ChatterBank1 min ago
Road Tax on 4x4s
�40odd extra quid. Pah! Make it �1,000 a year for anybody who is not a farmer or who does not need it for work.
Opinions?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Lots of people have lots of things they do not need. They have them because they are available, legal and they want them. For exactly the same reasons I happen to drive one of the smallest, fuel and emission-efficient cars available. I do this because I choose to - not because anybody has told me I "should".
I also happen to own a vintage bus which I do not �need�. Nobody really �needs� a car which can travel at more than 70mph. Nobody �needs� to use a car to travel for pleasure. If we start to impose taxes on things purely on the basis that they are not necessary we really have regressed further than I thought.
-- answer removed --
I don't see what the fuss is about just because the engine can transmit the drive to four wheels rather than two. There are advantages to this that some people use but most don't but still it makes no difference to the efficient running of a car, which is what should be the issue.
The myth is that all 4 x 4's are inefficient, same can be said for trucks. For example I have a large caravan but it seems perfectly aceptable for me to use a gas guzzling car at 20 mpg to tow it when in fact my Landrover is far more suited to the task, no bigger and more economical at 30 mpg, were is your logic?
Exactly, pugwash52. The band G diesel 4x4 parked outside the owner's house and only driven to church and back on Sunday pays �215. The band B car (I�ll ignore Band A as the category is merely specious) driven 30,000 miles a year and thus depositing over 5 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in the process, pays �40.
Encouraging people to own cars producing less pollution is useless unless it is accompanied by a strategy to encourage them to drive less as well. This recent announcement is simply spin aimed at promoting the �green� credentials of this government.
If it was truly devoted to reducing pollution it would place all the extra burden on fuel prices. Those consuming (and hence polluting) the most, pay the most. This might, however, not be too popular. As I said in my first post, people do these things because they want to.
flip-flop�s original point implied that people should be penalised through the tax system for owning or using things they do not need. Almost everybody does this to a greater or lesser degree. In a (supposedly) democratic society it is not a sound basis for taxation.
Ridiculous comment flip-flop! I have a 4 x 4 and a car - I pay my road tax, my insurance, and all the additional running costs. As Judge J says, having a 4 x 4 does not mean that it will cause more pollution than a small vehicle if it only doing a small amount of miles. The only way this can be governed is by correlating it with the milage done by the vehicles - If I am not mistaken, this is already done by the stupidly high duty on fuel!
You obviously can't afford a 4 x 4 flip-flop. I can, but I also pay a lot more towards combating environmental issues than most. I own a waste transfer station and recycle thousands of tonnes of waste evry year.
You obviously can't afford a 4 x 4 flip-flop. I can, but I also pay a lot more towards combating environmental issues than most. I own a waste transfer station and recycle thousands of tonnes of waste evry year.
Never mind the �400 extra - these idiots will still find it to satisfy their vanity. I am quite sure that the majority of AB`s will agree that most drivers of these monstrosities just cannot drive in a sensible manner. I would much prefer to see a Special Driving Test introduced before anyone is allowed to drive a 4x4 or people carrier etc. Make it a severe and proper test to reflect the stupidity of having such a vehicle. I know of one young mother who has to arrive a school at the last minute to pick up her child so that she can stop briefly on yellow lines, because she is unable to park it. This just says it all.
mdoo98 - most farmers need 4 x 4s as they are one of the few groups of people who use them for the purpose for which they were designed - crossing muddy fields and other rough terrain. I have an aquaintance who lives in rural Scotland, and with the recent snow, if she had not had her 4 x 4, she would have been unable to get food to her animals.
I have to admit to 4 x 4 jealousy - I would love one, and hope to aquire one in the next few years, and to be honest by the time I can afford one an extra �40 tax isn't going to hurt. I do have valid reasons for wanting one - firstly my job can involve driving round in quarries and fields, and secondly my hobby is working with heavy horses, which also involves driving "off-road" to get on to show sites. I really do get annoyed at people who just have a 4 x 4 for the status and never used them for what they are designed for, but if they can afford it, that's their business and I'm just jealous!
I think Shire sums it up really, jealousy and envy. My Landrover Discovery is always covered in mud so I do work it however. I get the same problem of envy with my 25 mtr megayacht and I do really have one according to the Marine and Coastal Agency. I haven't seen anyone targetting Roll Royces and the like yet perhaps these silly jealous people see them as too far out of reach and don't bother.
firstly ,i hate the big road hogging things,i wouldn't have one given to me.also theyre a nightmare in car parks. and it does seem theyre only used by mums to pick up kids from school. however,the 40 quid rise is just nowt to do with environmental issues.its just another stealth tax for gordon brown.these gas guzzling owners could argue that they already pay higher because they have to put more fuel in the car,resulting in more tax for brown.finally 40 quid is not goin to put a dent in the pockets of people who drive them because they obviously can afford to run them. don.t want them on the road?,then don.t sell them. simple.
I have a 4x4, I'm not a farmer but it spends more time covered in mud than not. I also need it to help launch my boat, It is also registered for use in a local voluntary rescue organisation. It does over 35 mpg which a lot of cars cant match. We dont all want to drive smart cars.What really annoys people are the shiny 4x4's that have never seen mud taking the kid to school 200 yards from home.These are useful tools for the right people,they are expensive to run already,why screw the people that choose to have these.Most 4x4's travel down the road at 60mph to be more economical rather than " normal" cars doing 120mph. I Know which car I would rather be in! IF IT AINT MUDDY,YOU DONT NEED IT
And another thing. These people that are trying to ban 4x4's from city centres because they don't belong there. Your right they aren't for city centres they are for off road use, in the countryside. So why then are certain groups of people and the government trying to ban them from using PUBLIC rights of way in the countryside?
I work for a dealer that sells one of the most respected makes of 4x4's and think people need to get their facts straight.
At the moment everyone just assumes that if its a 4x4, it must pollute the atmosphere more.
Have a look at the C02 emissions of cars like the Mini Cooper S, Mazda RX8 and Audi A4 Convertables and then compare them to some 4x4's figures - You will be surprised!!!!
Will there then be calls to ban Mini's Mazda's and Audi convertables from Town centres???? I'm not going to hold my breath!
WHY should someone living in the city be driving a 4x4 (chelsea tractor) what good is a 4x4 for them unless they want to pull a large caravan
As SARAH KENNEDY said on her radio 2 morning progamme the other day she drove along a road where 4x4's were parked either sde of the road she just managed to get her vw beetle through the space left n the middle of the road. If she just made it through what would happen with a fire engine they would have no chance of getting through without doing damage
