Historic Car Tax petition

If people don't want to pay tax on a car they can declare it as off road and then do any work on it. I don't see why people should avoid paying road tax when most of us are forced to. I would also like to see people riding bikes having to pay tax and insurance - also mobility scooters taken off the road unless taxed and insured. The Police take children's electric cars off the road!

Indeed. And to describe any vehicle over 25 years old as historic is a nonsense.

Yes. Running a classic car is a hobby, not an essential. Nor are those who choose it as a hobby usually unable to pay the tax. What they're asking for is the community to subsidise their hobby. If there is spare money in the tax pot I can think of many more pressing things to spend it on.

I don't agree with extending Vehicle excise to bicycles.

Any powered vehicle should need a licence to drive it. Except for those needed by the disabled and limited to a very low speed.

Dave Plowman (News) ( snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I agree - but is a Rover P6 built in December '72 any less "historic" (wtf that means) than an identical car built a month later?

FWIW, I'd support restarting the rolling zero-VED from 1973 now - so that'll be 35yo instead of 25.

And, no, I won't get any benefit from such a move until (if my fleet stays static) 2014.

Not at all.

The Zero VED for historic cars "costs" the tax pot very very little. Any VED paid for those vehicles would cost massively more than that for "normal" cars, when viewed per-mile, as the average annual mileage is so low.

It's also likely that many classic cars would be taxed and sorned several times a year, so the administrative burden for a fairly small revenue would be disproportionately high.

Ian

That argument applies to anything that is date or time related. Is it unfair to issue a parking ticket one second after 'time', one minute, one hour - etc etc. Everyone will have a different idea.

Why '73? What was special about that year? It was a political move, the zero VED, and a political one to alter it.

That argument can be applied to anything, too. Free TV licences for the over 65s, say. But we're not talking historic cars - it's just any old car. And genuine historic cars are likely to be valuable so the tax a mere drop in the ocean.

It may or may not be. It might well encourage some to buy and use a tax exempt car for everyday use thus increasing pollution. It might also artificially increase the value of exempt cars thus putting them out of reach of true enthusiasts.

The date being 24 Jun 2007, "Dave Plowman (News)" decided to write:

Because 25 years on from 73 was 98 which was just after "New Labour" came to power.

Yes.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

There was nothing special about 1973 per se. More like there was something special about 1998 which was when the rolling 25 year exemption was frozen, meaning that Jan 1973 was the cut off date for the exemption.

Dave Plowman (News) ( snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Nothing - it's just where it happened to be frozen at.

Which is the argument used ten years ago - there was still '70s stuff in use. Since then, the price of new cars has plummetted with a corollary knock-on on used stuff. The age of "the national car fleet" has, I strongly suspect, come down as a result. There's less '80s stuff in general use now than there was '70s stuff a decade ago. Hell, mid-90s stuff's getting scarce now.

Never mind P6s and SD1s, when did you last see an 800?

Which is already happening, with pre-73 stuff. Make it rolling again, and you reduce that barrier, as '73, then '74, then '75 stuff will gain that benefit. As it is now, it's an artificial and rigid barrier.

In news:Xns9959C402C86C9adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.245.131, Adrian wittered on forthwith;

Possibly, but the amount of pollution caused by a broken Rover P6 is low. I certainly wouldn't use a lot of interesting stuff built in '72 as a daily tool. Rovers with vaporisation problems, V12 Jags at 11 mpg for example. The Jensen I use sometimes needs about 6 months off a year just to keep it sweet, at 9mpg (and it's Oct 73 so not exempt) it's no hardship.

I notice about 2 a week, and that's just because there's an 800 Coupe parks near my house and my mate has an 820 - poor sod.

"Enthusiasts" who only buy stuff because it's zero VED aren't really enthusiasts at all. Tax for most classics is only needed 6 months of the year anyway as lots get garaged for winter, and if you can't afford 99 quid what the hell are you going to do when the gearbox in your P5B needs an overhaul?

Either make it free or don't, but I think it'd be better if it was rolling again starting at '73 as Adrian suggested.

Pete M ( snipped-for-privacy@bogoffwithzepressedmeatblueyonder.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Well, quite.

I'm merely pointing out the flaw in Dave's "But it'd put an artificial price break in the market" argument.

I'd like to see that. The lowest VED bands are £0 and £35, so unless you scrap the zero band you're going to struggle justifying it for a bike. Then given the fact that bikes don't have to be registered, you've got no idea who's got a bike, who's sold a bike to who etc. The whole thing would be an absolute nightmare to administer. Particularly given the fact that the police don't seem able to stop or to GAF about people on bikes who are very obviously breaking the law by riding without brakes etc.

I do know a bloke who's been rollocked by the police before for not running a pair of brakes, but a) he was very likely to have been popping a wheelie or doing jumps in town at the time and b) he attracts coppers like shit attracts flies for some reason.

I happily drive a P6 to work every day and would argue that it's a lot less polluting than many new cars when you look at the whole picture - including manufacture and disposal. Actual fuel consumption at about

Agreed.

Definately agreed.

I have no problem with P6s, I've had a couple of the bloody things in the past, but for the kind of people who'd buy one just because it's zero VED, and who've been driving stuff like Focii, the Rover iis a lot more work to keep on the road than something more modern.

I drive a 20 year old Rangie most of the time so I know what it's like to constantly have to fix something...

Isn't that the crux of the matter, this is a tax benefit given to those who want to preserve a motor vehicle, not have cheaper motoring - which seems to be how some within the 'classic car' world now see things, not helped by magazines like Practical Classics giving over space to modification rather than preserving the vehicle as build (or at least close to it), for example if a staff writer wants a V8 Merc go out and buy a V8 powered Merc and not enter the world of Cars and Car Conversion magazine...

If I had my way there would have to be a test of 'originality', via a recognised car club (just as registration issues are dealt with) before the VED "Historic Vehicle" status is awarded, why should a 1962 Morris Minor fitted with a Fiat TwinCam engine have the same tax benefit as one that has been preserved (obviously I wouldn't go as far as saying that brakes and other safety issues can't be updated)?!

wot?

The date being 15 Jul 2007, "Spook" decided to write:

That rather misses the point. The concession encourages people to preserve our motoring heritage. Moreover the Government should be encouraging people to keep older cars on the road. If they are not doing high mileages then it is much more environmentally friendly to keep a car on the road than to scrap it and cause a new one to be manufactured. Of course the politicians pay lip service to the planet and then do whatever the big multinationals tell them to do.

Genuine heritage milestones will be valuable enough in their own right without needing a subsidy.

Most cars are scrapped long before they get to 25 years old. That argument would be better applied to more recent vehicles that produce less emissions.

My feeling is it might distort the classic market and increase the value of borderline age cars making them too expensive for some true enthusiasts.

Indeed, a true enthusiast will preserve a classic car regardless of any tax breaks.

I am an enthusiast of goat sex. Should I preserve an old car or just bronze my dick?