Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    :hmm: It was for spamming, not for being "rude and uncouth" :p:
    My clogged up email inbox would contend that they aren't mutually exclusive. Or I would, on its behalf.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
    I don't see any warning points next to MY name.
    Yo yo yo. I got warned for the same thing as him. ukebert and I may have been spamming together. Fraternising with the enemy.

    Anyways, just wondering when we're going to see a rewrite of this bill. I've been checking my moral compass for SUV related feelings and I'm not getting much, except for the general feeling that they're far too bad for the environment. I guess that means I support this bill then? I'll have to stop my brain from getting in the way.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
    I think I accepted incorporated the idea of those words being relative into my response, but whatever.

    <snip>
    Good post - quite a few good points in there. My biggest issue was that you seemed to be alluding that I was suggesting banning fuel altogether... I'm just asking that it be taxed more. People who need to drive would still be perfectly able to; people who have a choice would be pushed elsewhere. It's like smoking (every argument seems to be able to use smoking as an analogy! ) - we have punitive duties on tobacco, and a lot of people don't smoke as a direct result of the cost, while plenty of people who really want to still can. There's reasonably good economic theory behind this - changing the marginal cost, through taxation, targets people in order of who needs fuel least.

    On the "we have to do something" point, I'm proposing going further than you - I might just vote in favour of this bill if it was simply "big extra road tax on the top two categories", dropping any exclusions. I'd still prefer a "more fuel tax" option, though, as I think it would (a) do more and (b) render this bill redundant.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This is rediculous! Firstly, how can you possibly decide about taxation on an individual basis, not only is it an administrative nightmare, which would most likely use up more than the revenue increase, it is a bizarre way of controlling externalities. I live in the wilds of shropshire, so can I go out and buy a big SUV, and get money back from the government, even though I manage fine with my little FWD car now???? Also subsidising cars that do damage to the environment to make 'people with a genuine need' able to have them?? I can't see the point in this as those who do have a need will most likely chalk them down for business use and gain tax breaks etc anyway! (still, I see this has been scrapped thankfully).

    Also, why only bother those driving SUV's? why not tax sports cars with high emissions as well? Oh wait, thats what the current system does without singling out specific individuals for increased taxation. this is just a superficial witch hunt designed to look like environmental action is being taken. (besides, 1: who are the govenment to decide what car I want to drive, and 2: manufacturers willl reclassify vehicles to get round it)

    No offence socialists, but its a stupid bill IMO
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lodzinski)
    This is rediculous! Firstly, how can you possibly decide about taxation on an individual basis, not only is it an administrative nightmare, which would most likely use up more than the revenue increase, it is a bizarre way of controlling externalities.
    You think putting a tax on a specific item is bizarre? I think you need to go back and retake some basic economics.


    I live in the wilds of shropshire, so can I go out and buy a big SUV, and get money back from the government, even though I manage fine with my little FWD car now????
    LOL. Try reading the bill before you comment. The proposed rebates will be given to people who CAN'T manage fine with a little car.

    Also, why only bother those driving SUV's? why not tax sports cars with high emissions as well? Oh wait, thats what the current system does without singling out specific individuals for increased taxation.
    Fair point. I believe there was some discussion about this on the sub-forum -- I may have dreamt it, though. I think someone thought that the "s" in suv implied sports cars as well. I dunno.

    this is just a superficial witch hunt designed to look like environmental action is being taken. (besides, 1: who are the govenment to decide what car I want to drive, and 2: manufacturers willl reclassify vehicles to get round it)
    Um.
    1. Who are the government to decide what you earn at all? So maybe we should allow you to own plutonium and explode it at the local shopping mall?
    2. I think we'll probably have a technical definition of SUV drawn up by civil servants.

    And yes, I feel like one of the bad guys from The Crucible. Us socialists and our mad, deluded fundamentalism, wanting to tax people who are destroying the planet.

    No offence socialists, but its a stupid bill IMO
    Maybe. But that was a very stupid post. No offence.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    im not talking about taxing an individual item - thats correcting an externality, which is fine, but having different rates of taxation for individual people depending on circumstances, which would be just rediculously difficult to impliment and take up far to much time IMO.

    Also, I know many people who could reasonably justify needing an SUV ( I could, but can't afford the running costs) but don't have one. by offering breaks for people who can put forward a case is encouraging people to buy SUVs, rather than discouraging their use, perhaps further damaging the environment.

    The technical definition of an SUV is a performance vehicle built on a 4x4 or similar off road chassis - examples would be the range rover sport, porsche cayenne, bmw X5 (all of which are cars in the £50k plus band, so perhaps the level of tax needs to be considered as it may not have a great deterrant effect on those who can afford these cars)

    In addition to this, consider the Lexus RX400h. this has a V6 engine, but also uses Hybrid Synergy Drive (electric motors to the lay person) which improves its fuel economy. In fact I believe it would fall nicely just outside the taxation band you propose, and other manufacturers are set to follow suit.

    Also, just a general question, why the motorist? why not shipping, or aviation or industry, but the motorist. Obviously being taxed so highly that petrol costs £1.10 per litre, having to pay the standard RFL of about £200 p.a, plus insurance (which on anything above a bicycle tends to cost an arm and a leg unless you have the world's cleanest record) is not enough. Obviously the motorist needs to be taxed even more for having the AUDACITY to want a nice car.

    The current system is based on CO2 emissions as it is. If you want to increase revenue from highly polluting cars then why not just up the level of the RFL in the top band/s?? this just seems like change for change's sake to me.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ukebert)
    I beg your pardon? I sincerely hope, sir, that you are not tarring me with the same brush as you are the others? Or I may have to challenge you, and we remember what happened last time
    Certainly not sir, you are exempted from my classification of socialists.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lodzinski)
    not only is it an administrative nightmare, which would most likely use up more than the revenue increase, it is a bizarre way of controlling externalities.
    This is exactly the point which worries me most about this bill, it just seems like more red tap for very little action. Also we must think that if someone can afford a big SUV like a Porsche Cayenne or a Landrover than they will be quite able to pay £2500 extra, which will then be ploughed back into paying the cost to administer such a scheme. Most people will not give up their SUV's because they can afford to run them, afford to pay the fine and they believe that other industries and countries are more responsible in poluting the environment than themselves. Therefore this bill will not change anything except make voters dislike socialists even more than they already do, there is a very good reason why the Labour party has moved to the centre :p:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    lets consider a few list prices (not including running costs etc) of a few fairly popular SUVs:

    BMW X5 - £40,000-60,000

    Porsche Cayenne - £c40,000-75,000

    Range Rover sport - £35,000- 57,750 (the big rangey goes all the way to £77k :O

    Lexus RX - £32,000-c45,000.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lodzinski)
    lets consider a few list prices (not including running costs etc) of a few fairly popular SUVs:

    BMW X5 - £40,000-60,000

    Porsche Cayenne - £c40,000-75,000

    Range Rover sport - £35,000- 57,750 (the big rangey goes all the way to £77k :O

    Lexus RX - £32,000-c45,000.
    Remember most of the people have already paid a hell of a lot of tax already from their earnings, (likely 40%) couple this with the VAT on vehicles and they are adding a hefty sum to HM Treasury's resources. If you tax people then expect possibly a brain drain and a drop in high end car sales, both leading to disastrous effects on the economy which I know the socialists don't understand.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    The socialists have asked me to put discussion on hold for the time being, they are using their 7 day Cessation so they can make alterations to fit in with real life.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 10, 2008
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.