Hi, for those who own a classic car dated post 1973 please see the following. This is the governments response to an e-petition seeking to make the date for classic car tax a rolling 25 year period.
"However, the Government continues to judge that in the light of its environmental focus for Vehicle Excise Duty it would be inappropriate to extend the exemption at this point in time."
What utter shit. My 1980's Capri is a damned sight more environmentally friendly than an old side valve Anglia.
Just curious - based on which parameters, exactly?
GMacK
I'm not sure that line of argument is likely to help the cause. Unless you want the concession removed altogether...
Yep, lots more plastic and rubber........... ;-) Badger.
The date being 21 Jun 2007, Conor decided to write:
Yes it's complete nonsense. The environmental impact occurs when you a) manufacture a car b) scrap a car c) use a car
There are minimal environmental consequences of owning a vehicle, at least if it is kept off the street. The additional emissions caused by running an older car are greatly outweighed by the environmental cost of scrapping it and manufacturing a new car. Therefore it makes sense to encourage people to keep older cars on the road.
That of course won't be how the SMMT sees it!
What they really mean is that "as we are doing our damnesdest to hammer everyone for as much tax as possible it wouldn't be logical for us to give anyone else a concession they don't already have..." ;-)
I now have four Minis, all with near-identical engines, but one of them has to pay road tax! It's not even the one I use the most...
The *real* question is, how does it compare by *any* of the current measures for cars? Very badly, I'm sure.
It seems to me that this rolling/not rolling date for road tax exemption thing should really pretty much be a non-issue. It's a tax, it's just a bit of money, it's not like anyone's sneaking up while you're not looking and crushing your old Cortina. Life ain't fair, it never has been. Get over it. Just pay the money and keep your car.
If you crush your 1974 Ferrari/Dino 246 because you can't get a free tax disc for it then you deserve to have your nuts cut off with a dull and rusty knife. And I'll take that car off your hands.
But would you say the same about a 1974 Saab 96, Rover P6, Austin 1300, etc? It's these lower value classics built both sides of the cut-off date that are in real danger. Why would anyone bother to restore a ropey example from 1974 when they can save tax by choosing an otherwise identical car that's a couple of years older?
That's the point, and I'm already aware of someone scrapping a royal household Land Rover for that reason. It was a '74 Safari, needed chassis work and he scrapped it rather than have it repaired. The government won't be upset, but it was a rare historic vehicle - one with an internal rear windscreen wiper which tends to indicate "was use to carry corgis".
Oh dear. Series 3 Land Rovers are also a bit of a special case as their identities are so easily switched. It's got to the state now that it's almost impossible to buy a genuine tax exempt Series 3 with any certainty that it's original.
MPG, emissions. The 32/36DGAV has some emissions reduction trickery built into it that the Anglebox carbs don't. It also manages better MPG than an Anglebox.
Where?
I'm not even going to argue that. But the point is, they claim it is for environmental reasons whilst allowing generations of vehicles with worse standards to be zero rated.
MK1 Essies are the same.
environmentally
Dashboard and fascia trim for one, larger door trims covering the metalwork, centre console, probably more rubber bushings utilised for NVH as well I'd imagine, not that you'd realise it driving one, however. :-( From my personal experience of capri's, they are extremely environmentally unfriendly due to the ammount of fossil fuel burnt at the power station to power the MIG welder required at least on an annual basis come MOT time..... ;-) Badger.
Apart from the dash, the door cards are mostly material but I get the point.
LOL. Describes the black 2.8i Special my current one replaced. "Rear chassis leg is a bit thin and it's been plated at least once already" was a comment from the MOT tester the last time I MOT'd the 2.8..
Apart from a strut top repair, the current one hasn't had or needs any structural work and the bodywork was all done last year.
handy if you happen to have an older 'spares car' wink wink...
Does this mean that a car which is older than 25 years, reverts to full car tax?
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.