S4teve Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 [ QUOTE ] But my point was if they really wanted to stop people from buying these big polluting cars and 4x4's that cause all the congestion that is what should be done. Would you still buy your 4.2 V8 if you had to pay £400 a month in road tax?? Or would you look at something greener but maybe just as fun? And if that did happen do you think manufacturers may push newer, greener tech along a bit quicker? Problem is the government don't want peole to stop driving these, they love the revenue they can get, we could all be in nearly completely green cars within a decade, but that is the last thing they want. [/ QUOTE ] Yes I would still pay the £400 for road tax but the principle is still wrong. I think somebody mentioned here that cars only pollute if they are used. So by all means buy a big powerful car and be expected to pay for the tax everytime you visit the Shell garage. This surely would sit fine with most people. The argument about putting pressure on manufacturers to produce greener cars is valid but is equally applied if the tax is added to the fuel. My point is that just for owning a vehicle that can be a big polluter it dosent mean it has to be. My case proves this and, somebody tell me its fair that I should pay more than a 'green' car owner who pollutes far more than me. And yes I have done the sums with this pollution example and it makes me mad. Anyway without getting too mad about this, at the end of the day I would be prepared to pay £400 per year if I had to, and would be comfortable I am greener than the tree huggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Look, I totally agree, I think you are missing my point, which is if they really want to stop people buying these high poluting cars they could, but they don't want that at all, they are just using this green thing to get all the idiots in this country to back them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetrolDave Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Since they're now going to charge me £300 this year and £400 next year to tax my RS4 I'm no longer going to bother trying to drive considerately and quietly (high gear and low revs through residential areas, that sort of thing...). Why? Since I'm going to have to pay more because I choose to have a car that produces 326 g/km of CO2 I'm damn well going to enjoy the sound it makes and the way it accelerates every damn minute I'm driving it. OK, it will cost me more in petrol as well, but I'll be smiling - even if my bank manager won't! End result? ........ more pollution (emissions AND noise) = exactly the opposite of what Prudence "says" he wants to achieve (which is actually not what he wants at all - what he wants is to use the "green" word as an excuse to raise taxes at every opportunity). I think I'd better put on my flame-proof jacket .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDiAvant Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Well said Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patchbench Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Can't understand why its not on fuel. the more you use, the more you pay. Add road-pricing to the fire (grrr). Its all headline-focussed nonsense anyway IMHO. Look at aviation for example. One party now want to tax "frequent flyers" - because aircraft are obviously burning up the planet transporting Martians or something, and hyped it up as a major new front-page "Green" policy. Their MP on Andrew Neils "Daily Politics" show was forced to admit UK aviation contributes 0.1% of UK CO2 emissions. Close a Power station for goodness sake, you'd have a greater result. Waste of breath and it detracts from any real environmental message. My local Green MSP thinks that no-one lives in remote areas with hills and snow like my family in the Scottish Highlands, that we all have soot-free "magic" happy-buses which take us from front-door to workplace at 5.30am and anyone who commutes to work once a week from Edinburgh to London can simply cycle down - except if you're an MP and the taxpayers can foot the bill for the flight. There is no logic to any of this. If they wanted to reduce vehicle CO2 emissions they could take the CATs off cars (have to sacrifice Sweden to acid rain) and design something better. Rant over... sorry ... Cab's broken and its sunny outside! Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S4teve Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Look, I totally agree, I think you are missing my point, which is if they really want to stop people buying these high poluting cars they could, but they don't want that at all, they are just using this green thing to get all the idiots in this country to back them. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry Gizze - I'll take a chill pill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizze Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Look, I totally agree, I think you are missing my point, which is if they really want to stop people buying these high poluting cars they could, but they don't want that at all, they are just using this green thing to get all the idiots in this country to back them. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry Gizze - I'll take a chill pill [/ QUOTE ] Better to be passionate than not give a shite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamD Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Better to be passionate than not give a shite! [/ QUOTE ] Too right mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetrolDave Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 [ QUOTE ] One party now want to tax "frequent flyers" - because aircraft are obviously burning up the planet transporting Martians or something, and hyped it up as a major new front-page "Green" policy. [/ QUOTE ] David Cameron was quoted as saying that aircraft emit the same amount of CO2 whether they are empty or full - absolute rubbish! This is what happens when we let politicians fund "pseudo-scientists" to produce "evidence" that global warming is ALL manmade - that's complete poppycock! We just happen to be at the stage in several natural cycles where things are warming up (remember 50,000 years ago we were a sub-Tropical island and 10,000 years ago we were covered in ice more than 1km thick - so we've been hot, then cold and are now getting hot again - totally natural behaviour for the global climate), and mankind's effect is minimal. Don't be fooled by the UN funded "science" - read the reports and studies that are independently funded and you'll see that "scientists" are producing reports that say what the politicians want to hear - NOT the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S4teve Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Don't be fooled by the UN funded "science" - read the reports and studies that are independently funded and you'll see that "scientists" are producing reports that say what the politicians want to hear - NOT the truth. [/ QUOTE ] Dave, if I understand correctly what you are saying, you are suggesting politicians don't tell the truth. This surely can't be the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetrolDave Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Dave, if I understand correctly what you are saying, you are suggesting politicians don't tell the truth. This surely can't be the case [/ QUOTE ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisg Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 I agree about fuel tax , those who use more polute more pay more I currently pay £170 each year for my 1985 80 Sport -- I do 1500 miles in it ( mileage policy) and yet for £205 I could drive 60k miles a year in the q S Line..... but as already said it's about tax not emmissions If we all swopped to low emmission cars the Government would be broke in no time -- actually I think it is already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamread Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Mine = 226 g/km DOH!! So a 3.2 v6 = the same CO2 as a 2.0 TFSI quattro my wife's A3 1.8T Quattro is 226!! lucky it is 2001- i was stomping around shouting about how much i hated Gordon Brown, then i saw the march 2006 bit, Phew! lol I guess a positive way at looking at this is it will be a good selling point for someone selling a car registered before March 06 [/ QUOTE ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now