Independent Renault Forums banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
43,291 Posts
Taxing Big gas guzzlers

Yeh I agree Ottoman and usually one person on board - maybe they need all that space for their head and big fat wallets.:rofl:
 

·
Still a Petrolhead but also like diesel
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
Dont get carried away too much guys.... dont forget if Renault still produced the 3.0ltr diesel engine it would fall into this "super 225 G/KM" tax bracket .... as luck has it nothing in the roadtax world is retrospective (yet) so if purchased before last April your stuck in the F class .... but its too close for comfort as my 2.2dCi is rated at 206G/KM .... and I really would not call either of them a gas guzzler or a Chelsea tractor!

As usual its nothing to do with the enviroment, its just a way of getting brownie points by riding the green ticket ... oh, yeah, I almost forgot .... and taxing the motorist even harder ...I mean what percentage of "4x4's" make up the G band, and how many "sports cars" use diesel engines ?

Get real ... its another tax con ... (good lord I'm starting to sound like Jeremy Clarkson ... except I kinda like my diesel people carrier.)


:eek:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
43,291 Posts
Hi, Trucks what's up with you today - off on a wee rant of your own. I simply look at it this way - fuel ain't gonna last for ever - now is it. So the less we use uneccessarily the longer it will last - so the longer we get to drive. Do you believe we should be allowed to drive whatever we want without some sort of restriction.:rolleyes:
 
O

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Get real ... its another tax con ... (good lord I'm starting to sound like Jeremy Clarkson ... except I kinda like my diesel people carrier.)

:eek:
Certainly is - put it this way, I pay more road tax for my family oriented 2.2 Mitsubishi Grandis than I do for my enviro-selfish Porsche 911 which has an engine over 50% bigger :crazy:

Actually though, the 911 does more to the gallon than the Grandis which is part of the reason why it won't see the year out with me :rolleyes:

Once again these losers are jumping on the 4x4 bandwaggon which will no doubt gain them votes in the labour areas and make no difference in the areas which vote the cons anyway.

Politicians :rant:
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
I simply look at it this way - fuel ain't gonna last for ever - now is it. So the less we use uneccessarily the longer it will last - so the longer we get to drive. Do you believe we should be allowed to drive whatever we want without some sort of restriction.:rolleyes:
The motor manufactures must play a bigger part in fuel consumption issues.

Until our conservation Idea's are adopted by the bigger countries and including the up and coming countries like india and china, our drop in the ocean conservation will make little difference.

Money making is the name of the game, "global warming little more than hysteria "
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,475 Posts
Hi, Trucks what's up with you today - off on a wee rant of your own. I simply look at it this way - fuel ain't gonna last for ever - now is it. So the less we use uneccessarily the longer it will last - so the longer we get to drive. Do you believe we should be allowed to drive whatever we want without some sort of restriction.:rolleyes:
What harm is a 4x4 really doing if it's being driven 50 miles a week? Is the driver really doing more harm than someone with a Smart who does 200 miles a week? Of course not - the differences aren't that great at all. Without taking the absolute extremes, there's typically no more than a 2 to 3 times improvement between driving one of the thirstiest cars you can and driving one of the most economical.

Besides, if it's really about emissions and natural resources, then why stop at this? A much more effective solution would be to limit everyone's household central heating system to 18 degrees C in every room. They could soon come up with new thermostatic radiator valves that could do this, and of course make it an offence to tamper with them or heat your house by other means (and if you do, they could take a leaf out of their road charging proposals and send you to prison, where it's only 15 degrees in your cell in winter :p)

It's not about emissions and natural resources though is it? It's about squeezing that little bit more out of the general public in a way that won't upset too many people. There's a lot of ill feeling towards 4x4's and sports cars, largely thanks to that part of the British psyche that ingrains our people with a heartfelt resentment towards anyone who's doing better than they are. By peeing on the bonfire of the Chelsea tractor brigade, the politicians can grab a few more quid to flush down the toilet and they might just win back a few of the voters that they've ticked off in other areas.

Here's hoping it's too little too late for this bunch. Still, you can't blame them for trying.

Edit: Just to add - I might start to take their stance on green issues a bit more seriously the day that Prescott swaps at least one of his Jags for a Prius
 
O

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Hi OG - Apart from your political rant - Exactly what point are you trying to make.:confused:
I'm making an abstract point that it is crazy.

Horatio has since made a couple of good points that i entirely agree with.

A lot of people who buy cars with good fuel economy do so because they do lots of miles, probably a lot more than, for example, Missus OG in the Grandis - so let's say somebody in their frugal clio diesel does 20,000 miles in a year rather than her 5 or 6,000, chances are they are causing more environmental damage than her so why should I pay more Road Tax.

We're already paying over 70% tax on the fuel we use so those who use more pay more, this is political crap, not something that will help the environment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
43,291 Posts
Nice rant Horatio but pity it didn't answer the question. You sure your not a politician - it was a typical politicians answer. Rant, rave, go off on a tangent (seen it all before). I just asked the question should there be a limit on the size of what people should be able to drive. And your 2-3 times more should read 200%-300% - I don't know about you but that's a helluva lot in my book. I'm sure others reading this thread would like to hear your answer the question.:steam:
 

·
Let's be carefull out there
Joined
·
19,360 Posts
Just to slightly hijack the thread, I have a plan:

Forget talk of ideology either political or religous, most recent wars / conflicts are about who controls the dwindling oil resources. If we remove the reliance on oil we remove the need for conflict. The technology is there for electric cars, solar, geothermal and wind / water power. If more money was spent on developing these energy sources and less on cleaning up after polution or fighting wars to get oil we would have a cleaner peaceful world.

Vote Chris for world president, you know it makes sense.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,475 Posts
Nice rant Horatio but pity it didn't answer the question. You sure your not a politician - it was a typical politicians answer. Rant, rave, go off on a tangent (seen it all before). I just asked the question should there be a limit on the size of what people should be able to drive. And your 2-3 times more should read 200%-300% - I don't know about you but that's a helluva lot in my book. I'm sure others reading this thread would like to hear your answer the question.:steam:
Straight answer then: No.

Jusification? None, other than that I don't feel the government has any more right to dictate which car I drive than they do to dictate how big my house is or how warm I keep it in winter. Still, there's a council tax review in the pipeline (just 'axed' but only until after the next election) and they added VAT to domestic fuel a few years back. I wonder how long it'll be before they start stacking huge duty levies on it.

Agreed, 200-300% is a large increase (I read it exactly the same as 2-3 times) and someone doing high mileages in a large vehicle should be encouraged to downsize, as they already are by fuel duty. My point was to question whether 'school run' 4x4's actually do that much environmental damage, especially when (according to the article) there's only around a quarter of a million of the real guzzlers on the road. Motoring is already the tip of the iceberg when it comes to carbon emissions, so why are we looking at the tip of that tip?
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Just to slightly hijack the thread, I have a plan:

Forget talk of ideology either political or religous, most recent wars / conflicts are about who controls the dwindling oil resources. If we remove the reliance on oil we remove the need for conflict. The technology is there for electric cars, solar, geothermal and wind / water power. If more money was spent on developing these energy sources and less on cleaning up after polution or fighting wars to get oil we would have a cleaner peaceful world.

Vote Chris for world president, you know it makes sense.
my vote chris
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top