What's the opposite of a 'Green' tax?

I'm sure this has been done to death but I've been away so missed the frolics for a few weeks!

Opposite of a 'Green' Tax = a Brown Tax!!!

Best recent Brown Tax:-

Encourage people to keep old pre-2001 cars which are worn out less fuel efficient and more polluting. Discourage people from buying more modern highly fuel efficient and less polluting cars.

There is no such thing as a 'Green Tax' just more penalising of the lower paid i.e. ME!

Reply to
Peter
Loading thread data ...

And the evidence to support this is?

Which area environmentally hostile to produce and designed to last a fortnight in 'motoring' terms.

May be worth you reading back a few days worth of postings.

You are right in the assertion that we're being taxed into oblivion, tho.

Reply to
.mother

And what about the "green" cost of recycling all these "modern highly fuel efficient and less polluting cars." and building new ones to replace them as more modern versions come along.

What would be interesting to know is the at what point is it green to swap my 3.5 V8 130 for a new landy in terms of the cost of building a new one and recycling the old one. The 130 is 18yrs old so far.

Cheers,

Andrew

Reply to
Andrew Rawlins

I didn't actually say NEW - Hang on a minute and I'll just double-check.

NO, definitely didn't say new!

I'm keeping my H reg 200 Tdi anyway!

Reply to
Peter

I know :)

I was following up (second paragraph) with thoughts about how long would it take for a new/modern car to outweigh in terms of environmental cost of its building / replacement etc. by just keeping an older more polluting car for longer as it's 'building' environmental costs are now currently (in out case) spread over a good 18 years (my 130 is a G reg), it of course has a good few years left in it.

Cheers,

Andrew

Reply to
Andrew Rawlins

My youngest car is a 1997 Audi, 47MPG, and still running faultlessly (other than bits of trim I've pulled off and never bothered putting back on). I have no plans to replace it (the car, not the trim), no need, it's running fine and suits my needs, buying a different car to try and "save the planet" is daft unless you do a lot of miles in a very thirsty car. Buying a *new* car is never a good idea, but you won't find the government saying that.

The older the car, the less its manufacturing costs matter, an average mileage non-hybrid car is supposed to have done about 12-18 driving years worth of environmental damage before it even hits the showroom for the first time, by that reckoning my 1997 Audi still hasn't caught up with its manufacturing costs and it's coming up for 150,000 miles now..

Hybrids have been reckoned to cost up to 6 times the manufacturing environmental costs of a normal car, but are only rated for 100,000 miles by the manufacturer themselves, so not much use buying one of those, worse than a Range Rover! The only place you're likely to see a 10-year-old Prius is in a museum of follies.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

like ...

shagging for viginity

Reply to
William Tasso

But hang on, am I missing something here (well, very probably, bu I meant on the particular point that follows?

The "logic" behind the back dating of the tax is that old cars pollute more. So why stopping at what in the end, especially in terms of LR, are pretty recent cars (mine is Feb 2001, so just within the back dating :-( )? Why not going as far back as, say, G reg (sorry Andrew ;-)? Clearly, these cars, still according to the logic, must be even worse. And after all, they have served well their owners for a long while and it must be more than time to "recycle" them. (Obviously this is all tongue-in-cheek and I'm certainly not suggesting back dating even more or recycling Andrew's car which makes such a nice sound. ;-)

What gets me even more is that the people in power keep telling us that we must organise our lives and, in particular, make sure that we will be able to repay our mortgage in the future before we commit to more long term expenditures (such as buying a car). And then suddenly all that planning is worth nothing because somebody decided to increase expenditures that we cannot avoid...

Cheers,

Fred

Reply to
Fred Labrosse

Because they only started to record the carbon emmisions on V5's since 2001, prior to that no data exists on a mass scale to make it viable to screw everyone else over too.

I would also immagine that the Robbers in suits see that the greater number of vehicles are or will soon be 2001 onwards because basically cars just aren't run as long as they were in the good old days... not because they become unviable, more because they become unfashionable and uneconomic to repair.

So while few of us run, and will continue to run older cars it becomes even less of a priority for Brown to spend heaps just to screw a few over when they can spend little and screw the masses over.

With regards to planning, just plan to be skint, move to a property either at work, next door to work so you can sell the car.... holiday in horse and cart distance and get digging in that garden... no corner should be left uncultivated! See how long it is before we all have compulsory window boxes growing rape seed.

Lee D

Reply to
Lee_D

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.