Will Car Tax System Change in 5 years?

Seth Brundle

Savman wrote:

How long is a piece of string? I would say it is still a luxury to have such powerful engines, it's amazing how many people think 2l isn't powerful :eek: do people really need that extra engine kick getting to work? A speedy, poky, torque-y engine is nice, but it is a luxury.

I read an article recently (by the Chairman of BMW GB) who referred to the fact that the current 320d gave better economy over the Toyota Prius over a period of a year.
I believe the original test was done by which car or something - I will dig out the source later.

Carb

Savman wrote:

How long is a piece of string? I would say it is still a luxury to have such powerful engines, it's amazing how many people think 2l isn't powerful :eek: do people really need that extra engine kick getting to work? A speedy, poky, torque-y engine is nice, but it is a luxury.

Well I don't consider been able to overtake safely and quickly a luxury. The fact is some people can use small cars, and some people need big cars. Big cars need bigger engines. I don't see the benefit in trying to put people into a 1.6l Avensis. A 2l might be powerful in a small hatchback, but its just about sufficient in a family saloon.

Savman

Carb wrote:

A 2l might be powerful in a small hatchback, but its just about sufficient in a family saloon.

Come on ffs! "just about sufficient"?!?! You have to be kidding chief, a 2L is a powerful car by any stretch of the imagination, there's no amount of kids toys and tesco shopping bags that can justify an engine that size for a normal 2.4 children family imo

Carb

Savman wrote:

Come on ffs! "just about sufficient"?!?! You have to be kidding chief, a 2L is a powerful car by any stretch of the imagination, there's no amount of kids toys and tesco shopping bags that can justify an engine that size for a normal 2.4 children family imo

So you think a 1.9 or 2l diesel is powerful, and therefore a luxury. I think the only one kidding here is you. There is nothing luxurious about having a round trip of 120 miles a day in a 1.2/1.4 car, especially on a motorway, which I've had to do.. What size of engine/car would you suggest for a family with 4/5 children then.

AlanD

Lads, keep it topic or start your own thread to discuss the ins and outs of luxury cars and their associated engine sizes.

Carb

AlanD wrote:

Lads, keep it topic or start your own thread to discuss the ins and outs of luxury cars and their associated engine sizes.

You're actually the first person to mention luxury cars. the discussion was about whether a 2l engine is a luxury, and therefore people who have a 2 litre engine etc should pay through the nose for this luxury. On an emission based system, it is feasible that a person who drives a 1.8l could pay the same tax as a 2.2. Reason been that the 1.8 could be underpowered and then uses just as much fuel. Equally a 2l diesel could be (probably is) more efficient than a 1.4 petrol. Road tax is not about whether something is a luxury or not. You already pay for this luxury through the nose when you buy the car.

The point I was trying to make was that somebody who needs a bigger car, thus a bigger engine, gets penalised even though they do no more harm to the enviroment or the roads.

Dilbert75

To get back to the topic - the most useful feature of taxation, other than revenue generation, is to change habits: eg. plastic bag taxes, cigarette taxes (still not high enough but that's another thread).

It is, or should be, our government's objective to reduce the impact of transportation on the environment, in the generation of greenhouse gases as much as other pollutants. So its likely that the method used will be taxation.

The most likely vehicle (excuse the pun) is road tax being assessed based on the CO2 output of a car. I cannot understand why it hasn't happened yet. Even from a PR point of view, its a winner for them. It doesn't have to generate less money - you can generate the same or more money as with engine-size ratings, but you're appearing to do it with environmental concern. (On the same basis it baffles me why they continue to charge VAT on top of VRT - why not increase the VRT rate by 21% and charge it on the pre-tax price?). To me its a no-brainer - unfortunately that makes it much like our Transport Minister and the rest of our current administration.

The reason I expect that Governments would be less inclined towards a pay per use system (fuel tax) is that its unpredictable. People don't change their cars so regularly so any shifts in trends would be slower and more predictable and revenue streams could be adjusted as necessary.

Guy:Incognito

Savman wrote:

Come on ffs! "just about sufficient"?!?! You have to be kidding chief, a 2L is a powerful car by any stretch of the imagination, there's no amount of kids toys and tesco shopping bags that can justify an engine that size for a normal 2.4 children family imo

My car weighs 1635kg. I used to have the 2l version of it that was horribly underpowered. I now drive the 2.5 l one that moves the car properly abd doesnt feel like a lumbering lump taking off. I get the very same mpg due to the fact that the weight is being pulled much easier.

It's a bloody disgrace that a car like the scenic is sold as a 1.4. It wouldnt pull the socks off a dead man. The car is just far too big and heavy for the engine. This problem is the same through most manufacturers range with their entry level engines. This was talked about in the "special models for Ireland" thread. I put my toolbox in the boot of the missus scenic along with a skillsaw and a couple of other bits. The car nearly had a heart attack with the extra weight. It just should not be sold as a 1.4.