![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Saving the planet, one car at a time
Mar. 12th, 2008 05:20 pmWell, the Government has demonstrated a transparent desire to raise revenue without addressing issues, again.
£950 on the highest polluting cars. For the first year only.
I disagree with large "Road Fund Licence" charges (I remember what that tax was SUPPOSED to be for), but I agree with the policy of charging a heavy environmental tax on a new car.
This is not a heavy environmental tax. This is a pitiful amount akin to the first service. It will be offset by dealers and manufacturers eating into their profits slightly, absorbed as incremental expenses by leasing firms, and will do nothing to discourage anyone from choosing a big, polluting car.
And neither should it. I don't see why anyone should have their buying choices restricted by social engineering through cost.
In fact, I think ALL new cars should be subject to a severe tax. It could be graded, though as a percentage it would naturally result in more expensive (inevitably higher polluting) cars DO pay more; it could also include headline worthy meaningless exemptions such as the Prius, Smart or that trio of cheap Peugeot/Citroen/Toyota cars.
However, I also think that buyers should be credited for using their cars responsibly over the lifespan of the vehicle.
To which, I would suggest a £500-1000 /credit/ against this tax for any UNSERVICEABLE car that has been disposed of through appropriate channels. For example, should someone wish to dispose of a car with a failed clutch, it would (due to the car having a projected minimum worth) instead be financially viable to keep it on - however, if the brakes, exhaust, fuelling and bodywork have deteriorated to the point where repair isn't viable, then the MOT testing station that would inevitably have failed the car can present a "Certificate of Destruction" that details the car's brake efficiency and emissions (as per the testing procedure) - linked to the DVLA computer as existing MOTs are. The MOT testing station will have a contract with a suitable recycling centre that will dispose of the car accordingly; the user can also choose to reject this certificate and take their car to fix if they so wish. Recycling centres can resell parts - so the dead cars (which will have a higher value) will also be useful for maintaining the more valuable (minimum of £500 as "scrap", after all) functional existing cars.
The credit is only useful against a new car, not a second hand car, and has a three-year expiry - so if you have a car destroyed, you could purchase a new one within three years and use the credit from it. If you've used a banger a year up for three years, you have three credits, but they're only useful against the tax paid on the new car, not the cost of the new car. Say the tax is 40%, your £10,000 car would go from £14,000 to £11,000, more in line with existing car prices. Why should there be a 40% tax on a new car?
Well.
New cars are obscenely cheap (relative to income, housing costs, etc), horribly bad for the environment, and not really required. A 1998 car is not going to be significantly worse in terms of emissions or economy, or indeed safety, than a 2008 car. Also, a tax of that scale would allow car manufacturers to slowly increase profit margins, reducing the squeeze on employment. Car price increases would not seem so significant when the headline price of the car has gone up SO far.
For the few essential users - let's say "doctors" or somesuch, the tax could be reduced.
Naturally I'd expect the tax to be invested in something useful, such as improved and affordable public transport services across the WHOLE of the UK.
£950 on the highest polluting cars. For the first year only.
I disagree with large "Road Fund Licence" charges (I remember what that tax was SUPPOSED to be for), but I agree with the policy of charging a heavy environmental tax on a new car.
This is not a heavy environmental tax. This is a pitiful amount akin to the first service. It will be offset by dealers and manufacturers eating into their profits slightly, absorbed as incremental expenses by leasing firms, and will do nothing to discourage anyone from choosing a big, polluting car.
And neither should it. I don't see why anyone should have their buying choices restricted by social engineering through cost.
In fact, I think ALL new cars should be subject to a severe tax. It could be graded, though as a percentage it would naturally result in more expensive (inevitably higher polluting) cars DO pay more; it could also include headline worthy meaningless exemptions such as the Prius, Smart or that trio of cheap Peugeot/Citroen/Toyota cars.
However, I also think that buyers should be credited for using their cars responsibly over the lifespan of the vehicle.
To which, I would suggest a £500-1000 /credit/ against this tax for any UNSERVICEABLE car that has been disposed of through appropriate channels. For example, should someone wish to dispose of a car with a failed clutch, it would (due to the car having a projected minimum worth) instead be financially viable to keep it on - however, if the brakes, exhaust, fuelling and bodywork have deteriorated to the point where repair isn't viable, then the MOT testing station that would inevitably have failed the car can present a "Certificate of Destruction" that details the car's brake efficiency and emissions (as per the testing procedure) - linked to the DVLA computer as existing MOTs are. The MOT testing station will have a contract with a suitable recycling centre that will dispose of the car accordingly; the user can also choose to reject this certificate and take their car to fix if they so wish. Recycling centres can resell parts - so the dead cars (which will have a higher value) will also be useful for maintaining the more valuable (minimum of £500 as "scrap", after all) functional existing cars.
The credit is only useful against a new car, not a second hand car, and has a three-year expiry - so if you have a car destroyed, you could purchase a new one within three years and use the credit from it. If you've used a banger a year up for three years, you have three credits, but they're only useful against the tax paid on the new car, not the cost of the new car. Say the tax is 40%, your £10,000 car would go from £14,000 to £11,000, more in line with existing car prices. Why should there be a 40% tax on a new car?
Well.
New cars are obscenely cheap (relative to income, housing costs, etc), horribly bad for the environment, and not really required. A 1998 car is not going to be significantly worse in terms of emissions or economy, or indeed safety, than a 2008 car. Also, a tax of that scale would allow car manufacturers to slowly increase profit margins, reducing the squeeze on employment. Car price increases would not seem so significant when the headline price of the car has gone up SO far.
For the few essential users - let's say "doctors" or somesuch, the tax could be reduced.
Naturally I'd expect the tax to be invested in something useful, such as improved and affordable public transport services across the WHOLE of the UK.
