Go Back   The 75 and ZT Owners Club Forums > The 75 and ZT Owners Club Forums > The 75 and ZT Owners Club General Forum
Register FAQ Image Gallery Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read
Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19th February 2024, 09:20   #61
SteveThackery
Avid contributor
 
Rover 75 Connoisseur SE saloon, 2.5 KV6 automatic, 2002, White Gold

Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 197
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_75 View Post
As for reducing the VED burden on 20-ish year old cars, I think Teflon's point makes a lot of sense, but I doubt we'll see any change as being seen to incentivise the ownership of older (but not classic by the government's definition) cars doesn't really fit with the green agenda. The government could propose a "pay per mile" system by scrapping VED and increasing fuel duty, or utilising the growing road camera network...
That is something I've thought for years. Owning an old car does not contribute any pollution to the planet. Driving the car is what pollutes. Therefore taxing ownership (which is what VED does) is not logical.

Taxing usage would involve abandoning VED and increasing fuel duty, but there are two problems with this. The first is that it will appear as a massive hike in the inflation figures, so no government would have the balls to do it. The fact that the cost to the average motorist would be the same wouldn't be enough to convince them, I'm sure.

The second problem is that modern, low-polluting cars would be taxed as much as dirty old ones. But actually that might be an advantage, not a problem. CO2 emissions are proportional to the amount of fuel burned, regardless of whether the car is new, old or prehistoric (official CO2 figures for cars are not measured, they are calculated from the measured fuel consumption). So if you only care about CO2, then taxing fuel is exactly the right thing to do. The only problem with putting all the tax on fuel is that older cars which produce more particulates and NOx will not be penalised.

Personally I would dump VED and tax the only thing that matters: CO2 production, which means taxing the fuel.
__________________
If it ain't broke, keep fixing it until it is.
SteveThackery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2024, 09:22   #62
MSS
This is my second home
 
Rover 75CDT, Jaguar XF-S 3.0V6, V'xhall Omega V6 Estate, Twintop 1.8VVT, Astra Estate and Corsa 1.2

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7,099
Thanks: 283
Thanked 624 Times in 440 Posts
Default

The problem with basing VED on emissions for 20+ yar old cars would be the lack of certified emissions data in many cases.

I don't believe they should be tax exempt. Perhaps there is a case for putting all cars that are between 25 and 40 years old into a unified tax category at say circa £200 PA.
__________________
Member of the Peasant Underdog Class, Grade 1
MSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2024, 11:43   #63
torque2me
Posted a thing or two
 
MG ZT

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hatfield
Posts: 1,382
Thanks: 240
Thanked 144 Times in 118 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_75 View Post
The Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs has some info that might explain why the government would want to incentivise classic vehicle ownership with a VED exemption for vehicles over 40 years old.



https://www.fbhvc.co.uk/historic-vehicles-the-facts

Interestingly, "the global qualification for a Historic Vehicle is 30 years as defined by the Fédération International des Véhicules Anciens (FIVA)". Previous petitions have asked for the exemption age limit to be dropped to 30 years, but they were unsuccessful.

As for reducing the VED burden on 20-ish year old cars, I think Teflon's point makes a lot of sense, but I doubt we'll see any change as being seen to incentivise the ownership of older (but not classic by the government's definition) cars doesn't really fit with the green agenda. The government could propose a "pay per mile" system by scrapping VED and increasing fuel duty, or utilising the growing road camera network...
Wow, I'm Mr. Average. Each owner appears to own two vehicles on average.... guilty M'Lud! Each vehicle does an average of 1,200 miles... guilty M'Lud and could the court take into account additional offences (1,350 and 2,160 miles each). £4.5k spend, oh yes and probably more hence my being a pauper.
Kev
torque2me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2024, 11:48   #64
torque2me
Posted a thing or two
 
MG ZT

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hatfield
Posts: 1,382
Thanks: 240
Thanked 144 Times in 118 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveThackery View Post
I think that's an excellent point. Instead of assuming 20-year-old cars are more polluting, they should use the actual pollution data on each model to determine which VED band they belong in. Logically the age of the car should be irrelevant. You've convinced me!
And they should put all them VAG vehicles (plus the other miscreants) into the REAL pollution category. They have, as far as I know, been allowed to keep their original faked category.
Kev
torque2me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th February 2024, 12:28   #65
Teflon
This is my second home
 
Teflon's Avatar
 
Lagoon 2.0 V6 75 Conn SE Saloon

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chertsey
Posts: 5,217
Thanks: 2,825
Thanked 2,920 Times in 1,570 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveThackery View Post
......Personally I would dump VED and tax the only thing that matters: CO2 production, which means taxing the fuel.
I like that idea . Sadly though, I think you're right, no party would have the nerve to implement it

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSS View Post
The problem with basing VED on emissions for 20+ yar old cars would be the lack of certified emissions data in many cases.

I don't believe they should be tax exempt. Perhaps there is a case for putting all cars that are between 25 and 40 years old into a unified tax category at say circa £200 PA.
You make a good point regarding the lack of emissions data. I'd be inclined to put all vehicles for which there is no certified emissions data held by DVLA into the current "Over 255 g/km" category.

I Should add, I have never really seen the point of waiving VED for the older classics, but the figures produced by Matt_75 are quite persuasive and certainly give food for thought.

Cliff
__________________


No. 4 of 6

Last edited by Teflon; 19th February 2024 at 14:22..
Teflon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2024, 09:28   #66
SteveThackery
Avid contributor
 
Rover 75 Connoisseur SE saloon, 2.5 KV6 automatic, 2002, White Gold

Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 197
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

My point is that if you decide that the only thing you want to tax is the CO2 emissions, then you don't need any other data - CO2 production is proportional to fuel consumed, so taxing the fuel looks after that automatically. A gallon of fuel burned in a 2024 car produces the same amount of CO2 as a gallon consumed by a vintage car.*

It's only if you want to tax HC, CO, NOx and particulates that you need the test data you describe.

My position is this: global CO2 production is an existential threat; production of the other pollutants is a local threat, relevant only in towns and cities. So I would rely on existing measures to look after local pollution - ULEZs and stuff like that, plus the ever tightening standards for new cars - and use fuel tax to discourage CO2 production. And as we've said, it ain't gonna happen! No government would have the balls.

*Strictly speaking the vintage car produces a teeny tiny amount less CO2 because some of the carbon is tied up as HC and CO, but this really is a small proportion.
__________________
If it ain't broke, keep fixing it until it is.
SteveThackery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2024, 10:59   #67
bl52krz
This is my second home
 
bl52krz's Avatar
 
Rover 75 cdt club + Rover 2.5 KV6 Conni SE

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 11,424
Thanks: 6,587
Thanked 2,262 Times in 1,729 Posts
Default

I think I have solved the problem of all, well, not all pollution, on this planet we live on. Since everyone on here, and throughout the western world, think that pollution is getting to a stage of finality, why don’t those who think time has come to do something about it, all hold their breath for half an hour? I can assure you that pollution would still continue, but there would be less flannel about what is causing it. 70/80 years ago, men, mostly, walked around with sandwich boards around their shoulders proclaiming that ,’ the end of the world is nigh’. In the 50s, we were told we were ‘entering a mini ice age’. And the latest scam is..............the electric car. We were told by a young misguided girl, that if the temperature went up by an average 1.5 degrees, we were doomed. Well it has. Now what do we all do? Perhaps to put some semblance of sense or otherwise into this post, I have had tuberculosis, and worked in heavy haulage for most of my working life, so have breathed in more of the poisonous diesel fumes than most of the rest of the country. I must be a miracle to still be here at the octogenarian stage of my life with all these detrimental pollutants in the air. One thing I can definitely procrastinate on is money, and the way governments and charlatans try to part it from you. I don’t think I live in the same world as some people who seem to accept the crumbs that are offered for there labour, and the control of their lives, that is getting overall a bit of a joke. At least some people are realising down south, and taking direct action on the pollution front. Glad to see some people have got a backbone still in this woke world. Rant over for now.
__________________
Great Barr, Birmingham.

Last edited by bl52krz; 20th February 2024 at 15:31..
bl52krz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2024, 12:57   #68
torque2me
Posted a thing or two
 
MG ZT

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hatfield
Posts: 1,382
Thanks: 240
Thanked 144 Times in 118 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveThackery View Post
My point is that if you decide that the only thing you want to tax is the CO2 emissions, then you don't need any other data - CO2 production is proportional to fuel consumed, so taxing the fuel looks after that automatically. A gallon of fuel burned in a 2024 car produces the same amount of CO2 as a gallon consumed by a vintage car.*

It's only if you want to tax HC, CO, NOx and particulates that you need the test data you describe.

My position is this: global CO2 production is an existential threat; production of the other pollutants is a local threat, relevant only in towns and cities. So I would rely on existing measures to look after local pollution - ULEZs and stuff like that, plus the ever tightening standards for new cars - and use fuel tax to discourage CO2 production. And as we've said, it ain't gonna happen! No government would have the balls.

*Strictly speaking the vintage car produces a teeny tiny amount less CO2 because some of the carbon is tied up as HC and CO, but this really is a small proportion.
Once again Steve you are on a bandwagon with the Co2 being the culprit when it is only one issue in a complex set of strands. It will not be the cause of COPD and stances may change when or if a person contracts it. Costs the NHS (taxpayers) many million for medicants and it is for life. As everyone has to hold their hand up to some extent the government should bring in a simplified NoX/Co2 formula whereby everyone pays the same amount just as we did 30 years ago. Remember the vast majority of diesel cars/engines sit in a lower tax bracket due to fake emission tests, Co2 vehicles don't.
Kev
torque2me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2024, 13:09   #69
daveo138
Gets stuck in
 
daveo138's Avatar
 
Rover 75 Tourer

Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 717
Thanks: 206
Thanked 69 Times in 53 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveThackery View Post
That is something I've thought for years. Owning an old car does not contribute any pollution to the planet. Driving the car is what pollutes. Therefore taxing ownership (which is what VED does) is not logical.


Personally I would dump VED and tax the only thing that matters: CO2 production, which means taxing the fuel.
I've been saying for years that tax should be on fuel, rather than owning a vehicle. After all, if you own four cars, you can only drive one at any given time.

One good reason to reduce the tax on older cars is to encourage people to keep them on the road. There is far more pollution from the manufacture of a new car than the, generally, limited mileage of an older vehicle.

The VED for my diesel tourer is £365, I think. I believe that some of the later registered 75s - '06? - are over £500. There must come a point when an owner decides to scrap the car rather than keeping paying out that amount.
daveo138 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2024, 13:17   #70
torque2me
Posted a thing or two
 
MG ZT

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hatfield
Posts: 1,382
Thanks: 240
Thanked 144 Times in 118 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveo138 View Post
The VED for my diesel tourer is £365, I think. I believe that some of the later registered 75s - '06? - are over £500. There must come a point when an owner decides to scrap the car rather than keeping paying out that amount.
Absolutely Dave.
torque2me is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:07.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 2006-2023, The Rover 75 & MG ZT Owners Club Ltd