Budget - Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)

I've had a look at the website:

It seems that the new VED Band G (CO2 >226 g/km) only applies to new cars registered after 23 March 2006. This means that those of you who already own a motorised shed/Chelsea Tractor shouldn't have to pay the £45 increase.

However, there is also band F (CO2 186 to 225 g/km) that has increased by £25 (didn't hear that mentioned in the budget speech). This increase will catch a lot more vehicles around the 2 litre+ engine size.

So, if you have a vehicle registered before 23 March 2006 that produces CO2 >226 g/km, where does that leave you? You will be outside of Band F (which cuts off at CO2 225g/km), but not caught by Band G because your vehicle is not registered after 23 March 2006.

From the website:

Vehicle excise duty (VED)

To further strengthen environmental incentives, the Government announces the introduction of a new higher band of Graduated VED (band G) for the most polluting new vehicles (those above 225g of CO2 per kilometre) registered after 22 March 2006, set at £210 for petrol cars, and the reduction of the VED rates for small number if cars with the very lowest carbon emission (band A) to £0 to assist the development of the low carbon car market.

VED rates will also be reduced for bands B and C by £35 and £5; frozen for bands D and E; and increased by £25 for band F. Rates for pre-2001 registered cars and light goods vehicles in the lower band will be frozen with the higher band increased by £5.

Fifty per cent of vehicles will see their VED frozen or reduced.

Graduated VED for Private Vehicles (registered from March 2001):

Band CO2 (g/km) Change Petrol Diesel A 100 & below -£65 £0 £0 B 101 to 120 -£35 £40 £50 C 121 to 150 -£5 £100 £110 D 151 to 165 0 £125 £135 E 166 to 185 0 £150 £160 F 186 to 225 +£25 £190 £195 G* 226 & above +£45 £210 £215

*for new cars registered after 23 March 2006

Clear as mud legislation, as usual!

Reply to
mlv
Loading thread data ...

Quite simply, vehicles which are currently in band F (ie. 186g/km and above) before the introduction of band G will remain in band F. Currently/historically band F has no uppper limit. The upper limit of band F therefore only comes into effect for cars registered after 23rd March (today).

I personally found it very clear and easy to understand.

D
Reply to
David Hearn

FFS, why can't the muppets just scrap it altogether and put the tax on fuel!?

There has to be a "We won't make as much money" worry somewhere.

Si

Reply to
Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot

Well, changing it - conditionally/gradually - to a value of zero seems not unadjacent to scrapping it altogether.

Reply to
Ian Dalziel

Because it would unfairly penalise those who live in rural communities and personally I prefer to see those areas generally populated, rather than becoming purely the largely deserted holiday playgrounds of the better off, which many of these small villages are already becoming.

Andy

Reply to
Andy Cap

You found it "very clear and easy to understand" because, in the abscense of absolute clarification, you have drawn the most obvious conclusion from the report. It is the same conclusion that most people would come to. However, the report doesn't actually say that, and I'm sure a pedantic lawyer could argue it any way he fancied.

It shouldn't have been beyond the ability of the government to add a footnote (like they did for Band G) to clarify exactly how pre-23 March 2006 registered vehicles producing >266g/km would be treated.

Reply to
mlv

I think they probably want to discourage people from having a large collection of old bangers parked on the road.

cheers, clive

Reply to
Clive George

Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot" croaked:

I think they already have..... as well ;-)

Maybe it's the 'Big Brother' value of the VED database and its correlation with the car insurance and MOT databases that make it too useful to scrap?

BTW Mungo, IIRC, didn't you acquire a third shed (albeit a lean-to) some while ago - or has my memory let me down? :-)

Reply to
mlv

No no no! leave the tax as it is, increase it even :) my choice of car does 20mpg(ish) and I don't want to be forced into buying a specific type of car due to tax.......

Reply to
Tim Anderson

It was just a temporary blip. Normal service has been resumed.

Si

Reply to
Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot

Although this is true there's always someone being unfairly penalised. Isn't it unfair that a 2,000 mile a year shopping trolley owner pays the same as a

20,000 mile a year taxi driver? It's all a bit swings and roundabouts and you just know that the govt would add more than enough extra to fuel duty to cover the cost of the VED, but I'd still like to pay just for the miles I drive as it seems the fairest way.

Si

Reply to
Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot

Why do the need those tax ledges where you can easily fall over a cliff? Why not just use the g/km figure and charge proportionally, e.g. 1£ per g/km ?

Reply to
Johannes

It is a bit silly. Though I'd prefer (g/Km - 100) *3 or so.

Reply to
Ian Stirling

Ian Stirling ( snipped-for-privacy@mauve.demon.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Please bear in mind this is to be administered by Post Office counter staff.

Reply to
Adrian

LOL!

Reply to
Johannes

Hehehe have you heard about the new rules regarding post / sizes / weights (coming in around August IIRC) ?

If an envelope is below size "x" (3mm?) and fits through slot-in-a- piece-of-card-"y" you can send it for 29p (reduced bulk rate for 1st class)

Anything bigger or thicker costs substantially more, and anything more than 5mm thick (IIRC) has to be sent as a parcel.

Reply to
Colin Wilson

Colin Wilson ( snipped-for-privacy@btinternet.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

"Pricing in Proportion".

"Chaos out of all proportion", more like.

Reply to
Adrian

They grow them on that island next to that other island in Scotland where they grow Woolworths staff. :o)

PDH

Reply to
Paul Hubbard

In message , Johannes writes

  1. Smoke and mirrors. The frequency distribution for CO2 outputs will be multimodal, so by carefully setting the bands and the charge for each band you can alter tax regimes without it being obvious what you've done. You can, for instance, make a fuss about zero-rating VED for a band which hardly effects anyone while quietly adding 25 notes to a band which will catch lots of people.
  2. The treasury thinks Joe Public doesn't understand maths and has to have colour-coded bands.
  3. It would be fair. Fair taxes are difficult to implement because they hit everyone. It would be hard to implement the inevitable year on year band F/G increases if everybody's tax went up. With bands, you can spin it as a 4x4 tax or a gas-guzzler tax. So people who don't have 4x4s or "gas-guzzlers" are quite happy to see other people pay more.
Reply to
Steve Walker

Err, no.

Do the numbers, and it's actually an average reduction in VED. The -5 quid to band C overwhelms the rest, the 'gas guzzler' tax pays for the reduction in A and B.

Reply to
Ian Stirling

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.