to sanction her for being late for an appointment when she had been given
>> an incorrect address for the "JCP" which she did not even know stands for "Job
>> Centre Plus"
That exactly mirrors the sort of experiences I hear at CAB.
But Mark will be along in a minute to tell me it's not evidence......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 9 Jul 15 at 21:13
|
>> That exactly mirrors the sort of experiences I hear at CAB.
>>
>> But Mark will be along in a minute to tell me it's not evidence......
Do you truly not understand what is meant by "representative sample"? And the difference between that and terms such as evidence?
I will have another go at explaining it to you if you wish, but given that you've got this far through life without grasping it, it may be futile
|
>> Do you truly not understand what is meant by "representative sample"? And the difference between
>> that and terms such as evidence?
Of course I do. Clients presenting in increasing number with similar problems around unjustified benefit sanctions are evidence of a problem. Migrant workers claiming illegal deductions from pay and lack of proper wage slips and all naming the same employment agency are evidence of a problem.
It may need further work to establish how far they are representative of ALL claimants or ALL agency employees but that doesn't mean you can dismiss the problem.
>> I will have another go at explaining it to you if you wish, but given
>> that you've got this far through life without grasping it, it may be futile
Do you really think snide barbs like that improve your argument?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 10 Jul 15 at 10:23
|
Yes. After all it got you to acknowledge the point rather than keep dodging it.
Which was rather the point.
|
>>It's a pity he didn't do something about unemployment benefit - refuse three job offers and you can go and starve for all we care.
What a blinking typical Tory attitude to have.
So you get 3 job offers, all with zero hours contracts, all of which would mean you wouldn't know from one week to the other if you are going to have any income?
But as far as the Tories are concerned, you have refused a job so you should be left to starve.
And this is the reality of it all and touched on further down this thread, in super-wonderful silver spooned Osborne's life , a job means a full time job with substantial salary. The reality of what jobs are out there for those who are in unemployment is totally different and one that Gideon doesn't understand.
|
>> But as far as the Tories are concerned, you have refused a job so you
>> should be left to starve.
Typical blinking left wing attitude, that you think the state should automatically pay you more than you can get elsewhere.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 10 Jul 15 at 01:47
|
That's not what I am saying, you not think we should look after our own?
So explain how this great plan would work - lets start off with no income, so no food, so no phone, so no internet, so no roof over your head.
Over to you
|
|
And shouldn't this lot be in the non motoring?
|
>> And shouldn't this lot be in the non motoring?
>>
It is thread drift that make this forum more interesting than many others and helps keep it alive.
What was the OP? :-)
|
Let's look at this in another way.
Imagine there was no benefits system in this country and you lost your job. Your family say they will support you until you can get a job.
You are offered three jobs which you don't like the look of because they are zero hours contracts and your earning are uncertain from week to week.
Would you turn round to your family and say. "I'm not taking any of those jobs. I prefer to stay at home but I want you keep giving me money every week ?"
What would they say do you think?
Why should the state have a different response?
|
No, i would take the job, as should people on benefits.
However, i would hope that my family would help with the difference between what i earned and what i needed to survive.
|
So the assumption is there is a family there to support you and that they are in a position that they can?
So lets look at the position that you are in a low paid job in a café and the boss decides one day you are not needed and tells you to go. You will get any wages due to you on Friday when you were due to be paid. But that won't cover your bedsit rent.
You go looking for a job and manage to get one but its zero hours contract. Your start date is in a fortnights time when you have to report for an induction 20 miles away. You won't be paid until the following week so that's 3 weeks to wait for an unknown wage.
Meanwhile you need to pay your rent, you need to eat and your electricity card only has £4 credit left on it.
I have no sympathy with the benefit scroungers with ten kids and no intention of working people but the above example is a helluva lot more representative of what is happening in Britain today.
There are so many people who are working in low paid jobs, living hand to mouth, just about keeping their head above water but as soon as something like this happens, they are snookered.
|
"You go looking for a job and manage to get one but its zero hours contract. Your start date is in a fortnights time when you have to report for an induction 20 miles away. You won't be paid until the following week so that's 3 weeks to wait for an unknown wage.
Meanwhile you need to pay your rent, you need to eat and your electricity card only has £4 credit left on it."
Then you should take the job and the state should assist you, if necessary, to manage until you are paid.
It is of course perfectly possible to have more than one zero hours contract. For a while my son had two. He now has a permanent job.
|
*OLD FOGEY ALERT* (i.e. me)
There's a frustration underlying this debate.
On the one hand, we all recognise that there are genuine cases of people down on their luck who need a helping hand.
On the other hand, I do get frustrated with people who don't bother to put anything aside for a rainy day even though they have ample opportunity - and then plead poverty. Instead they lived it up with new cars, the latest gadget, expensive holidays etc.
Maybe I'm just an old fashioned Calvinist - which is a good trick for a Catholic boy!
Last edited by: Londoner on Fri 10 Jul 15 at 00:07
|
Bobby I think I wasn't clear.
I do think that someone should have to take a job. If not the first, certainly on of the first x.
However, if he was entitled to £100 pw benefit, and the job he has to take only gives him £90, then he should continue to receive the £10 balance from welfare (whatever the figures actually are).
The point being that he should NOT be worse off by taking a job. Hopefully he will be better off, but not worse.
|
>> Bobby I think I wasn't clear.
>>
>> I do think that someone should have to take a job. If not the first,
>> certainly on of the first x.
>>
>> However, if he was entitled to £100 pw benefit, and the job he has to
>> take only gives him £90, then he should continue to receive the £10 balance from
>> welfare (whatever the figures actually are).
>>
>> The point being that he should NOT be worse off by taking a job. Hopefully
>> he will be better off, but not worse.
That is exactly what Iain Dunkin' Donuts has been trying to achieve for 5 years. If you get £100 on benefits and you get a job you should end up with e.g. £110. But preferably not from welfare - as you subsequently wrote, subsidising low wages brings other problems including substitution of cheap labour at public expense for investment in greater efficiency. That is presumably why IDS applauded the changes.
In the long run nobody wins when the government spends £31bn propping up employers who can't pay their workers enough to live on. Subsidising British Leyland long term, though the mechanism was different, was probably a major factor in its ending up so uncompetitive as to be beyond redemption on the scale that it had once been.
|
>> So you get 3 job offers, all with zero hours contracts, all of which would
>> mean you wouldn't know from one week to the other if you are going to
>> have any income?
Surely to Christ if you haven't got a job... the first priority is...a job.
It might not be the right job, the best job, the job you want... but you've got something with dosh coming in.
Then, with a degree of financial support from your new job.... you concentrate on looking for the job you want.
Why would the rest of us paying taxes want you to sit there twiddling your thumb and claiming dole money because you don't want the first, second or third job?
The whole culture needs changing, the fact that people can think it right that some sit there waiting for the dream job to float in their front door.. and in the meantime, they can claim off the State (i.e the rest of us) defies belief.
If you are in a zero hours job temporarily, it looks better on a CV than being on the dole.
|
>> >> Osborne is certainly the best Chancellor we've had for a long time.
>>
>> I doubt the families who are hard working but depend on tax credits agree. The
>> budget blows the Tories=Workers Party meme straight out of the water.
>>
It could be argued that many are only dependant on tax credits because labour engineered it that way and unrealistically raised the expectations of swathes of the population about the level of income/benefits (that's what tax credits are really) they could expect. According to the DWP graph in the link below tax credit spend was around £7 billion when introduced, peaking at around £31 billion. That's not all because of 'need' but a desire to redistribute money we as a country don't have... ;)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33429390
I think it'd also be interesting to consider what the incentive is to increase productivity if the Government subsidises employment, not just at the lower end of the income scale, but even at salary levels above the average in the UK? Does it depress output per head because, as long as you work 16 hours a week or more (I think that's the level?), then you're entitled to them below a certain income level. So why go to work and generate wealth if you can top up your earnings anyway? I'm thinking aloud here, but it's an area I'll take a look at when I have time; at the moment I'm busy working though :)
|
>> >> Osborne is certainly the best Chancellor we've had for a long time.
>>
>> I doubt the families who are hard working but depend on tax credits agree. The
>> budget blows the Tories=Workers Party meme straight out of the water.
>>
I doubt if anyone was ever seriously taken in by that nonsense. It's just politicians playing games.
The reason why Osborne can get away with cutting welfare is because Labour failed to reform it when they were in power. Blair wanted reform, so naturally Brown had to oppose it on principle. So they
- failed to get rid of all the anomalies and abuses that get people's backs up,
- failed to make a case for the Economic & Social benefits of a more equal society, and
- failed to make the case for the need for any benefits to be paid for by taxes.
It's like Trade Union reform in the 60s and 70s all over again. Labour fails to reform something on its own terms, then has to stand by and watch its opponents do it for them AND ON THEIRS.
Don't blame the Conservatives. They are just doing what Tories do. Blame Labour for giving them all the political cover they need to get away with it. And it's not the career politicians who suffer, but their own supporters.
|
|
I'd love to know how a 'zero emission vehicle' works. Lunar cells, perhaps...
Last edited by: J Bonington Jagworth on Thu 9 Jul 15 at 17:35
|
>> I'd love to know how a 'zero emission vehicle' works. Lunar cells, perhaps...
>>
Maybe they should be called "zero emmisions at the point of use", you could include electric trains and trams in that category. Electric cars are an environmental con and although they may have transferred their emmisions elsewhere I doubt if they have improved any cities atmosphere quality.
|
>> Electric cars are an environmental con and although they may have transferred
>> their emmisions elsewhere I doubt if they have improved any cities atmosphere quality.
>>
Eh? I don't understand your point. If we had a city which only had electric powered vehicles then shirley there would be less pollution in that city than what we have now?
Last edited by: Londoner on Fri 10 Jul 15 at 19:00
|
>> Eh? I don't understand your point. If we had a city which only had electric
>> powered vehicles then shirley there would be less pollution in that city than what we
>> have now?
>>
I agree, but where is this city?
|
I was creating an example.... :-)
OK I'll try again ...
You said:
>> Electric cars are an environmental con and although they may have transferred
>> their emmisions elsewhere I doubt if they have improved any cities atmosphere quality.
>>
I agree that electric cars transfer their emissions elsewhere, but why do you say "I doubt if they have improved any cities atmosphere quality." Surely they HAVE improved the atmospheric quality of wherever they are running! :-)
PS. Going out - back later and genuinely interested in your reply.
Last edited by: Londoner on Fri 10 Jul 15 at 19:43
|
>> London
>>
>> www.cleanerairforlondon.org.uk/londons-air/air-quality-data/trends-london/history-air-pollution-london
>>
How much of that improvement is down to electric cars and how much to the reduction in petrol and diesel emissions?
|
>> How much of that improvement is down to electric cars and how much to the
>> reduction in petrol and diesel emissions?
Is a hybrid electric or petrol? how long is a piece of string, the point is its going down.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 11 Jul 15 at 17:23
|
>> the point is its going down.
>>
The point is that there are not enough electric cars to make much, if any difference. How many people do you know who own a non hybrid electric car? How many do you see regularly in your area?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 10 Jul 15 at 21:08
|
Why does it need to be non hybrid?
My wife's petrol hybrid managed 97+MPG around Edinburgh at Easter. Even the most hard nosed anti electric car person would have to say 97 MPG is better than 40, 50 or 60 MPG from a supermarket shopping trolley, that has to help clean up if city centre pollution is all down to cars.
|
>> Why does it need to be non hybrid?
For no reason other than I mentioned (tic) that electric cars are a con. If you want to talk about hybrids I think they are a semi con. I have a diesel Yaris, it is more powerful than the hybrid version, also faster and more economical. It does 60 mpg on the motorway, try that with a hybrid. I was driving around Edinburgh today, it would have been doing 50 mpg. Good enough for me and better than the 850cc MINI I once owned.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 10 Jul 15 at 21:41
|
>> It does 60 mpg on the motorway, try that with a hybrid.
>>
I like diesel characteristics, I still have one for now but having driven my wife's car and for my usage the next car will in most likelihood not be diesel. A 1.8 petrol hybrid at 80+ MPH still returns 53MPG.
Last edited by: gmac on Fri 10 Jul 15 at 21:57
|
>> I like diesel characteristics, I still have one for now but having driven my wife's
>> car and for my usage the next car will in most likelihood not be diesel.
I prefer diesels, I will stick to diesel until my annual mileage drops right off. Then get a sensible (1.6 or 2.0L) petrol.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 10 Jul 15 at 22:12
|
>> >> the point is its going down.
>> >>
>>
>> The point is that there are not enough electric cars to make much, if any
>> difference. How many people do you know who own a non hybrid electric car? How
>> many do you see regularly in your area?
No the point is, in london there are more electric vehicles and hybrids than anywhere else in the country, and the pollution is going down. The pollution has been going down as their numbers increase.
|
>> No the point is, in london there are more electric vehicles and hybrids than anywhere
>> else in the country, and the pollution is going down. The pollution has been going
>> down as their numbers increase.
>>
Good for you, my diesel will be there soon to screw that up for you. :-)
|
>> Good for you, my diesel will be there soon to screw that up for you.
>> :-)
No it wont, you hate the place.
Thats the good bit for us.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 11 Jul 15 at 17:23
|
>>
>> No it wont, you hate the place.
>>
>>
Yup, but I have to suffer it for a whole week. Then back to sanity.
|
>> The point is that there are not enough electric cars to make much, if any
>> difference. How many people do you know who own a non hybrid electric car? How
>> many do you see regularly in your area?
>>
The Glades Shopping Centre (INTU) near where I live, have two bays in their car park for charging electric vehicles - I've never seen them occupied!
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 11 Jul 15 at 17:23
|
|
The only all electric (transport) town that I know of is Zermatt. General access is by train and the hotels use milk floats to transport luggage from the station. The only ICE powered vehicles that have regular access are the bin lorry and the earthmover used for snow clearance.
|
>> I'd love to know how a 'zero emission vehicle' works. Lunar cells, perhaps...
Appreciate TIC, but presumably solar cells would count? Curious to know why if not.
|
|
Wales, Scotland and NI will have to make their own mind up on the ringfencing of VED thing. So I'm not holding my breath. I reckon the Tories won the last election by people seeing and hearing how unbelievably hopeless the Labour regime in Wales are on everything they control - in particular on the way the NHS is being disastrously and criminally mismanaged here. I'm no Tory but the Conservatives in Wales are increasingly seen to be talking sense it really is that bad. The General Election proved a point in Wales with huge Tory gains.El Presidente Carwyn Jones says nothing about nothing - his cabinet are shamefully dis-engaged from their electorate - 2016 elections are looming, I fear an UKIP surge, I'm hoping that Plaid Cymru and the Tories might form a coalition. No doubt the VED money will be spent on some stupid ego or vanity project. One voice of sanity in Wales has suggested that NHS is removed from political interference and control and put into the hands of professionals...
|
|
I might be a bit ignorant but i don't think the situation in Wales influenced many people outside Wales.
|
Budget - MOT - Old Navy
