Government response to petition 'Classic-Cars'

My tax free1970 Midget did 35 miles last MOT year - largely because increasing age and stiffness makes it more difficult for me to use it. Yes I ought to move it on and will no doubt do so if I can gain a fair price and it goes to a good home but in the meantime it's damage to the environment has been pretty miniscule! To charge car tax in such a situation would be very unfair.Fuel tax is a tax on use and therefore inherently fairer than charging the owner of (say) the 1974 equivalent of my car full wack even though he or she might do a similar mileage. Many will no doubt tax for part of the year only but do we really want all the hassle of SORNs etc. I am a Lib Dem councillor but still support the good sense of the Conservative introduced 25 year roll on. However will they re-introduce it if they return or is this a potential broken promise in the making?

Peter

Dave Plowman appears to be a perfectly reasonable chap, but he is somewhere to the left of Pol Pot. To those of us of a more libertarian viewpoint, he gets rather tiresome.

The date being 27 Apr 2008, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) decided to write:

And you still have to pay for commercial channels through the costs of goods and services - the customer always pays in the end! What's more the customer has to pay for the making of the ads. Even if you know what's being advertised and can avoid those products, there is still a knock-on effect on the prices of competing products.

I don't want to pay per view any more than I want to pay for internet connectivity per minute or per megabyte.

Of course we do pay per mile for using our cars through fuel duty, and then we have to pay VED on top of that.

The date being 27 Apr 2008, "Dave Plowman (News)" decided to write:

My parents has a vdP (Princess) 1300 and it was pretty reliable. There was a small problem towards the end when it would change up a bit late and with a jerk.

I thought we'd nailed that one before. The AP box most certainly does have a three element torque converter. I could drive it in fourth in slow moving traffic using only the torque converter. You can't do that with a fluid flywheel. They were normally used in cars like Daimlers, Lanchesters and Rileys with preselector boxes.

If it were pay per view, you would hve the choice of paying to see advert free content or of watching the ads. If you don't want to pay per view, then you don't have to pay. The same programs crop up over and over again with and without adverts. I caught up on some BBC TV stuff I wanted to see via a Freeview channel with ads recently, for example.

What you seem to want is to force other people into subsidising your viewing preferences.

The date being 27 Apr 2008, ":Jerry:" decided to write:

There are lots of things paid for out of income tax that we don't use. But when nearly every household has access to a tv it becomes a lot cheaper to pay through general taxation that have all the overheads associated with the licence. The radio licence was abandoned for the same reason.

There are lots of people who don't pay tax but use services provided at tax payers' expense for free. Maybe you need a tourist tax to cover tvs in hotels, etc., used by overseas visitors.

OK, but I'm not suggesting any change to that process - merely that whatever the agreed figure is, it is paid by the treasury per household. That means that the Beeb would get marginally more, and Ofcom would save all the associated costs. So overall everyone apart from detector van drivers would be better off.

The date being 28 Apr 2008, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) decided to write:

No, I want a public service broadcaster that caters for as many viewing preferences as possible over the course of a week, and doesn't just go for instantaneous ratings. I don't think pay per view would help achieve this. They'd just make the programmes that brought in the most money.

The TVL pays for the BBC radio service, only the BBC World Service is paid for out of central taxation - indeed it has *never* been funded by either the radio or TV licence.

AIUI hotels pay very handsomely for those TV... It's true that people who don't pay tax use things that are funded by the taxation system BUT those are things that they need (and in some cases, are need so they can carry on living), *no one needs a TV* - that is the difference, were would it stop, fund the trains and busses via the taxation system and allow free travel - many would suggest that would be a far more worthwhile use of taxation...

Then you are clueless as to how the tax system works, and how the BBC works ATM, you would create a state owned broadcaster and not one that is (nominally) owned by it's viewers and listeners. You have snipped out the very reason why funding the BBC via the tax system would be so very dangerous and why such a funding method was rejected at the BBCs creation.

I hate to own up to this, but it's a major factor in my choice of a Land Rover as tow-car. As I only do a few hundred miles a year in it, I probably wouldn't bother at all if I had to fork out 180 quid a year for the privilege. And of course, it's a lot easier justifying all these cars to the missus if she doesn't think they're costing anything to run.

Careful with those generalisations Dave. You can't really lump _everyone_ you disagree with into the same pot.

Nice to know you agree with Firth that all taxation is theft and

'Taxation doesn't exist to make poor people better off. It exists for two reasons, so that politicians can prove to themselves that they have power over ordinary people's lives and to put money into the Treasury to pay for the stupid ideas of politicians'.

But perhaps you simply didn't read or understand his statments.

And the Rover 105R

Jim

A fluid flywheel allows that if the selector mechanism does. In a similar way as you can start a manual Mini in top gear by slipping the clutch.

The original description of the AP box stated it had a fluid flywheel instead of torque convertor to reduce losses - and hence the use of four speeds when all other TC autos of the time had three - or less.

Or perhaps you have a naive and rather trusting view about the real reason that taxation exists.

Unlike you I don't see only in black and white.

One advantage of being a sound engineer I suppose, no one notices how short sighted one is (or more likely becomes [1])?... :~P

Just black.