On 25 Apr, 13:33, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

*Why restrict it to classic cars? Why not allow anyone to have any number
of cars they wish without paying any VED?

There is a difference, I think - most people with several classics
will only ever be using one at a time.

*What you're basically saying is you want the majority to subsidise your
hobby. *

No, he's just asking that he doesn't subsidise other people's car use.

Ian

Ian wrote:

There is a difference, I think - most people with several classics
will only ever be using one at a time.

Indeed. My insurance cover insists on that.

Given that my total mileage is less than 2000 miles a year totalled for
two cars, paying full whack for road tax makes it incredibly expensive
per mile. If the Government won't dispense with road tax and put the
tax on fuel, then I don't see why I should pay punitive amounts compared
with the average motorist, just for having "hobby" cars available for
when I do choose to use them.

Don't look on it as a subsidy. Consider it a proportional charge.

Jim

The date being 25 Apr 2008, Willy Eckerslyke
decided to write:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It's totally unfair to charge the same tax regardless of annual
mileage, so anyone running several classics averaging low mileages
would be unfairly penalised without this concession. It's far from
perfect, but IMO, is fairer than no concession at all. And there are
plenty of _far_ less deserving cases for tax relief out there.

Why restrict it to classic cars? Why not allow anyone to have any
number of cars they wish without paying any VED?

Why indeed?
That's why I described it as papering over the cracks (OK, make that
one particular crack) and not as a solution to all the inadequacies of
the VED system.
I'd prefer to see VED scrapped entirely and the tax added to fuel, as
Badger suggests.

I entirely agree, but a problem arises if large fuel price
differentials exist across national borders, particularly for
truckers. Also local councils might want to tax vehicles that are
normally parked on the street.

--
Richard Porter
ricp@ / www. minijem.plus.com
"You can't have Windows without pains."

In article ,
Jim Warren wrote:
There is a difference, I think - most people with several classics
will only ever be using one at a time.

Indeed. My insurance cover insists on that.

Given that my total mileage is less than 2000 miles a year totalled for
two cars, paying full whack for road tax makes it incredibly expensive
per mile. If the Government won't dispense with road tax and put the
tax on fuel, then I don't see why I should pay punitive amounts compared
with the average motorist, just for having "hobby" cars available for
when I do choose to use them.

Don't look on it as a subsidy. Consider it a proportional charge.

Then by that any high mileage driver should pay a bigger VED than a low
mileage one - regardless of the age of the car.

Other thing is that making classics free of VED would encourage many to
buy them for the wrong reasons - thus putting up the prices to those who
enjoy the hobby.

--
*Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Warren wrote:
snip

Don't look on it as a subsidy. Consider it a proportional charge.

Then by that any high mileage driver should pay a bigger VED than a
low
mileage one - regardless of the age of the car.

That is why VED should be scrapped (except for a nominal fee payable
by all [1]) and fuel duty raised, the tax will then be a proportional
charge for all.

[1] to check for MOT and insurance, although even this is becoming
outdates now that the three databases 'talk' to each other.


Other thing is that making classics free of VED would encourage many
to
buy them for the wrong reasons - thus putting up the prices to those
who
enjoy the hobby.


From what I see, in real life and from what is posted to this group,
that already happens, hence this group has had questions about
up-rating (engines g/boxes etc) classics rather than on how to
preserve and drive within the original capabilities of the original
design or rants about the "Historic Vehicle" cut off date...

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Warren wrote:
snip

Don't look on it as a subsidy. Consider it a proportional charge.

Then by that any high mileage driver should pay a bigger VED than a
low
mileage one - regardless of the age of the car.

That is why VED should be scrapped (except for a nominal fee payable
by all [1]) and fuel duty raised, the tax will then be a proportional
charge for all.

[1] to check for MOT and insurance, although even this is becoming
outdates now that the three databases 'talk' to each other.

Those who object to the VED also seem to object to the idea of paying for
annual registration too - or even the principle of it even when free, like
SORN.


Other thing is that making classics free of VED would encourage many
to
buy them for the wrong reasons - thus putting up the prices to those
who
enjoy the hobby.


From what I see, in real life and from what is posted to this group,
that already happens, hence this group has had questions about
up-rating (engines g/boxes etc) classics rather than on how to
preserve and drive within the original capabilities of the original
design or rants about the "Historic Vehicle" cut off date...

My feeling is that it would be wrong to substantially modify a rare old
vehicle. But so called classics are usually neither. And if the mods can
be removed thus returning the originality in my book it's ok. Especially
with things that effect safety - brakes and tyres etc. Many classics
simply don't have the brakes for safe use on motorways.

--
*Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Warren wrote:
snip

Don't look on it as a subsidy. Consider it a proportional charge.

Then by that any high mileage driver should pay a bigger VED than a
low
mileage one - regardless of the age of the car.

That is why VED should be scrapped (except for a nominal fee payable
by all [1]) and fuel duty raised, the tax will then be a proportional
charge for all.

[1] to check for MOT and insurance, although even this is becoming
outdates now that the three databases 'talk' to each other.

Those who object to the VED also seem to object to the idea of paying
for annual registration too - or even the principle of it even when
free, like SORN.


Other thing is that making classics free of VED would encourage many
to
buy them for the wrong reasons - thus putting up the prices to those
who
enjoy the hobby.


From what I see, in real life and from what is posted to this group,
that already happens, hence this group has had questions about
up-rating (engines g/boxes etc) classics rather than on how to
preserve and drive within the original capabilities of the original
design or rants about the "Historic Vehicle" cut off date...

My feeling is that it would be wrong to substantially modify a rare
old vehicle. But so called classics are usually neither. And if the
mods can be removed thus returning the originality in my book it's
ok. Especially with things that effect safety - brakes and tyres etc.
Many classics simply don't have the brakes for safe use on motorways.

Early E tpes could not stop well enough when new.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Warren wrote:
snip

Don't look on it as a subsidy. Consider it a proportional
charge.

Then by that any high mileage driver should pay a bigger VED than
a
low
mileage one - regardless of the age of the car.

That is why VED should be scrapped (except for a nominal fee
payable
by all [1]) and fuel duty raised, the tax will then be a
proportional
charge for all.

[1] to check for MOT and insurance, although even this is becoming
outdates now that the three databases 'talk' to each other.

Those who object to the VED also seem to object to the idea of
paying for
annual registration too - or even the principle of it even when
free, like
SORN.

SORN as such would become irrelevant to some extent if the VED is
scrapped, those who dislike having to SORN will still insure their
vehicles even when off the road, those who flout SORN probably
disregard the laws relating to the MOT and insurance and will just
carry on taking their (and our) chance...



Other thing is that making classics free of VED would encourage
many
to
buy them for the wrong reasons - thus putting up the prices to
those
who
enjoy the hobby.


From what I see, in real life and from what is posted to this
group,
that already happens, hence this group has had questions about
up-rating (engines g/boxes etc) classics rather than on how to
preserve and drive within the original capabilities of the original
design or rants about the "Historic Vehicle" cut off date...

My feeling is that it would be wrong to substantially modify a rare
old
vehicle. But so called classics are usually neither. And if the mods
can
be removed thus returning the originality in my book it's ok.

Define rare, for example the humble Austin A40 - or even worse - the
Ford Classic Capri or Prefect (both the 'sit up and beg and the later
shape) were regarded as nothing other than 'Old Bangers' when I
started in the trade, good ones were all ripe for 'modification' or
customising (usually with XJ6 rear axles...) all have became pretty
rare in original form...

Especially
with things that effect safety - brakes and tyres etc. Many classics
simply don't have the brakes for safe use on motorways.


Then they shouldn't be used on the motorways!

In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:
My feeling is that it would be wrong to substantially modify a rare
old vehicle. But so called classics are usually neither. And if the
mods can be removed thus returning the originality in my book it's
ok. Especially with things that effect safety - brakes and tyres etc.
Many classics simply don't have the brakes for safe use on motorways.

Early E tpes could not stop well enough when new.

You should have tried a drum braked 3.4 MkI. Scary. ;-)

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:
My feeling is that it would be wrong to substantially modify a rare
old
vehicle. But so called classics are usually neither. And if the mods
can
be removed thus returning the originality in my book it's ok.

Define rare, for example the humble Austin A40 - or even worse - the
Ford Classic Capri or Prefect (both the 'sit up and beg and the later
shape) were regarded as nothing other than 'Old Bangers' when I
started in the trade, good ones were all ripe for 'modification' or
customising (usually with XJ6 rear axles...) all have became pretty
rare in original form...

To me that's rather more than simple modification. A custom car, really.
But fitting discs and a 1275cc engine and gearbox plus a lower ratio final
drive to an A40 or Minor makes for a reasonably usable car in modern
traffic - and is easily reversible.

Especially
with things that effect safety - brakes and tyres etc. Many classics
simply don't have the brakes for safe use on motorways.


Then they shouldn't be used on the motorways!

Which might mean all they're used for is polishing on a Sunday morning.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.