Head Honcho Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 I think they should! I see no reason whatsoever how anyone can argue against it. I drive a big car and can probably afford any reasonable rise in car tax, but if you can't afford it, sell your 4x4 and buy a smaller car, it's not rocket science. ".........but I've got 5 kids I need a big car" Well thats tough walk them to school This rise should only be allowed if all the extra money raised goes directly to environmental concerns.
Katy Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 Yes! If you need to drive your kids to school then invest in a cleaner car. Edited: Due to realising Allen said 'it's not rocket science' as well
Janx Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 I think they should! I see no reason whatsoever how anyone can argue against it. I drive a big car and can probably afford any reasonable rise in car tax, but if you can't afford it, sell your 4x4 and buy a smaller car, it's not rocket science. ".........but I've got 5 kids I need a big car" Well thats tough walk them to school This rise should only be allowed if all the extra money raised goes directly to environmental concerns. flogged my M class.... just the rumours of a 2k per year tax was enough for me not to play the futures market... its not the cost of the tax, its the value of the car (or drop in it) that will be the killer.
lookwhaticando Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 Yes. And tax breaks for high efficiency vehicles. That's definitely what's needed in North America - sadly there's more chance of the Dodo not being an extinct species.
Head Honcho Posted 2 November 2006 Author Posted 2 November 2006 Yes. And tax breaks for high efficiency vehicles. That's definitely what's needed in North America - sadly there's more chance of the Dodo not being an extinct species. Just look at how serious the US takes the Kyoto agreement
lookwhaticando Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 Just look at how serious the US takes the Kyoto agreement My gracious hosts don't have a f/cking clue either.
Head Honcho Posted 2 November 2006 Author Posted 2 November 2006 My gracious hosts don't have a f/cking clue either. To be fair to Canada their impact on world pollution is pretty negligible when compared to the USA and with US company's taking no notice of the Kyoto agreement this puts Canadian oil and gas companies at a disadvantage and you can't really blame Alberta wanting to split from Canada due to pressure from Ottawa.
TrickyTrev Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 The Opulent ****s will still drive their Chelsea tractors whatever the price, these people are already chosing to drive extremely expensive cars to run despite the fact that they are less safe and more damaging to the environment. The people that drive these things round city centres won't give two tosses about £300 extra a year, because they can afford not to, the farmers that need them will feel the tax the hardest. I'd just shoot the ****ers. Either that or bring in Congestion Charge Zones with very low rates for efficent cars and extremely high rates for inefficent cars. That way you are not punishing the rural poor. If people ignore botht he added financial cost and the added burden on the environment, at least you are making a few bob off them which can be pumped back into makign our trains and buses work again.
Head Honcho Posted 2 November 2006 Author Posted 2 November 2006 The Opulent ****s will still drive their Chelsea tractors whatever the price, these people are already chosing to drive extremely expensive cars to run despite the fact that they are less safe and more damaging to the environment. The people that drive these things round city centres won't give two tosses about £300 extra a year, because they can afford not to, the farmers that need them will feel the tax the hardest. I'd just shoot the ****ers. Either that or bring in Congestion Charge Zones with very low rates for efficent cars and extremely high rates for inefficent cars. That way you are not punishing the rural poor. If people ignore botht he added financial cost and the added burden on the environment, at least you are making a few bob off them which can be pumped back into makign our trains and buses work again. Hell will freeze over before that happens!
lookwhaticando Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 To be fair to Canada their impact on world pollution is pretty negligible when compared to the USA and with US company's taking no notice of the Kyoto agreement this puts Canadian oil and gas companies at a disadvantage and you can't really blame Alberta wanting to split from Canada due to pressure from Ottawa. I quite agree, Canada is really quite inconsequential as their next door neighbour pollutes so heavily on their behalf. What really gets my gander up is the bloody holier-than-thou attitude of Canadians towards Americans - they make themselves out to be eco-warriors in comparison to their neighbours who are devilish polluters... Fact is, they're just as bad in one key area - cars. Canadians buy all the same cars as the Americans do - the same V8 SUVs and pickups that the Americans loved in the late 90s/early 00s. Then they have the audacity to bitch when the high price of petrol is killing them because their big V8 SUV can only rustle up 20 miles for each gallon. Their government was trying, bless, but the populous didn't seem all that bothered in practice.
TrickyTrev Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 Hell will freeze over before that happens! Or Earth will flood.
breadandcheese Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 Erm, I was under the impression that those who own less fuel efficient cars and drive further pay more tax through the fuel duty. They buy more fuel and pay more tax.
lookwhaticando Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 Erm, I was under the impression that those who own less fuel efficient cars and drive further pay more tax through the fuel duty. They buy more fuel and pay more tax. It's not the same. Sure it's a tax, but it's not an explicit one. You don't buy a car and think "damn, I'll be paying more tax" you think "damn, I'll be buying more petrol". If you tax the car based on how much fuel it uses directly, people might think twice about buying big cars because they'll pay more for fuel and they'll be hit with more tax directly.
Milky Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 gas my ass! guzzle my......my......erm.. <_< i don't really care to be honest, do what you want.
Thracian Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 I think they should! I see no reason whatsoever how anyone can argue against it. I drive a big car and can probably afford any reasonable rise in car tax, but if you can't afford it, sell your 4x4 and buy a smaller car, it's not rocket science. ".........but I've got 5 kids I need a big car" Well thats tough walk them to school This rise should only be allowed if all the extra money raised goes directly to environmental concerns. Depends if they've got a big family really. I don't think it's safe to drive a big family around in a mini - nor can you get all the paraphernalia kids need in a mini. Those big families will, presumably, pay more tax to our money-grabbing state in future and therefore the parents should be appreciated and rewarded rather than penalised. What I believe is that ours and other Governments should develop the clean, cheap, efficient vehicles they are well capable of developing instead of extorting money with their usual patter of lies. The only reason they don't is because of vested interests and their insatiable greed and belief that they can line their own pockets yet take as much of our money as they can possibly grab. Petrol/diesel driven cars are a gravy train. If there's a genuiine need for environmental spending - and it will have proven effect considering the emerging economies are going to put pressure we've never yet dreamed of on our natural resources, and very soon to - then I'm all for it. But to me it's a global problem requiring a global solution. And if we then have a price to pay it should be shared fairly by all in our normal taxes, not by some penalty tax. One of the big family kids is far more likely to be doing vital work to improve the environment than is likely from a family of one. How is it fair that family gets penalised - instead of being given free transport as a thankyou? Regards...Devil's Advocate!.
Head Honcho Posted 2 November 2006 Author Posted 2 November 2006 Depends if they've got a big family really. I don't think it's safe to drive a big family around in a mini - nor can you get all the paraphernalia kids need in a mini. Those big families will, presumably, pay more tax to our money-grabbing state in future and therefore the parents should be appreciated and rewarded rather than penalised. What I believe is that ours and other Governments should develop the clean, cheap, efficient vehicles they are well capable of developing instead of extorting money with their usual patter of lies. The only reason they don't is because of vested interests and their insatiable greed and belief that they can line their own pockets yet take as much of our money as they can possibly grab. Petrol/diesel driven cars are a gravy train. If there's a genuiine need for environmental spending - and it will have proven effect considering the emerging economies are going to put pressure we've never yet dreamed of on our natural resources, and very soon to - then I'm all for it. But to me it's a global problem requiring a global solution. And if we then have a price to pay it should be shared fairly by all in our normal taxes, not by some penalty tax. One of the big family kids is far more likely to be doing vital work to improve the environment than is likely from a family of one. How is it fair that family gets penalised - instead of being given free transport as a thankyou? Regards...Devil's Advocate!. Don't they have family allowance anymore then Large families get enough back off the government as it is what with tax breaks and family credit how they choose to spend the extra they get is up to them, just now driving Chelsea tractor will seem a lot less enjoyable. Can someone please tell me what large families used before the advent of people carriers? There were 5 kids in our family and the bus never did us any harm.
Daggers Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 No. Road tax should be removed altogether and placed onto the pump price. Pay as you go
Katy Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 No. Road tax should be removed altogether and placed onto the pump price. Pay as you go Fo sho! Am I sad for getting excited that unleaded per gallon at Tescos is 83.9p?
Thracian Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 Don't they have family allowance anymore then Large families get enough back off the government as it is what with tax breaks and family credit how they choose to spend the extra they get is up to them, just now driving Chelsea tractor will seem a lot less enjoyable. Can someone please tell me what large families used before the advent of people carriers? There were 5 kids in our family and the bus never did us any harm. Estate cars is what they used. And the less selfish ones still do. Did you five never go mountain biking, scrambling, fishing, skiing, weekend camping or did you just have a brilliant bus service with regular trips to the Brecon Beacons, the Derbyshire Dales or whatever and endless available space to put all your paraphernalia?
Head Honcho Posted 2 November 2006 Author Posted 2 November 2006 Estate cars is what they used. And the less selfish ones still do. Did you five never go mountain biking, scrambling, fishing, skiing, weekend camping or did you just have a brilliant bus service with regular trips to the Brecon Beacons, the Derbyshire Dales or whatever and endless available space to put all your paraphernalia? The outer circle was the bus for me
cisono Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 I think they should! I see no reason whatsoever how anyone can argue against it. I drive a big car and can probably afford any reasonable rise in car tax, but if you can't afford it, sell your 4x4 and buy a smaller car, it's not rocket science. No doubt!!! (Fewer 4x4s can only be a good idea, especially around town. Even Clarkson agrees )
lookwhaticando Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 Fo sho! Am I sad for getting excited that unleaded per gallon at Tescos is 83.9p? Fact of life - if you can't get excited about cheaper fuel what can you get excited about? Price here is about the same value but in cents - so about half the price. People still bitch about it though, in their V8 SUVs etc. <_<
cisono Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 Fact of life - if you can't get excited about cheaper fuel what can you get excited about? Price here is about the same value but in cents - so about half the price. People still bitch about it though, in their V8 SUVs etc. <_< Even in Denmark the price of petrol is much lower than it is in UK
lookwhaticando Posted 2 November 2006 Posted 2 November 2006 Even in Denmark the price of petrol is much lower than it is in UK What makes it quite funny is we are an oil producing nation - so our fuel should be quite cheap... were it not taxed something like 80p in the pound.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.