 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / March 2008Tax changes in budget
Nicked from t' budget; -------------------- Analysis from the King Review suggests that there is a wide range of environmental performance within a particular group of cars (such as family saloons or hatchbacks). Drivers could reduce carbon dioxide emissions and fuel bills by up to 25 per cent by choosing the most efficient vehicle in its group. The review also concluded that over the long-term the technology exists to reduce the average carbon dioxide emission of new cars to 100g per km by 2020. In order to support this target, and strengthen the environmental incentive to develop and purchase fuel-efficient cars, Budget 2008 announces reform of the vehicle excise duty (VED) structure. From 2009, VED will be restructured with new bands, based on carbon dioxide so that people gain financially by choosing the car with the best environmental performance in a given group. The financial difference between the most and least polluting cars will increase, so that making a small change in car emissions has a greater financial impact. From 2010, there will be a new higher first-year rate based on carbon dioxide emissions, to influence purchasing choices. Specific changes include: * six new VED bands from 2009-10 - including a new top band (band M) for the most polluting cars that emit more than 255g CO2 per km; * reducing the standard rate of VED, in 2009-10, for all new and existing cars that emit 150g of CO2 per km or less, and increasing the standard rate of VED on the most polluting cars to 425 pounds; * from 2010-11, extending the zero rate of VED, during the first year of ownership, to all new cars that emit 130g CO2 per km or less - the EU proposed target for average new car emissions in 2012; * holding the first-year rate for all new cars that emit between 131 and 160g CO2 per km equal to the standard rate in 2010-11; * introducing for the most polluting cars a first-year rate of 950 pounds in 2010-11; and * providing a 15 pounds or 20 pounds discount for alternatively fuelled cars in 2009-10, and 10 in 2010-11; and aligning the alternative fuel and standard rates of VED in 2011. -------------------- So much for the reports of a 2,000 quid tax rate on "gas-guzzling 4x4s"!  SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ > So much for the reports of a 2,000 quid tax rate on "gas-guzzling 4x4s"! Presumably the existing bands remain (possibly inflation adjusted). And these 6 "new bands" apply only to vehicles registered from 2009? I see that the 2p/l fuel duty increase due this/next month has been postponed to October. SignatureCheers Dave. >> So much for the reports of a 2,000 quid tax rate on "gas-guzzling >> 4x4s"! > > Presumably the existing bands remain (possibly inflation adjusted). > And > these 6 "new bands" apply only to vehicles registered from 2009? Nope http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/12_03_08_bud08_chaptera.pdf Table A.8a shows that the new bands apply to all cars registered after 1 Mar 2001. Be careful reading the table - the right-hand half is expanded, so you can't just read straight across to see how much you'll be paying. The anomaly is now even greater between identical cars made just either side of the magic date - e.g. an Astra 1.7 diesel estate, 132g/km, will cost £200 per year in VED if it's Feb 2001 (Table A8b), but £110 if it's Mar 2001. There will be even greater anomalies, I expect. I couldn't find any reference to Historic Vehicle rates, but, unless they've abolished the zero rate, £200 for a 1973 Landy, against 0 for a 1972 one will encourage even more creative reconstruction. SignatureKevin Poole **Use current month and year to reply (e.g. mar2008@mainbeam.co.uk)*** >> Presumably the existing bands remain (possibly inflation adjusted). >> And these 6 "new bands" apply only to vehicles registered from 2009? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Table A.8a shows that the new bands apply to all cars registered after 1 > Mar 2001. Quite right Bar Stweards. My May 2001 registered TD5 DII @ 262g/km is: 2008/9 - £210 2009/10 - £440 20010/11 - £455 £245 increase next year or roughly 3 tanks of fuel at todays prices, less by then. SignatureCheers Dave. >>> Presumably the existing bands remain (possibly inflation adjusted). >>> And these 6 "new bands" apply only to vehicles registered from 2009? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >£245 increase next year or roughly 3 tanks of fuel at todays prices, less >by then. And is that going to persuade you to go out and buy a ford fiesta? ...thought not. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> £245 increase next year or roughly 3 tanks of fuel at todays prices, >> less by then. > > And is that going to persuade you to go out and buy a ford fiesta? > > ....thought not. Don't need to the other half already has Fiesta... I doubt it will, even though the running costs of the DII are higher than I'd like 'cause the fecking thing keeps breaking (£1600 is sitting on the CC from the last epsisode) I do like it to drive. It is more of a balancing act than the old Mondeo, that just (boringly) worked. The first year stuff won't have an immediate effect as I have only ever bought a new car once and I'm not likely to do that again. What effect it will have on the second hand market a few years down the line I'm not sure. With a family the Disco is great and living where we do is useful. The little bit of snow we've had I've seen some "interesting" tracks left by normal cars on hills when the Disco hasn't batted an eyelid, other than occasionally and briefly wake up the TC. A eurobox would not be so suitable and I suspect the emmissions from a decent sized motor (and I don't mean go faster) are all much of a muchness. SignatureCheers Dave. >I doubt it will, even though the running costs of the DII are higher than >I'd like 'cause the fecking thing keeps breaking (£1600 is sitting on the >CC from the last epsisode) I do like it to drive. It is more of a >balancing act than the old Mondeo, that just (boringly) worked. And I thought I was hard done by paying 200 notes for a recon steering box.. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > Nicked from t' budget; > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So much for the reports of a 2,000 quid tax rate on "gas-guzzling 4x4s"! Nearly a £1000 bill for many though !!!!!! SignatureAndy > Nearly a £1000 bill for many though !!!!!! Sure but only on new cars and for the first year, and given that apparently the average family car costs 16K then most of those will be fuel-efficient, which is fine, it'll only be those who really want a particular car that will be able to stomach the extra cost. So the herd will be pushed towards more fuel efficient cars while those who want something special will pay a little more of a premium. The only downside really is that there'll be less interesting hardware hitting the second-hand market for cheapskates like me! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ Ok if i'm reading that link Autolycus posted correctly, my tax will be (based on a TD5 Disco reg May 2001 with a jobbie rating of 262 G/KM) This year 2008/09 will be £210, Band F over 186G/KM 2009/10 will be £440 2010/11 will be £950 for the first year and then £455 after that. Time to get a pre March 2001 car then......... Bunch of robbing twats Dom > Ok if i'm reading that link Autolycus posted correctly, my tax will be > (based on a TD5 Disco reg May 2001 with a jobbie rating of 262 G/KM) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Dom AIUI £950 is a "first year registration tax" for brand new vehicles. > 2010/11 will be £950 for the first year and then £455 after that. That £950 rate is only for the first year of registration for new cars. > Bunch of robbing twats Hey I'm better off by £400 per year due to income tax rule changes and owning old cars :-P SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ >> 2010/11 will be £950 for the first year and then £455 after that. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hey I'm better off by £400 per year due to income tax rule changes and > owning old cars :-P According to the beeb online calculator I'll be £186.41 better off per year - whoopee! The road tax on me 2002 90 Td5 expires on 31/12/2008, hehehe.. > According to the beeb online calculator I'll be £186.41 better off per > year - whoopee! Shift the decimal place one right for me. You're obviously earning too much to get a decent working tax credit and/or don't have any kids. SignatureCheers Dave. > Shift the decimal place one right for me. You're obviously earning too > much to get a decent working tax credit and/or don't have any kids. Sadly us sensible childless lot have to subsidise the sprog droppers, and we have to pay for our own pensions too! Humbug, time to emigrate, oops, what am I saying! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ > Sadly us sensible childless lot have to subsidise the sprog droppers, We've only got two and that isn't enough to properly replace us when we go, even though they are one of each. > and we have to pay for our own pensions too! So do I. SignatureCheers Dave. >> Sadly us sensible childless lot have to subsidise the sprog droppers, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So do I. No sprogs, no inheritance :) >> Sadly us sensible childless lot have to subsidise the sprog droppers, > >We've only got two and that isn't enough to properly replace us when we >go, even though they are one of each. There are something around 2 billion more people on the planet than is, I suspect, sustainable long-term already. We don't actually need population growth. American Billions, mind, not real ones. It's still a lot of people, all farting and using up the oil and generally buggering up the world. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>> Sadly us sensible childless lot have to subsidise the sprog droppers, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are something around 2 billion more people on the planet than is, > I suspect, sustainable long-term already. Only because the vast majority of those 2bn will have way more than 2 kids. If they only had 2 the population would crash, not fall. I also interpreted "sprog droppers" to mean those with >3 kids from several fathers (or mothers) living on benefits. Like the teenage lad with 6 kids, fathered from the age of 13, all with different girls and with no intention of providing support for any of them. If there is a case for state castration... > We don't actually need population growth. Agreed. Even with two kids I'm not contributing to poulation growth. Even in this country with good health care and child hood survival rates you have to have over 2 kids to maintain the population size. For most of the world half a dozen kids is required but that is falling all the time but unfortunately old habits die hard. SignatureCheers Dave. > Agreed. Even with two kids I'm not contributing to poulation growth. Even > in this country with good health care and child hood survival rates you > have to have over 2 kids to maintain the population size. For most of the > world half a dozen kids is required but that is falling all the time but > unfortunately old habits die hard. Population growth is highest in the poorest countries, and the wealthier a country gets the fewer children it has, which is the reverse of what you might think is sensible, but I suppose that you need more people for a country to develop sufficiently for it to afford less people ;-) However getting back to the environmental impact, my carbon footprint ends with me, whereas those who have kids it extends way past their lifetime which is a semi-serious point I use to prod those who rabbit on about climate change while bringing up their kids! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ >>>> Sadly us sensible childless lot have to subsidise the sprog droppers, >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Only because the vast majority of those 2bn will have way more than 2 >kids. If they only had 2 the population would crash, not fall. balls. There are getting on for 6 billion world population. If they all only have 1 sprog on average worldwide, then it'd still take about 20 years to get much of a drop in population. >I also interpreted "sprog droppers" to mean those with >3 kids from >several fathers (or mothers) living on benefits. Like the teenage lad with >6 kids, fathered from the age of 13, all with different girls and with no >intention of providing support for any of them. If there is a case for >state castration... now, they're not helping, I grant you. Although really, education would be better than castration. >> We don't actually need population growth. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >world half a dozen kids is required but that is falling all the time but >unfortunately old habits die hard. yebbut, that's the point. we don't need to maintain population size, we could well do with halving it, worldwide. And, indeed, in this country. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>>>> Sadly us sensible childless lot have to subsidise the sprog droppers, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >yebbut, that's the point. we don't need to maintain population size, we >could well do with halving it, worldwide. And, indeed, in this country. Quiet. The population level has been determined roughly at that necessary to support the economic activity prior to the huge gains in efficiency brought about by the silicon chip and the demise of our heavy industries. We ought to have a town twinning project - and obliterate one of the twins as we don't need them both. e.g. Cardiff and Swansea, Portsmouth and Southampton, Derby and Nottingham, Manchester and , well just Manchester. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting > We ought to have a town twinning project - and obliterate one of the > twins as we don't need them both. > e.g. Cardiff and Swansea, Portsmouth and Southampton, Derby and > Nottingham, Manchester and , well just Manchester. <Holds hand up> Err... Could I ask for London to be added to that list please? But I'd keep Manchester. :-) SignatureTciao for Now! John. > Manchester and , well just Manchester. Liverpool... SignatureCheers Dave. >> Manchester and , well just Manchester. > > Liverpool... FRO. Capital of Culture, mate. SignaturePete M - OMF#9 Range Rover V8 Turbo Scorpio Ultima 24v "Professional Petrolhead" >>> Manchester and , well just Manchester. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Capital of Culture, mate. See, here's the big problem. None of us wants to be in the 1/3 of the world population that's surplus... SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>>> Manchester and , well just Manchester. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >See, here's the big problem. None of us wants to be in the 1/3 of the world >population that's surplus... Oh I don't know. Just give me a few more years. (The plan stops at 75) Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting > Oh I don't know. Just give me a few more years. (The plan stops at 75) Yeah I'd love to be surplus too, lots to be said for it I reckon ;-) SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ >> Nearly a £1000 bill for many though !!!!!! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >downside really is that there'll be less interesting hardware hitting >the second-hand market for cheapskates like me! And if for example you are buying a top of the range RR is an extra £500 road tax on the first year really going to put you off? If it were every year then the value in the 2nd hand market would drop significantly and that might just deter people from buying in the first place. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting > And if for example you are buying a top of the range RR is an extra £500 > road tax on the first year really going to put you off? Indeed, hence my comment about the average family car being the only sector that'll really be affected, and arguably that's as it should be given that it's the one that does the damage. The majority of the damage is done by the majority of the people after all. Niche cars are an irrelevance other than to the green-eyed monster (which is dressed up in environmental clothes). > If it were every year then the value in the 2nd hand market would drop > significantly and that might just deter people from buying in the first > place. As far as I'm concerned the most environmentally friendly car is the one you already have due to the costs of building cars but discouraging people from buying new cars isn't something any government is ever going to do. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ > > And if for example you are buying a top of the range RR is an extra £500 > > road tax on the first year really going to put you off? Not if you can afford the car in the first place it won't! > Indeed, hence my comment about the average family car being the only > sector that'll really be affected, and arguably that's as it should be > given that it's the one that does the damage. The majority of the > damage is done by the majority of the people after all. Niche cars > are an irrelevance other than to the green-eyed monster (which is > dressed up in environmental clothes). The majority of the damage that is being ignored by that fuckface wankstain chance(llo)r is from aviation and stinking filthy trucks/buses! > > If it were every year then the value in the 2nd hand market would drop > > significantly and that might just deter people from buying in the first [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > discouraging people from buying new cars isn't something any > government is ever going to do. Nope, because the motorist is seen as a cash-cow! Oh, and why not put beer etc up by something worthwhile, say a round pound? And if smoking is really that bad, why not slap £3 on a 20-pack? Because they don't want you to quit, that's why, due to the money they make from your habit!!!! f.cking w.nkers the lot of them, 'bout time we had a realistic, sensible party worthy of voting for! Someone who understands that people have cars for a reason, normally a total lack of useable, clean, convenient and safe public transport. Roll on the revolution, let's make the bastards truly accountable to their bosses - us! badger. > The majority of the damage that is being ignored by that fuckface wankstain > chance(llo)r is from aviation and stinking filthy trucks/buses! ISTR it's from heating homes! They're trying to address that with new building regulations but that requires all current housing to fall down to have any real effect ;-) Reducing aviation apparently has a huge economic penalty, whether it's big enough to justify the environmental damage I personally don't have a clue. Perhaps they could make it too expensive to make non-business trips for UK residents but I'll bet that won't be popular. Cleaning up trucks and busses locally is what Ken Livingstone is doing with the LEZ, which is a much better idea than the daft congestion charge. > Nope, because the motorist is seen as a cash-cow! We are still cash cows in second-hand cars, them not making new cars too expensive is more to do with the car industry being a major employer, discouraging them from making cars makes environmental sense but not economic! Again, hard to know if the economic penalty is worth the environmental penalty. > Oh, and why not put beer > etc up by something worthwhile, say a round pound? And if smoking is really > that bad, why not slap £3 on a 20-pack? Because they don't want you to quit, > that's why, due to the money they make from your habit!!!! Indeedy, add a few pence, rake in extra cash but don't price it too high or people might stop buying them.. The 2p on fuel is a case in point, in a year or so the price of fuel has gone up by something like 20p without reducing driving significantly. Mind you the more money they rake in from things we have a choice about, then the less they need to take from us in income tax so it's swings and roundabouts really. At least you can lower the tax you pay to the government legally by not buying so many fags and beer! SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ >Reducing aviation apparently has a huge economic penalty, whether it's >big enough to justify the environmental damage I personally don't have >a clue. Perhaps they could make it too expensive to make non-business >trips for UK residents but I'll bet that won't be popular. too right, no-one could fly off on holidays to forn parts for about a quid. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >> Reducing aviation apparently has a huge economic penalty, whether it's >> big enough to justify the environmental damage I personally don't have >> a clue. Perhaps they could make it too expensive to make non-business >> trips for UK residents but I'll bet that won't be popular. > > too right, no-one could fly off on holidays to forn parts for about a quid. I hate living somewhere geographically isolated - the cheapest flight to forn parts from here is well over 100 quid one way. Did some naive soul say the Ken Livingstone is cleaning up trucks and buses? No, he is just penalising the poorer members of the "community" like all tax increases do. Taxation never solved anything - Except incompetent chancellors mistakes!!! > Did some naive soul say the Ken Livingstone is cleaning up trucks and buses? > No, he is just penalising the poorer members of the "community" like all tax > increases do. Yeah yeah Mr. Knee-Jerk. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ >> Did some naive soul say the Ken Livingstone is cleaning up trucks and buses? >> No, he is just penalising the poorer members of the "community" like all tax >> increases do. > >Yeah yeah Mr. Knee-Jerk. who, Livingstone? SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! >>Yeah yeah Mr. Knee-Jerk. > > who, Livingstone? No Mr. "can't be arsed to read anything, I'll just foam at the mouth with the same tired old rant about taxing the poor and feeding the rich". SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ > And if smoking is really that bad, why not slap £3 on a 20-pack? Because > they don't want you to quit, that's why, due to the money they make from > your habit!!!! Is that £3 on top of the duty already there? Which is 22% of retail price plus £2.173 on a pack of 20 (derived from the fixed £108.65 per thousand cigarettes). So for a pack cost of £5.00(*) there is: 22% - £1.10 20 cigs - £2.173 VAT - £0.875 ====== £4.148 To HMR&C assuming "retail price" means the £5 not £5 less the VAT. (*) I don't smoke so haven't clue if that is the rough cost of a pack of 20. SignatureCheers Dave. > The majority of the damage that is being ignored by that fuckface wankstain > chance(llo)r is from aviation and stinking filthy trucks/buses! And did you know that cost of servicing the National Debt is, according to my MP, now the same as the defence budget? All thanks to Labour! > And did you know that cost of servicing the National Debt is, according > to my MP, now the same as the defence budget? All thanks to Labour! Yeah 'cos the tories balanced the books effortlessly!! Every time you go to type "All thanks to Labour", make sure you change it to "All thanks to <insert pet hate here>", the name on the badge doesn't really change much, sort of like the difference between two different editions of the same model of landy. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ > Yeah 'cos the tories balanced the books effortlessly!! Heh heh 'snap' Richard ;-) > > The majority of the damage that is being ignored by that fuckface wankstain > > chance(llo)r is from aviation and stinking filthy trucks/buses! > > And did you know that cost of servicing the National Debt is, according > to my MP, now the same as the defence budget? All thanks to Labour! Ah, but that's been assisted in no small part by their continuing blinkered policies of cutting defence budgets year on year, to the point where we are now having to delay or cancel badly needed replacement equipment (planes, ships, weapons, vehicles, comms kit etc etc) simply to have enough money in the pot for urgently required maintenance/modifications to existing equipment types! If they hadn't cut the defence budget the way they did after they came into power then an awful lot of the new kit would have been in service by now and we wouldn't be in this mess! Consider the current fiasco over the Nimrod MR2 aircraft - £80million urgently required to "fix" a problem that isn't really there, but they feel they have to be seen to be doing something after the enquiry into the loss of XV230 over Afghanistan in 2006. (It was a combination of faults and the age of the design, in my personal opinion, that caused the tragic loss, but then I'm only a mere engineer with 22 years experience on them so what would I know!). Now, that funding is not being supplied from any government department at this time, so it has to come from the defence budget and the only way that can happen is by diverting it from elsewhere, so we are going to have to delay the badly needed replacement Nimrod MRA4 aircraft by roughly a further 3 years. It just doesn't make sense! Why are they not accountable to US, the people? They drive around london in chaufeur driven luxury cars at our expense, they buy houses and furnish them at our expense, christ their allowable expenses are almost £100,000 a year when all claimables are added up and they get a wage of roughly £58,000 in addition to that!!!!!! We should have the power in a democratic society to form a vote of no confidence in ANY elected government and call a general election, not be dictated down to by them! > We should have the power in a democratic society to form a vote of > no confidence in ANY elected government and call a general election, > not be dictated down to by them! Nahh, every government would get about 6 months in office before the opposition and the papers poisoned the populace enough to chuck them out, then once the opposition were in all the flowery promises they make wouldn't happen. Bear in mind when you hear the opposition to any government talk they are doing so from a position of not having to prove they can do it, whereas when the government of whatever colour talks, they then have to actually act on it in an atmosphere of "ignore the good bits concentrate on the bad". Being in opposition is a cushy deal compared to being in government. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ >> And if for example you are buying a top of the range RR is an extra £500 >> road tax on the first year really going to put you off? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >discouraging people from buying new cars isn't something any >government is ever going to do. With which sentiment as the owner of a 1998 Defender V8 I wholeheartedly concur. Signaturehugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting So am i right in assuming that the new 7 band rubbish which comes in in 2009 only applys to cars Registered AFTER March 2001. Just trying to get this tax crap clear in my head. Dom > So am i right in assuming that the new 7 band rubbish which comes in in 2009 > only applys to cars Registered AFTER March 2001. Just trying to get this > tax crap clear in my head. > > Dom Yes, until the lying duplicitous bastard realises that he still can't spend our money wisely and needs more to balance his books. > So am i right in assuming that the new 7 band rubbish which comes in in > 2009 only applys to cars Registered AFTER March 2001. Make that 13 bands (A to M) and yes after 1st March 2001 (not sure if that includes 1st March or not). The bands are roughly: A up to 100g/km B to J 10g/km increments K is 201 to 225 L is 226 to 255 M over 255. I shall have to find a vechicle with 10[0...9].<something> or 200.<somthing> or 225.<somthing> as those don't have a VED band... B-) SignatureCheers Dave. Hmmm Does this mean Mr Browns 4X4 & Jag will go & will he be setting an example to us Drivers & all types of Landy owners ??? also were is the extra money in Fuel & Car tax going to ? also try Contracting to the Petrol Companies they make you Grovel for your Money & un trained staff in your proffesion try to inspect your work & they do want you to earn a living from them Regards Skinty >> So am i right in assuming that the new 7 band rubbish which comes in in >> 2009 only applys to cars Registered AFTER March 2001. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I shall have to find a vechicle with 10[0...9].<something> or > 200.<somthing> or 225.<somthing> as those don't have a VED band... B-) > Does this mean Mr Browns 4X4 & Jag will go What do you think... SignatureCheers Dave. >> Does this mean Mr Browns 4X4 & Jag will go > >What do you think... I think they should all be driven around in Smart cars. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! > I think they should all be driven around in Smart cars. ITYM smart bombs. SignatureBlast off and strike the evil Bydo empire! http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/ Austin Shackles typed: >>> Does this mean Mr Browns 4X4 & Jag will go >> >> What do you think... > > I think they should all be driven around in Smart cars. Gordon Brown in a G-Wiz? SignatureRich B Take out the obvious to email me. A life? Cool - where can I download one of those? >>> Does this mean Mr Browns 4X4 & Jag will go >> >>What do you think... > >I think they should all be driven around in Smart cars. I think they should all be driven over by Smart cars. Or failing that, Defenders, at speed. Or failing that, driven round Helmand province (by remote control) in a Hummer H2 painted bright pink (I wouldn't waste a Landy), but they might realise (in their short time remaining) why spending billions on Nortern Crock and NOT spending anything on decent armour plated troop transport. They wouldn't be missed, at all. Regards, Simonm. Signaturesimonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/ GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TDi'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/ >>>> Does this mean Mr Browns 4X4 & Jag will go >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >and NOT spending anything on decent armour plated >troop transport. WAS A BAD IDEA. (if you're gonna rant, at least remember what it is you were on about) >They wouldn't be missed, at all. That bit's still true. Regards, Simonm. Signaturesimonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/ GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TDi'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/ >>>Does this mean Mr Browns 4X4 & Jag will go >> >>What do you think... > > I think they should all be driven around in Smart cars. I think that they should walk ... or use the excellent public transport for which we've paid but have yet to see. Digby Jones is being allowed a diesel Jaguar XF apparently. > I think they should all be driven around in Smart cars. One of ours does. http://www.act.org.nz/rodney_hide/smart_car >> I think they should all be driven around in Smart cars. > >One of ours does. > >http://www.act.org.nz/rodney_hide/smart_car neat. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that Travel The Galaxy! Meet Fascinating Life Forms... ------------------------------------------------\ >> http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ << \ ...and Kill them. a webcartoon by Howard Tayler; I like it, maybe you will too! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.