Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Read All About It
Tim

Anti-diesel stuff

I presume this has suddenly become a big issue since the ambitious-lunatic-masquerading-as-a-buffoon ex-London Mayor kicked it off?

Anyway, I had the misfortune to read the Telegraph yesterday.
On the letters page were quite a few regarding diesel emissions but the thing that caught my eye, and then got me annoyed, was a column by a reporter.
Apparently the correspondent was hoodwinked by Gordon Brown's diesel related tax cuts in 2001 (everything that's ever happened is still his fault in some places   ) and when she came to acquire her "red Audi A3" she had no idea that diesels were so polluting.
However, her article mentions a well publicised report by the World Health Organisation from 2010 when they put diesel emissions on their list of things known to be carcinogenic.

I'm willing to bet her Audi was purchased subsequent to the research, yet it's not her fault that she will now be getting taxed extra because of the crap that comes out of her cars exhaust.

Perhaps the last part is fair enough but she can hardly blame it on one individual and as they say in the world of share trading Do Your Own Research.

I expect as this gathers momentum there will be a lot more crying but also an opportunity to sue some organisation for mis-selling.
Alf McQueef

Hysteria from car buyers aside, I think there is a case against the law makers and the car manufacturers. The law makers got obsessed with CO2 above all else, something I and others moaned about for years, but no-one was interested. It hardly seemed likely that a type of engine that produces visible clouds of black smoke when accelerating was going to be green, and the dangers of particulate and NOX emissions have been known for ages. Yet car makers have passed diesel engines off as green for ages now, and have willfully misinformed their customers about emissions levels.

There was a "Which" test recently where various modern diesel cars had NOX emissions 15 times the stated and/or legal levels. 15 times. Some petrol engines were found to be a few times over, but the results showed that a lot of very normal diesel engines produce more harmful emissions of some types than even sodding great petrol engines like mine. That has not been made remotely clear, and a lot of people need to be hung out to dry for it.

Doubtless a lot of drivers will over-egg this. If they claim they chose that car purely on the basis of slightly lower tax or economy, particularly considering diesel cars are more expensive to buy both new and SH, then they are idiots. If consumers are suddenly hit with really large charges, then that might be different, but its unlikely. Look at what I pay in road tax and fuel duty for a car that is a lot cleaner in many ways - diesel owners will not be nearly as heavily penalised by new taxes, I'm sure.
Tim

I remember a report in, probably, CAR mag about 10 or 15 years ago that said researchers in Japan had assessed pollution from buses and reckoned evena full single deck bus was worse per head than a full car.

I only remember it because they commented that a Porsche 911 Turbo following behind a bus would put cleaner air out of its exhaust than it took in through the air intake.
Roadrunner

Tim wrote:
I remember a report in, probably, CAR mag about 10 or 15 years ago that said researchers in Japan had assessed pollution from buses and reckoned evena full single deck bus was worse per head than a full car.

I only remember it because they commented that a Porsche 911 Turbo following behind a bus would put cleaner air out of its exhaust than it took in through the air intake.


If only we could get the Greens to adopt this plan as part of clean air policy. Issue everyone with a 911 to clean up our air. †
gonnabuildabuggy

Everything in life is someone else's responsibility or fault isn't it?

Or perhaps actually we are all responsible for our own destiny.....
Frank Bullitt

Alf McQueef wrote:
There was a "Which" test recently where various modern diesel cars had NOX emissions 15 times the stated and/or legal levels. 15 times.


One car - the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee.  

The next worst, in terms of against compliance, is the Nissan X-Trail which is 13 times Euro 6 (the Cherokee is Euro 5), after that they are below ten times as bad.  Not a ringing endorsement, but not various cars 15 times over. I can't find any data on the stated levels referenced against the Which? assessment although that probably exists.

As a buyer of used cars finding petrol cars (with engines that can pull modern cars around) is actually not that easy; I did look for a DS4 DSport but they were impossible to find at the time and the 1.6VTi would have been too gutless. If I can find one that I like, the next car will be petrol.
JohnC

And I had a great 140+ mile drive yesterday on largely A roads, passed absolutely every vehicle I came up behind, with lots of full throttle and averaged 49.8mpg.

The car doesn't put out black smoke and if BMW's official figures are to be believed, it puts out about 35% more NOX than the 3 litre petrol but a good bit less CO2 (and it uses less fuel)

I am sure that the vast majority of the diesel pollution in cities is down to old buses and taxi's which do visibly push out black stuff and stink from miles away.
Michael

gonnabuildabuggy wrote:
Everything in life is someone else's responsibility or fault isn't it?

Or perhaps actually we are all responsible for our own destiny.....


I don't think that's fair. The policy has shaped the market such that diesel is often the only option. Fleet manages will have had no choice but to look at diesel mindful of residuals affecting lease costs and this impacts on the used market enormously.

Policy was to discourage petrol and encourage diesel - it worked. To then penalise diesel owners for that policy is unfair.
PhilD

Michael wrote:
gonnabuildabuggy wrote:
Everything in life is someone else's responsibility or fault isn't it?

Or perhaps actually we are all responsible for our own destiny.....


I don't think that's fair. The policy has shaped the market such that diesel is often the only option. Fleet manages will have had no choice but to look at diesel mindful of residuals affecting lease costs and this impacts on the used market enormously.

Policy was to discourage petrol and encourage diesel - it worked. To then penalise diesel owners for that policy is unfair.


This. Diesel cars used to be used to be something like 5% of the market. Now it feels like 95% (what is it 50%?). All thats changed is the legislation. And the local emissions thing has been known (and ignored) for years. Japanese cars have only recently had decent diesels (or any diesels for that matter) as they were pretty much banned due to the emissions.
Boxer6

Michael wrote:
gonnabuildabuggy wrote:
Everything in life is someone else's responsibility or fault isn't it?

Or perhaps actually we are all responsible for our own destiny.....


I don't think that's fair. The policy has shaped the market such that diesel is often the only option. Fleet manages will have had no choice but to look at diesel mindful of residuals affecting lease costs and this impacts on the used market enormously.

Policy was to discourage petrol and encourage diesel - it worked. To then penalise diesel owners for that policy is unfair.


I suspect to think that this was anything other than a preconceived long-term plan would be misguided at best. And it doesn't really matter which side of the political divide dreamt it up (because it would almost certainly have been one/some of the Sir Humphrey's of the world that did so, and they are no-ones' servants) because of the revenues brought in.

It would not surprise me in the least to see hybrid/electric power hyped more and more, then taxed in similar majestic fashion as was (and remains, I'm sure) planned for diesels.
gonnabuildabuggy

Michael wrote:
gonnabuildabuggy wrote:
Everything in life is someone else's responsibility or fault isn't it?

Or perhaps actually we are all responsible for our own destiny.....


I don't think that's fair. The policy has shaped the market such that diesel is often the only option. Fleet manages will have had no choice but to look at diesel mindful of residuals affecting lease costs and this impacts on the used market enormously.

Policy was to discourage petrol and encourage diesel - it worked. To then penalise diesel owners for that policy is unfair.


My point was simply the buyer should have done their own research, diesel particulates is not a new story and indeed the evidence is their for everyone to see each time you follow a leggy diesel Mondeo accelarating down a motorway on ramp.

Diesel was cheaper to tax due to CO2 emmissions but frankly you pays your money and you takes your choice, money saving or emissions.

The real point was why blame someone else when the facts were well known other than it's easier than accepting you made an error. There are far worse things going on (governments changing student loan payment plans without actually telling everyone - we mocked the student the other day but in fact it turned out to be true and the government have changed the terms and conditions - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/financ...overnment-over-student-loans.html) than someone paying a bit more car tax as it turns out her car is a pollutant which half of us knew anyway.

Personally, the only two reasons (and they are good ones) to buy a diesel are economy and torque. I'd rather buy petrol any day of the week for cleanliness and lower maintenance costs, but the torque of the MINI means it's probably only beaten in the range by the Cooper S in real world performance and that wasn't insurable for big little to drive. The economy and low tax are nice side benefits but don't outweigh the higher bills potential to me.
gooner

What hasn't helped is year of having a company car tax system based on CO2 emmisions where diesel cars were streets ahead of petrol models of the same car. The tide is turning somewhat with petrol engines starting to produce less CO2 (my forthcoming Golf and Brian's C class hybrid being a case in point) and hybrid systems becoming much more popular, but still some of the big polluters are not moving away from diesel. I was walking through London earlier this week and it really struck me just how noisy the LTI Taxi is and how much they have to be revved. Cities like London will only start getting clean air when the buses and taxis start sipping from a different pump or become electrified. Bring back the trolley bus!
Frank Bullitt

gonnabuildabuggy wrote:
Diesel was cheaper to tax due to CO2 emmissions but frankly you pays your money and you takes your choice, money saving or emissions.


That contradicts itself and many people did the same - diesel was cheaper to tax and has lower CO2 emissions so people will have been getting a financial benefit and felt that it was the right thing for the envinment - they weren't paying their money and taking their choice, they thought they were having their cake and eating it.

There is also the ongoing issue that diesel is a by-product of petrol production - if we don't use diesel it either needs to be dumped and petrol prices will rocket or we use it an accept that controls over emissions will need to be ever tighter.
Michael

It's a touch naive to suggest the buyer should have done research. Well, maybe more than a touch.

The issue will be how they penalise diesel. Putting up the pump price isn't on as euro6 cars are then taxed as being dirty when they're not.
The road tax system isn't fit for purpose as its based on CO2 so that can't easily be cranked up for older diesel cars.
gonnabuildabuggy

Michael wrote:
It's a touch naive to suggest the buyer should have done research. Well, maybe more than a touch.


Hence my original quote. I'm of the "the only personal responsible for me, is me" attitude. It's rare I'll buy anything without trying to understand what I'm buying and the issues around it.

Actually that's a bit of a fib. I'll buy a cake without trying to understand it's composition too much, it's only when I'm spending big money that I'll do some research.

One rule that's served me well in life (cars, house, investments) is buy once and buy well.

I'll encourage others not to follow that though, leaves more bargains for the rest of us  
Michael

So as a new car buyer you'd have gone for the petrol knowing about the depreciation hit? As a fleet manager you'd have stumped up the higher costs to run petrol? I think you're being a little bit silly.
gonnabuildabuggy

Michael wrote:
So as a new car buyer you'd have gone for the petrol knowing about the depreciation hit? As a fleet manager you'd have stumped up the higher costs to run petrol? I think you're being a little bit silly.


I am a bit clueless what you're on about.

I don't buy new cars and I'm not a fleet manager.

Was I a fleet manager then:

a) I'd have bought what was cheapest on a 3 yr lease (so depreciation isn't my worry.
b) I'd have banked the fuel savings of diesel over petrol
c) I'd assume every April that there was a risk the rules would change, if nothing else because the government needs a certain level of tax take and if that goes down the rules would change.
d) I'd be happy that the IBM rule would apply to buying diesel cars for the fleet.

My opinion was always that sooner or later diesels were going to get penalised, as has been pointed out elsewhere there is a good reason they aren't popular in the USA or Japan. I've got a Diesel now but I bought it full well expecting it to get whacked (£30 tax only!!) at some point.

I've never bought a diesel otherwise despite the better economy, but indeed enjoyed the depreciation hit large petrols took, or in the case of the Honda which was bought ex demo, feeling the premium of the diesel car cost and other downsides wise, didn't outweigh the fuel saving. Now I do find myself pondering if big diesels will be the future bargains.
Michael

You're castigating buyers for buying diesel and my point is the market was entirely shaped by policy promoting diesel. Buyers who are then penalised on a policy that actively discouraged them from buying a cleaner alternative, or those who drive a cleaner alternative that's still a diesel, are right to be pissed off. It's nothing to do with personal responsibility.
Blarno

Diesel smoke, whilst black, continues burning until nothing is left. That's why it disappears pretty much as quickly as it appears.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

Michael wrote:
It's a touch naive to suggest the buyer should have done research. Well, maybe more than a touch.

I could go further than that.....
In the 1960's the Government decided to cull the railway network effectively forcing everyone who wanted/needed to travel to buy a car. Having done that, they then increased motoring taxes significantly, shafting everyone who wants/needs to travel.  Govermnetsalways find a wy to persuade us to do something, then increase the taxes....



(or is that just me being ultra-cynical again?)
gonnabuildabuggy

Michael wrote:
You're castigating buyers for buying diesel and my point is the market was entirely shaped by policy promoting diesel. Buyers who are then penalised on a policy that actively discouraged them from buying a cleaner alternative, or those who drive a cleaner alternative that's still a diesel, are right to be pissed off. It's nothing to do with personal responsibility.


No, not castigating her for buying a diesel, merely the act of blaming someone else for what was at the end of the day her decision surely?

to quote the OP. "Perhaps the last part is fair enough but she can hardly blame it on one individual and as they say in the world of share trading Do Your Own Research.

I expect as this gathers momentum there will be a lot more crying but also an opportunity to sue some organisation for mis-selling."
Roadsterstu

Blarno wrote:
Diesel smoke, whilst black, continues burning until nothing is left. That's why it disappears pretty much as quickly as it appears.


You what? It's not still burning. The smoke is a visible by-product of the combustion process, specifically the particles left behind.
JohnC

And modern Euro 6 compliant diesels with particulate filters don't pump out any more than a fraction of the amount that was emitted 5 or 6 years ago and considerably less than the majority of petrol cars which were built more than a few years ago.

Politicians just love to meddle in the most ill-informed and complicated manner available.

We were told continuously that the change to a CO2 based system was for environmental reasons. At that time, average petrol saloon cars were pumping out well over 300g/km and the change to diesel reduced this to c150-200g/km by the mid "noughties". The next 10 years have seen that figure fall to the low 100's for average diesel cars and mid 100's for average petrol cars. The change to a CO2 based system increased the amount of company car tax massively and changed the behaviour of those effected.

The pace of development on petrol cars is now accelerating and small petrol turbos will soon be in the low or even sub 100's.

All of this has meant that the tax take from the duty on fuel and from tax on company cars has reduced significantly and I think we are on the inevitable slide to road pricing as the Government tries to shore up its diminishing tax revenue.

This latest swipe at diesels doesn't differentiate between the current clean ones and the older dirty ones but that won't stop Politicians being economical with the truth and twisting more facts just to get an angle on justification for increasing taxes.

What was the justification for higher road tax for cars over £40,000 in the last budget? None other than "you can afford it" which is perhaps the most honest bit of tax collection in a while but at the same time not a sentiment I would condone as a tax collection principle: that's why we have tax as a percentage - the more you make, the more you pay. Arbitrary taxes based on specific figures are never fair and just cause distortion. Why £40K and not £43K or £50K, is someone spending £39,995 and less able to pay it? Poor tax policy.
Blarno

Roadsterstu wrote:
Blarno wrote:
Diesel smoke, whilst black, continues burning until nothing is left. That's why it disappears pretty much as quickly as it appears.


You what? It's not still burning. The smoke is a visible by-product of the combustion process, specifically the particles left behind.


Watch a cloud of diesel smoke. It will disappear, because it is still burning as it leaves the exhaust.
Twelfth Monkey

You can't see particulates, can you?
Chris M Wanted a V-10

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
You can't see particulates, can you?

That depends.....
reminds me of something I distinctly remember from one of my uni lectures many years ago.....
VIsible to the layman
versus
visible to the expert.

I often wondered what an expert particulate detector's eyes had that were different from the rest of us
Tim

gonnabuildabuggy wrote:

No, not castigating her for buying a diesel, merely the act of blaming someone else for what was at the end of the day her decision surely?

to quote the OP. "Perhaps the last part is fair enough but she can hardly blame it on one individual and as they say in the world of share trading Do Your Own Research.

I expect as this gathers momentum there will be a lot more crying but also an opportunity to sue some organisation for mis-selling."


My point wasn't entirely about the cost of tax but that by referencing the WHO report the author was clearly using that to show how bad diesels are and yet the probability is that the report pre-dates her choice of the car she owns (granted, it could be a 15 year old A4 that she's had from new but I feel it unlikely.
gonnabuildabuggy

Tim wrote:
gonnabuildabuggy wrote:

No, not castigating her for buying a diesel, merely the act of blaming someone else for what was at the end of the day her decision surely?

to quote the OP. "Perhaps the last part is fair enough but she can hardly blame it on one individual and as they say in the world of share trading Do Your Own Research.

I expect as this gathers momentum there will be a lot more crying but also an opportunity to sue some organisation for mis-selling."


My point wasn't entirely about the cost of tax but that by referencing the WHO report the author was clearly using that to show how bad diesels are and yet the probability is that the report pre-dates her choice of the car she owns (granted, it could be a 15 year old A4 that she's had from new but I feel it unlikely.


Same here.
PG

Frank Bullitt wrote:
There is also the ongoing issue that diesel is a by-product of petrol production - if we don't use diesel it either needs to be dumped and petrol prices will rocket or we use it an accept that controls over emissions will need to be ever tighter.


That is an interesting point. Diesel comes from the same distillate range as petrol, but the ratio of petrol to diesel can be modified by the after-process. You are right in that you can't make 100% petrol from the process. If diesel was not used for cars, buses and taxis, it would be cheaper as demand would go down and that would help costs in the areas that would still have to use it for the forseeable future - HGV's; agriculture; industry; heating; shipping; even electricity production.


Roadsterstu

Blarno wrote:
Roadsterstu wrote:
Blarno wrote:
Diesel smoke, whilst black, continues burning until nothing is left. That's why it disappears pretty much as quickly as it appears.


You what? It's not still burning. The smoke is a visible by-product of the combustion process, specifically the particles left behind.


Watch a cloud of diesel smoke. It will disappear, because it is still burning as it leaves the exhaust.


I seriously doubt it. The dark stuff you see is particulate matter that is a by product of diesel combustion. It's not still burning and it doesn't disappear because it burns away. The burning has all been done and that's what is left. It then just merges into the atmosphere or clings to objects, giving the impression it has disappeared.
Martin

I passed a 2005 Passat diesel this morning that was creating a horrible black cloud, that certainly wasn't burning off!  

I'm not an expert / desperately interested, but aren't the latest Euro 6 diesels less polluting overall than a petrol engined car was 10 years ago? (Nox as well as the more obvious co2).  If so, it's not something I've seen reported, just how bad diesels are, which I don't dispute is true of older ones
Roadsterstu

Overall they probably are less polluting, in terms of efficiency, less CO, etc. but the problem is the oxides of Nitrogen which I believe is far in excess of a petrol engine.
Roadsterstu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_exhaust
JohnC

But as Martin said the Euro 6 compliant diesels are massively better in all respects.

NextGreenCar rate all cars and show the emissions.

A 435D has a green rating of 47 and a 440i has a rating of 51 (less is best)

The diesel puts out more NOx (54) to the petrol's 15 but CO2 is less at 147 compared to a very good 159 for the petrol.

http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-...rt-auto-diesel-automatic-8-speed/

The figures have to be viewed in context though.

The figures for an E90 320D, which can hardly be viewed as an old car, are massively greater. See here:

http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-...-saloon-diesel-automatic-6-speed/

One blanket approach to diesels is massively unfair as can be seen from the prints for a 5 litre XF below:

http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-...io-auto-petrol-automatic-8-speed/

There is no doubt that petrol produces much less NOx than diesel (although with Euro6 the difference is enormously reduced) but that has to be balanced against greater CO2 emissions and also the higher physical consumption of a finite resource.

EDIT: Can you just imagine how much NOx a smelly London Cab or an old bus would put out. You could probably run a large fleet of modern Euro 6 diesels for a month and produce less NOx than one of those vehicles would emit in a week.
Martin

I'm sure there are people who have bought diesels thinking they are friendlier to the environment, rightly or wrongly depending on what the alternative is, but I agree that company car tax (employer and employee) rules have driven most of the change and that will swing over to hybrids now they are more beneficial. †For now.

I've seen a lot of Mercedes C300h on the road recently, presumably most have been chosen because of the (company car) tax benefits rather than any environmental concerns. †I wonder how many charge them up overnight to minimise the emissions?

I know why, with my eyes wide open, I chose both a Petrol and a Diesel engined car.  Anyone who didn't deserves no sympathy or compensation.
gooner

Roadsterstu wrote:
Overall they probably are less polluting, in terms of efficiency, less CO, etc. but the problem is the oxides of Nitrogen which I believe is far in excess of a petrol engine.


It also assumes that most people have Euro 6 compliant cars, the reality is that there are still a hell of a lot of cars built from 2000 still going strong.
JohnC

The issue is older cars regardless of fuel type. Older petrols pump out lots of CO2 and older diesels pump out lots of NOx.

We had better be careful that we don't paint ourselves into a corner here and be like Japan where all cars get scrapped after 10 years unless they have special status (don't know what it is or how you get it but I dare say money makes a difference - I don't expect many GT3's get scrapped!))
Chip Butty

When the righteous talk about being misled about diesel pollution, what they actually mean is that they are (rightly) concerned about being fucked over from knee jerk taxation in the near future.

In such instances, I don't think the holier than thou " should have done your research" is particularly fair.

The vast majority of people do not have lots of money, and as a consequence, running a car is a sizeable element of their outgoings. Aside for buying the car (funding the depreciation), the annual road tax and fuel costs can make or break someone's monthly finances.

UK Government say " CO2 BAD !!, PETROL BAD !! DIESEL GOOD - ME TAX BAD, ME NOT TAX GOOD !

So - amazingly, vast swathes of ordinary folk turn their back on cars that cost £400+ a year to tax doing 30mpg and embrace cars that cost £30 or less to tax and do 50 mpg.

If you are not particularly interested in cars - why on earth would you elect to pay more to run your car ?

UK Government now say " DUUUHHH ! - EVERYTHING BAD !!, CUPBOARDS EMPTY, ME TAX, ME TAX "

Average UK consumer says " Hang on a second - what the bloody hell are you playing at ? ".

The billions spent by manufacturers developing new engines to meet relevant criteria and meet consumer expectations is another matter entirely.
gonnabuildabuggy

UK Government now say " DUUUHHH ! - EVERYTHING BAD !!, CUPBOARDS EMPTY, ME TAX, ME TAX "

Average UK consumer says " Hang on a second - what the bloody hell are you playing at ? ".

But isnt' that always the case?

One reason we never even considered solar was that if it proved a massive success then the government subsidies would be cut.

One of life's learnings, never trust the government, for they will always change.
PG

It is the eternal tax paradox.
The government tax something at a lower rate to encourage behaviour. Usually on an environmental or health basis - cars, booze, petrol, toad tax, company car tax.  
People change their behaviour , driven by the tax advantage.
Rather than saying "well done", the Treasury think "ah, no money coming in", so we have to equalise / change the tax to still raise the same.
People who changed behaviour now get fucked over.

The whole change to the road tax structure from next year is that too many people were buying cars at low road tax levels. The new company car tax bands are exactly the same.

Hybrids company car tax changes will come along pretty soon - you can bet on it.
Tim

Chip Butty wrote:
When the righteous talk about being misled about diesel pollution, what they actually mean is that they are (rightly) concerned about being fucked over from knee jerk taxation in the near future.

In such instances, I don't think the holier than thou " should have done your research" is particularly fair.


I agree but if you'd read the article it wasn't being honest about that point.
I wouldnt've had a problem if they had written about feeling ripped off because the goalposts had moved.

Anyway it's all bollocks.
A mate has an Alfa Giulietta diesel and pays £35 for road tax yet got the same economy as my Stilo that cost me £150 for road tax.

I know the Stilo was more polluting due to being older tech but really you could see what was going to happen in respect of tax receipts.

I think we'd all come back to the old argument - bin road tax and add the cost at the pumps so you pay as you go.
Chris M Wanted a V-10

Tim wrote:

I think we'd all come back to the old argument - bin road tax and add the cost at the pumps so you pay as you go.

... but the tax on fuel has already gone up to pave the way for abolishing the RFL/VED, it's just that no government has actually done away with the annual charge.

When I was a kid, the UK had almost the cheapest fuel in Europe, now we're almost (if not) the most expensive, and the change is all down to taxation levels
Martin

Fuel is expensive enough as it is without loading even more tax onto each litre!  

I've just looked at my records and we've put 5,000 litres of petrol & diesel into the cars over the last 12 months.  Not sure how much tax that is? Anything more than 10p a litre would be more than the current RFL.
Chip Butty

Quote:
I agree but if you'd read the article it wasn't being honest about that point. I wouldnt've had a problem if they had written about feeling ripped off because the goalposts had moved.


But that is the point - Left wing hand wringing over " pollution ", when they actually mean " balls - I'm potentially going to get number bummed because diesels give people chesty coughs "
gonnabuildabuggy

Martin wrote:
Fuel is expensive enough as it is without loading even more tax onto each litre! †

I've just looked at my records and we've put 5,000 litres of petrol & diesel into the cars over the last 12 months. †Not sure how much tax that is? Anything more than 10p a litre would be more than the current RFL.


That's the problem - it would hit some individuals harder than others and certainly penalise businesses (so in effect consumer prices).

Perhaps the way to think of it is that we all benefit from roads, even when we aren't driving on them ourselves (so not consuming fuel): The Ambulance taking your Mum to hospital, the taxi bringing your wife home from a party, the lorry taking groceries to your local store, the delivery van bringing medicine to the local pharmacy.
Tim

Chip Butty wrote:
Quote:
I agree but if you'd read the article it wasn't being honest about that point. I wouldnt've had a problem if they had written about feeling ripped off because the goalposts had moved.


But that is the point - Left wing hand wringing over " pollution ", when they actually mean " balls - I'm potentially going to get number bummed because diesels give people chesty coughs "


Except she was blaming Gordon Brown (still!) and it was the Telegraph so no left wing hand-wringing there.
Alf McQueef

Martin wrote:
Fuel is expensive enough as it is without loading even more tax onto each litre! †

I've just looked at my records and we've put 5,000 litres of petrol & diesel into the cars over the last 12 months. †Not sure how much tax that is? Anything more than 10p a litre would be more than the current RFL.


Is that a serious question? The amount of tax on fuel is epic and it is something we all need to understand, if we like cars - I've been using to to shoot down any moaners about my car choices for years.

With fuel at 108p pump price, the actual petrol price (including retailer costs and margins) is quoted as about 32p. About 76p is tax. So those of us who use more fuel pay vastly more tax. But that's not enough, obviously - for the pleasure of producing more CO2 (but less of many more harmful emissions than a common 4-pot diesel as mentioned above) cars over 225 g/km have to pay £500 or more for vehicle tax - and that's not just the crazy tackle like mine, a lot of very ordinary petrol cars from a few years back are in that bracket. Not even all of the vehicle tax money goes into anything to do with motoring, let alone the fuel tax/VAT.

I get that the government needs consistent income, and also a way of persuading people into lower emission vehicles. But diesel drivers can't really moan - at the moment a lot of them are in the category that produce significantly more harmful emissions than they are effectively paying for in tax. Whereas big petrol vehicles are massively over-paying in tax terms for the damage they cause. And CO2 output is not nearly taxed fairly acorss the various means of output - from aviation to heating our homes to agriculture, a lot of CO2 production is lightly taxed. Whereas particulate emissions are a very real and current danger to our lives. So something needs to be done.
PhilD

gonnabuildabuggy wrote:
Martin wrote:
Fuel is expensive enough as it is without loading even more tax onto each litre! †

I've just looked at my records and we've put 5,000 litres of petrol & diesel into the cars over the last 12 months. †Not sure how much tax that is? Anything more than 10p a litre would be more than the current RFL.


That's the problem - it would hit some individuals harder than others and certainly penalise businesses (so in effect consumer prices).

Perhaps the way to think of it is that we all benefit from roads, even when we aren't driving on them ourselves (so not consuming fuel): The Ambulance taking your Mum to hospital, the taxi bringing your wife home from a party, the lorry taking groceries to your local store, the delivery van bringing medicine to the local pharmacy.


Having a "fair" amount of tax (VAT for example) for usage is ok but I agree GBB, the roads are there for everybody so there needs to be a standard levy for all..
Martin

It was a serious question and I thought it was about 75% of the pump price, but wasn't completely sure.  Based on your numbers, that's nearly £3800 in fuel tax and a grand total of £4200 including RFL each year.
PG

Alf McQueef wrote:
I get that the government needs consistent income, and also a way of persuading people into lower emission vehicles. But diesel drivers can't really moan - at the moment a lot of them are in the category that produce significantly more harmful emissions than they are effectively paying for in tax. Whereas big petrol vehicles are massively over-paying in tax terms for the damage they cause. And CO2 output is not nearly taxed fairly acorss the various means of output - from aviation to heating our homes to agriculture, a lot of CO2 production is lightly taxed. Whereas particulate emissions are a very real and current danger to our lives. So something needs to be done.


This. Can you imagine the outcry if aviation fuel was taxed at the same levels?

I'd pay more in fuel tax to see RFL abolished for petrol and diesel vehicles. It is a perfect "polluter pays" tax - it is the amount of fuel you burn that is taxed. Not the ownership of a vehicle - whohc is what RFL is now. Diesel can be taxed to reflect its higher NOX levels and lower consumption.

However, the big thing against that is that as more electric / PHEV cars hit the road, the need to tax them as well just brings road pricing ever nearer.
Tim

I thought that 1 or 2 pence on a litre of petrol would be sufficient to cover the road tax (based on my own usage).

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> Read All About It
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum