So from 2017 unless you own a zero emissions car its gonna cost 140 a year to tax our cars.

Good , & all the revenue gets spent on roads - where it should be spent.

The previous structure was in disrepute because the real amount of emission is dependant on how much is put in the tank and nothing to do with some poorly constructed and unrepresentative rolling road test.

It wont be spent on the road network until 2020/21, might have a new government by then who could change it

The previous structure was also in disrepute because it was yet another Labour party idea that failed - hence why our roads are dismal.

Only applies to cars registered from 1st April 2017, so your current tax band will not change, and price will be same, save for any small increases later down the line.

As the C of E correctly stated - if you can afford a brand new car - you can afford to '' tax '' it

Makes more sense for everyone to pay the same anyway, everyone is using the roads, no matter how much CO2 it produces.

Then they sting you on high CO2 cars at the point of sale, to encourage the decision of buyers to choose lower CO2 cars.

Also there is going to be an additional £310 per year for the first 5 years of ownership on 40k+ cars.

V.E.D. should be put on fuel - the more you drive - the more you pay.

People would not accept an increase at the pumps though....

The cost of fuel is already hiked in the UK to accommodate tax. I do not think VED should be added!

Low mileage road users cause less road damage & would benefit - it's a fair for all solution.

It might be fair but it won't happen.

Otherwise they could tax you on your mileage at the MOT or something.

Again won't happen though, lol.

Why ?

You would pay your '' tax '' or V.E.D. contribution when you buy your fuel - simple one stop solution.

Any additional V.E.D. or '' tax '' abolished of course.

Public will not agree to an increase at the pumps, they are fickle like that.

Won't matter how much fairer it may make it, how the gov't dress it up and try to sell it, people just will not accept it, even if it could save them money.

It is much easier to pay 1 lump of tax once a year and forget than be reminded every time you fill up of the tax you are paying.

They won't accept it even if it saves them money ?

Who wouldn't want to reduce the cost of using their vehicle ? ?

Are they fickle or just dense.

They won't accept it even if it saves them money ?

Who wouldn't want to reduce the cost of using their vehicle ? ?

Are they fickle or just dense.

Bit of both, lol.

Mmmm . . . sadly you're probably right

just been to america its 2.5usd for a us gallon petrol..... thats £1.63 per 3.78litre thats 43p a litre.......................... were getting robbed enough 2bh :(

The U.K. is skint ( £1.5 TRILLION & rising by the second national debt ) - it needs the revenue :)

zero emissions cars = useless!

Dont get me wrong, they are OK for pottering around in the town, and if you have a driveway you can plugin to - fantastic! but for folks like me who drive 60 miles a day minimum, have no driveway to park on so no means to charge the car, and with most electrics managing up to 100 miles on a charge - its ludicrous and pointless.

If I want to drive from Kent to Scotland and back, I would spend about £120, it would take me about 15 hours, and all I would need to stop for is a wizz now and then. If I got an electric car and needed to do the same job, it would cost me about £20, would take me about 72 hours at best, and of that I would be sitting waiting for the car to charge about 48 of those hours, the rest would be avoiding buying a motor from the car lot down the road.

When these things are designed to self charge, or charge exceptionally quickly (a reasonable pitstop on the motorway, charging to complete capacity) and can manage the same mileage as a tank of fuel, and can do it reliably then I will convert, but I hate that we are being bullied by the government to take up a scheme which is really not viable for 90%-95% of the population.

Adoption of ERS in F1 should be the first step and more importantly make it affordable, pushing electric they way it is, is like flogging a dead horse. In addition to that Hydrogen fuel cells should be better explored.

I don't have a problem paying VED as apart of fuel were it not for the fact we already pay something like 80% tax on the stuff, that's a very high figure and I doubt folk would pay up more and it wouldn't take in to account the pollutant factors of the car, but the way they are pushing electric cars and punishing everyone else is much like the way they pushed the failed Wind farm projects, a knee jerk reaction to public opinion problem.

The other problem with this is the blatant ignoring of the fact that even electric busses cause road wear.

Surely by saying its fine to wreck the road of you own an electric car because everyone else will pay for it is a little unfair, the simplest option would be to have a flat rate "road tax" based on size of vehicle only used for the roads then a additional tax based on a combination of pollutants, not just CO2 pumped in to development of hydrogen fuel cells and such like.

So from 2017 unless you own a zero emissions car its gonna cost 140 a year to tax our cars.

That's about £10 more than I pay already so I won't kick up much of a fuss haha.

I agree with a lot of what has been said here about it possibly being more fair to charge tax on how much fuel you use instead of the result of a CO2 test. It would be more fair if the only purpose of the "VED" tax was to tax people based on their emissions, but that's not the only purpose. It seems to me they wanted to persuade people to buy low emission cars not only brand new but 2nd hand too, which current VED will do.

So given enough time the older fuel hungry cars would be left without anyone wanting to buy them and be scrapped, and gradually the average emissions per car would reduce. I'm not saying it's a perfect idea but that's just what came to mind when I read this thread, just my opinion really (not based on facts unless I'm subconsciously remembering something from the news).

I was quite interested in the £9 national minimum wage. If it actually happens in 2020 then i am going to look into an adult apprenticeship as i only earn £1 an hour more than that now. The chance to train to get a trade is rather appealing as i wont be financially much worse off whilst doing it.

Increasing NMW results in a corresponding decline in contracted hours.

In a vast number of cases people today who are now earning nearly a pound an hour more than a few years back are bringing home exactly the same amount due to the drop in hours worked.