Tax changes in budget

Presumably the existing bands remain (possibly inflation adjusted). And these 6 "new bands" apply only to vehicles registered from 2009?

I see that the 2p/l fuel duty increase due this/next month has been postponed to October.

Nearly a £1000 bill for many though !!!!!!

Sure but only on new cars and for the first year, and given that apparently the average family car costs 16K then most of those will be fuel-efficient, which is fine, it'll only be those who really want a particular car that will be able to stomach the extra cost. So the herd will be pushed towards more fuel efficient cars while those who want something special will pay a little more of a premium. The only downside really is that there'll be less interesting hardware hitting the second-hand market for cheapskates like me!

Nope

The anomaly is now even greater between identical cars made just either side of the magic date - e.g. an Astra 1.7 diesel estate, 132g/km, will cost £200 per year in VED if it's Feb 2001 (Table A8b), but £110 if it's Mar 2001. There will be even greater anomalies, I expect. I couldn't find any reference to Historic Vehicle rates, but, unless they've abolished the zero rate, £200 for a 1973 Landy, against 0 for a 1972 one will encourage even more creative reconstruction.

Shift the decimal place one right for me. You're obviously earning too much to get a decent working tax credit and/or don't have any kids.

Sadly us sensible childless lot have to subsidise the sprog droppers, and we have to pay for our own pensions too! Humbug, time to emigrate, oops, what am I saying!

We've only got two and that isn't enough to properly replace us when we go, even though they are one of each.

So do I.

No sprogs, no inheritance :)

On or around Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:19:02 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice" enlightened us thusly:

There are something around 2 billion more people on the planet than is, I suspect, sustainable long-term already. We don't actually need population growth.

American Billions, mind, not real ones. It's still a lot of people, all farting and using up the oil and generally buggering up the world.

Quite right Bar Stweards. My May 2001 registered TD5 DII @ 262g/km is:

=A3245 increase next year or roughly 3 tanks of fuel at todays prices, l= ess by then.

Only because the vast majority of those 2bn will have way more than 2 kids. If they only had 2 the population would crash, not fall.

I also interpreted "sprog droppers" to mean those with >3 kids from several fathers (or mothers) living on benefits. Like the teenage lad with

Agreed. Even with two kids I'm not contributing to poulation growth. Even in this country with good health care and child hood survival rates you have to have over 2 kids to maintain the population size. For most of the world half a dozen kids is required but that is falling all the time but unfortunately old habits die hard.

Population growth is highest in the poorest countries, and the wealthier a country gets the fewer children it has, which is the reverse of what you might think is sensible, but I suppose that you need more people for a country to develop sufficiently for it to afford less people ;-)

However getting back to the environmental impact, my carbon footprint ends with me, whereas those who have kids it extends way past their lifetime which is a semi-serious point I use to prod those who rabbit on about climate change while bringing up their kids!

And if for example you are buying a top of the range RR is an extra £500 road tax on the first year really going to put you off?

If it were every year then the value in the 2nd hand market would drop significantly and that might just deter people from buying in the first place.

Indeed, hence my comment about the average family car being the only sector that'll really be affected, and arguably that's as it should be given that it's the one that does the damage. The majority of the damage is done by the majority of the people after all. Niche cars are an irrelevance other than to the green-eyed monster (which is dressed up in environmental clothes).

As far as I'm concerned the most environmentally friendly car is the one you already have due to the costs of building cars but discouraging people from buying new cars isn't something any government is ever going to do.

On or around Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:01:14 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice" enlightened us thusly:

And is that going to persuade you to go out and buy a ford fiesta?

...thought not.

On or around Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:24:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice" enlightened us thusly:

balls. There are getting on for 6 billion world population. If they all only have 1 sprog on average worldwide, then it'd still take about 20 years to get much of a drop in population.

now, they're not helping, I grant you. Although really, education would be better than castration.

yebbut, that's the point. we don't need to maintain population size, we could well do with halving it, worldwide. And, indeed, in this country.

In message , Austin Shackles writes

Quiet. The population level has been determined roughly at that necessary to support the economic activity prior to the huge gains in efficiency brought about by the silicon chip and the demise of our heavy industries.

We ought to have a town twinning project - and obliterate one of the twins as we don't need them both. e.g. Cardiff and Swansea, Portsmouth and Southampton, Derby and Nottingham, Manchester and , well just Manchester.

With which sentiment as the owner of a 1998 Defender V8 I wholeheartedly concur.

Err... Could I ask for London to be added to that list please? But I'd keep Manchester. :-)