We ve lost the Reposte, V tech was right!
tim_wand
Posts: 2,552
I used to relish drivers of Cars shouting out the window at me " Pay bloody road tax!"
I had the whole " Neither do you! Winston Churchill abolished it in 1937, We all pay for roads through direct taxation/ You PAY Vehicle Emissions Duty and my Bicycle doesn't emit Co2" patter down to a fine art.
Now that prat Osbourne as worked out that by 2017 most vehicle manufacturers will be producing cars that fall below his Co2 emission duty point, and hes going to reintroduce a Road Tax on Vehicles.
Surely being the most Green Government in History, Osbourne should be proud that he has effected a change whereby future vehicles will produce less pollution and therefore be less harmful to the environment.
But no , he's just realised he wont be able to tax them and thus have a £1.2 billion shortfall in his income.
So once again the motorist can shout at us with impunity about our free use of their roads.
And to make it even worse V Tech was right all along. I recall last year a thread were he clearly stated that this Government or any other would never truly be interested in moving away from a Petro Chemical based Transport system , because they couldn't Tax it!
Don't know whats worse?
I had the whole " Neither do you! Winston Churchill abolished it in 1937, We all pay for roads through direct taxation/ You PAY Vehicle Emissions Duty and my Bicycle doesn't emit Co2" patter down to a fine art.
Now that prat Osbourne as worked out that by 2017 most vehicle manufacturers will be producing cars that fall below his Co2 emission duty point, and hes going to reintroduce a Road Tax on Vehicles.
Surely being the most Green Government in History, Osbourne should be proud that he has effected a change whereby future vehicles will produce less pollution and therefore be less harmful to the environment.
But no , he's just realised he wont be able to tax them and thus have a £1.2 billion shortfall in his income.
So once again the motorist can shout at us with impunity about our free use of their roads.
And to make it even worse V Tech was right all along. I recall last year a thread were he clearly stated that this Government or any other would never truly be interested in moving away from a Petro Chemical based Transport system , because they couldn't Tax it!
Don't know whats worse?
0
Comments
-
Just bend over, fart in their face and tell them to measure the CO2 emissions in that0
-
And to make it even worse V Tech was right all along. I recall last year a thread were he clearly stated that this Government or any other would never truly be interested in moving away from a Petro Chemical based Transport system , because they couldn't Tax it!
Don't know whats worse?
But zero emissions are will exempt so its OK,in fact now electric cars pay even less than their next cheapest petrol equivalentswww.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Don't really care.
It always was road tax in reality - if you didn't pay, you couldn't legally drive your car on the road. They've just had the honesty to call it what it is."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In fairness, it changeD my habits/ Purchasing decision.
I was looking at either a T5 Caravelle 3.2 v6 or a Nissan Pathfinder as the next family wagon but both were V.E.D rated at the top £505 a year, which was just too much to stomach.
Ended up getting a B V.E.D rated Passat 1.6tdi bluemotion at only £30 a year tax.
So if the real intention behind this was to reduce Co2 emissions it was working!0 -
At least they are no longer pretending that it is about the environment.In fairness, it changeD my habits/ Purchasing decision.
I was looking at either a T5 Caravelle 3.2 v6 or a Nissan Pathfinder as the next family wagon but both were V.E.D rated at the top £505 a year, which was just too much to stomach.
Ended up getting a B V.E.D rated Passat 1.6tdi bluemotion at only £30 a year tax.
So if the real intention behind this was to reduce Co2 emissions it was working!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
This from PB in Road General seems appropriate:Here is the correct response when some queries cyclists not paying "road tax".
Na Na Na Na Na0 -
I'd forgotten about that. :oops:This from PB in Road General seems appropriate:Here is the correct response when some queries cyclists not paying "road tax".
Na Na Na Na Na
Blow kisses when you do it should tip them over the edge.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
But zero emissions are will exempt so its OK,in fact now electric cars pay even less than their next cheapest petrol equivalents
For now. But if it's all about revenue, that can change.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
But zero emissions are will exempt so its OK,in fact now electric cars pay even less than their next cheapest petrol equivalents
For now. But if it's all about revenue, that can change.
That's what I was sensing, Basically Osbourne's lot have worked out that by 2017 most new Cars will have dropped into a none duty rate of VED . I.e Co2 emissions below 100 g/km.
So he's going to start taxing them ( probably on Mileage ) If this happens then you can bet there will be a motorists lobby to insist that we are taxed for using the roads too, any claim for having green credentials will be shown as the fraud it always has been.
He ll probably make us all have compulsory Strava Premium accounts
0 -
You know my feelings on that matter.
He ll probably make us all have compulsory Strava Premium accounts
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
My latest 4 X 4 should be good for another 5 years and shamelessly flaunt the VED as it's a commercial vehicle!Advocate of disc brakes.0
-
But zero emissions are will exempt so its OK,in fact now electric cars pay even less than their next cheapest petrol equivalents
For now. But if it's all about revenue, that can change.
they could just add a car tax at purchasing, for £140 a year just stick a 5% tax on new cars and that should cover it!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
They are our roads. Car drivers only pay an annual lease on their use.To err is human, but to make a real balls up takes a super computer.0
-
Cant believe I missed this post but as is often the case, I am right, its just a case of others coming round to reality
We have technology to run engines on water but that won't happen as we can't tax water due to being able to get it from other sources than a tap.
We measured Co2 which was a farce, it was the NoX and SoX that were most harmful and that has now come into play. I have spent the last year working on EPA type approval and the reality is that the stories given to the public doesnt quite match the reality. Hybrid cars are not so good, all electric even worse.
Some of the "BEST" electric cars need to be run 24/7 for 70+ years to become carbon neutral and replacement batteries every 15 years make that a 100% impossibility.
Money will always rule and my truth on this forum has got me into more arguments than real life has in 42 years but I'm ok with that because 1) it doesnt bother me when I'm argued with and 2) it humours me.
Governments need to tax, no doubt in that and when cigarette taxes dropped we must have known that it will be replaced somewhere else ? Does anyone else think it a coincidence that at the same time as global bans of smoking in public, we saw huge increases of oil prices which whilst some will say because oil is volatile can easily be argued with the fact that we now hove more known oil stocks on earth within easy reach than we have ever known.
Oil fracking has sorted that in the USA where we pay around 20% less than last year.
Anyway, the truth. Euro 6 together with 2014/EU shows the truth about emissions from road vehicles and the government are doing something about it but please don't think they are being pro-active, they are reacting to EU laws and are slow to work, we are fully aware that the emissions from road vehicles is off the charts and needs lowering which is so easy to do but we need assistance from government.
I am part of a team working on emissions control and we need to do more, not because we want to be known to change the world as such but because we have the technology and it isn't hard to do.
Direct injection and emissions reduction systems are available and we need to back them, we also need to prosecute violators of these laws, there are companies out there breaking the law daily removing these emissions systems and although illegal, although the crime carries a 2 year jail sentence and upto £10,000 per vehicle, the government and police are yet to bring a prosecution.
There are companies removing the Add-Blu system for trucks, the DPF for diesels road cars and cat bypass for gasoline cars and yet nothing happens.
As cyclists you suffer, we did a test with me cycling from Stratford Upon Avon to Bewdley and we did the first run on a sunday morning and my limits were within EU legislation.
We did the same test on a Tuesday morning at 8.00am and the limits were 6x EU legal amounts.
We filed the paper and have yet to have a response, that was 4 months ago.
It is important to say that this journey is in the countryside to a large degree and you can only imagine how bad it is for any of you guys cycling to work in the city on the daily.
As I've said before though, money talks, it isn't always the case that the right result pans out.Living MY dream.0 -
Undoubtedly true that we must to more to look after the planet and you are right about people/companies flouting regulations. I accept what you say about new technologies.
But linking smoking bans to the price of oil is too much of a stretch for me.0 -
Undoubtedly true that we must to more to look after the planet and you are right about people/companies flouting regulations. I accept what you say about new technologies.
But linking smoking bans to the price of oil is too much of a stretch for me.
They were simulations, I think you misunderstood my meaning though. I am not saying it was "due to the losses of tax on cigarettes" I just accept that governments used that as an excuse, after all, it was mentioned in the house of parliament and on prime ministers question time. They also linked alcohol price drops and loss of revenue expected from that also.Living MY dream.0
