It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Gas guzzlers may be hit with £2,000 purchase tax

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

UK Gas guzzlers may be hit with £2,000 purchase tax


www.timesonline.co.uk

MOTORISTS are facing a fresh squeeze from Alistair Darling, the chancellor, with a one-off £2,000 tax on 4x4s and the most polluting cars, a leaked Treasury paper has revealed.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I see this is stated for new cars but last night's news also mentioned 'existing gas guzzlers' might be hit also.
This really annoys me. Car drivers with bigger engines already pay more through petroltax so why hit us again?
As someone with 2 'gas Guzzlers' I object strongly to Alistair Darlings money grabbing proposals, as thats what it is.
A 'green' proposal where the money will simply dissapear into the exchequer

www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Good!

Personally, I believe that all gas taxes should be upped by 100% or more (with rebates going to families, commercial shippers and rural area residents). Further, I believe it should be considered a crime against humanity to own a Humvee or other completely pointless toy of environmental destruction! Penalty should be slow feeding of the offender into a woodchipper... feet first.


I jest, but seriously the only way that electric and other low-environment impact vehicles will ever be adopted by the public at large is to make them more cost effective. The price of hybrids and the like are coming down, but I see much in the way of gain by helping the situation by making gas guzzlers more expensive.

Also, you simply don't need these wasteful vehicles. There's no possible argument for Joe Urban to need some of these monsters I see on the streets.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Also, you simply don't need these wasteful vehicles. There's no possible argument for Joe Urban to need some of these monsters I see on the streets.


For city dwellers I would agree with you, but for people like myself who live in the country its different. Several years ago I wassnowed in with no access to food or fuel. I bought my Range Rover after that little fiasco.
I also have a morgan with a V8 in it.
I already pay more than people with small engines because I use more fuel and pay more tax via that fuel.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
I get ya... that's why I suggested a rebate for people living in rural areas.
I used to live in one myself and drove a 1966 Furry II. The thing was a beast, but it could make it through the snow better than a lot of the big 4X4s that I passed in the ditch. One nasty winter, I actually used that boat to help pull two police cars out of ditches!

When I moved to the City, I sold the thing off. In fact, I never bothered to buy another car since I can make do just fine with transit, my bike, and my own two feet.

Lately, I've been looking into electric vehicles for convenience that doesn't destroy the world.

So yes, I do see your side of it.

I'd suggest that the law is still a good idea, but that you contact your representative and urge him to suggest an amendment that sees either a rebate or an exemption for rural dwellers.

Side note: Have you considered going with either propane or diesel fueled vehicles? Neither should be hit by this levee and both are more cost/energy efficient.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser

Side note: Have you considered going with either propane or diesel fueled vehicles? Neither should be hit by this levee and both are more cost/energy efficient.


Yes im looking into converting the Rangie to LPG but there simply isnt enough space to run the Morgan on it.
I also have a VW T4 van that I run on Veg oil



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
The government is literally laughing all the way to the bank. They can tax as much as they want under the guise of global warming because unfortunately there are idiots within this country that support (often violently) such taxation - the modern day gestapo. What about people on farms??

They're feeding off the guilt of this tiny Island that is making such a minute amount of impact to the rest of the world compared to the USA and China. Doesn't China open new factories practically every week?? Why have we got some of the highest "green" taxes in the world?

I'm sure that some of that money will go straight to help the single teenage mothers who can't be bothered to work for a living.

They're milking it until the global warming myth is finally proven to be a farse like every other scare mongering story every decade.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by dodgygeeza]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
I also have a VW T4 van that I run on Veg oil


+20 hippy points!


Sounds like you've got your utility requirements met with the Rover... is the Morgan really required? Might be time to sell it off for something nippy yet economical.

The logistics behind the proposal do sound logical to me, even withstanding your perfectly rational point that by using more gas you already pay more gas tax.

The idea is to actively deter shoppers from wanting wasteful vehicles. People really don't think of gas tax as being something they should pay because of it's impact on the environment... they just think of it as a pain in the arse and/or a "cash grab". Your average consumer is actually very unaware of the reasons for things (you'll notice how I managed to dance around calling them stupid
). Even if you were to paint the words "THIS VEHICLE WILL DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT (and cost you more money while doing it" people will still buy the damned thing if it's A) within their price range B) "cool" and/or C) a status symbol.

By driving the price up, you will see a direct impact on sales of in-efficient vehicles.

Ideally, the levee should be applied directly to subsidizing the price of electric and hybrid vehicles.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by BitRaiser
 


Sell the Morgan?
SELL THE MORGAN ?????!!!!!!!!!


Id sell the wife before I sold my beloved Moggy



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Yeah... hehe, see how it works? A, B, and C!


Just for fun, ask yourself seriously why you're so attached to that piece of machinery.

It's not something you need.
It's something you want.
Why do you want it?

Yeah, I know... I'm a bastage.
We've all got these hangups about certain things. I'm typing this message out on a computer that is way more than I need, so I've got no moral grounds to tell you that you shouldn't own the Morgan.

Thing is, if there was a fee leveled against high-tech toys, I'd pay it just to keep this over blown chunk of techno-toy on my desk. In fact, I do pay a fairly ridiculous extra fee on my internet connection as part of a transfer payment to media producers because "downloading hurts sales". I might grumble about the the extra cost... but... ah... it's true and part of my high bandwidth is for "media entertainment acquisition".

When all is said and done, I accept that I am paying extra because I'm indulging myself needlessly. I think of it as a morality payment and sleep better at night.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I'm not so keen on this idea. It seems to difficult to decide who should be allowed these vehicles, and how the government would administer that. I'm all for adding a big tax to the people who just use these vehicles as a fashion item, to drive their kids the 1 mile the school in the middle of London (Chelsea Tractor). But there are a lot of people who live/work on farms, or out in the sticks who might really need these vehicles.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:36 AM
link   
If someone from the government proved to me that any extra money raised by fuel taxation or surcharge taxation would be directly used for Green issues I might consider changing.

But our road tax fund doesnt get used to repair raods etc and Im not convinced that taxing gas guzzlers is going to do anything in the face of pollution from China Russia and the US



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bobafett
 


I'm not sure how it works over in the UK, but in Canada there is a certain amount of income tax you can write off as transportation expenses. Since we basically adopted most of our tax law from Britain, it's likely that you have something similar. Seems to me that it would be a fairly easy matter to use that to determine who would get rebate credits or not. Privet construction contractors, farm hands, rural residents, etc, get a rebate/exemption. Office workers, computer techs, salesmen, politicians don't.

Hmm... on second thought, politicians should pay double!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   
You can only write off fuel expenses if they are for business purposes.
Private individuals cannot do that for day to day usage.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


Government funding accountability is a whole different ball of wax.

That basically comes down to you trust the government to spend your money appropriately and therefore are happy to pay taxes

OR

You believe the government doesn't know what the hell it's doing with your money and thus begrudge paying any tax.

I actually did a little nosing around on this subject due to the fact that I was a smoker and here in BC we pay an insane amount of tax on cigarettes (over 60% of the cost on a pack!). The reason given is that it's smokers put more strain on the health care system, therefore they should pay more tax. Fair enough, but why not put those taxes directly into the healthcare coffers?

As it turns out, if they were to do that it would be a direct tax... and thus according to one of those laws we adopted from you guys, would be illegal!

Brilliant, eh?

There's quite a lot of room for improvement in the system.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


That's my point.
Day to day use of a gas-guzzler should pay extra for it, because it's an indulgence, not a requirement.

As I pointed out, you could sell the Morgan in favor of a Sprint...
(don't hit me!)
but you don't want to because the Morgan is cooler. At that point you just have to suck it up and pay the extra on the grounds that you are doing your part to offset your own indulgence. As much as it sucks to do so...



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by BitRaiser
reply to post by Chorlton
 


That's my point.
Day to day use of a gas-guzzler should pay extra for it, because it's an indulgence, not a requirement.


I DO pay extra
I have a bigger engine and use more fuel, therefore I pay more fuel tax

UK fuel is 97P a LITRE !!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   
At this point we're just going to start chasing the tail around the argument.
I do get your point about paying more because you use more gas, thus pay more in gas tax... and I think you understand my point about dissuasion as motivator to get the unthinking masses to move towards more efficient vehicles.

I'll concede this much, I don't think this tax can fairly be applied retroactively. At the time you purchased your Morgan, you were not aware that this tax would come into existence and therefore you were not making a decision to fund your indulgence. Making you pay more now is unethical.

It would be sort of like me getting a bill in the mail because our government has instituted a "green tax" on electronics to offset the added cost of recycling cellphones and computers.

Still, if they did that... I'd prolly pay it, but I'm a little weird that way.

So let me re-evaluate my position.
Charging that tax on new vehicles (and possibly even on re-selling of those gas-guzzlers) is a good idea.
Retroactive taxation is just never a good idea.

How's that?

[edit on 17-9-2007 by BitRaiser]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   
2000 for rich people is like a drop in the bucket it wont stop people from driving big suv's. they just have to stop making them!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by doctorlove
 


How do you go about doing that?
Tax the manufactures?
They'll just pass the buck and increase the prices on all vehicles they produce, including those that burn less gas.

Make it illegal to produce them?
You can't. It's against the law for the government to prevent a private company from producing a product unless it's unsafe for the public.

The only way the car companies will stop producing them is if people stop buying them. For that to happen, the unthinking, uncaring masses need a reason that directly impacts them. Like paying too much or having a "better" alternative (like hybrids in the same or lower cost category).

Education would be better, but it doesn't work because as stated, the masses are unthinking and uncaring.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join