On 26 Apr, 00:14, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

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.

Has there been a big surge in people running 1972 cars into the ground
as daily drivers?

Ian

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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 still modification, what if someone squeezed the MGB 1800 lump
into a A40, mounted a MBG rear axle and up-rated the brakes - all
things that BLMC could have done, is that just up-rating an A40 or
re-deisgning the car?

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.

Then buy a car that already has that spec' if that is the more
important requirement, this is the crux of the matter, are people just
running cheap (VED free) cars but want as close to 'modern' spec' or
are they *preserving* motor heritage, a Minor is still quite capable
of coping with modern town traffic, can still stretch it's legs when
required and can still get a speeding ticket on many roads if miss
used.


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.


Hmm, has the Highways agency closed all the A, B and C roads
over-night then, I've not seen it reported on the BBC!

"Ian" wrote in message
...
On 26 Apr, 00:14, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

Has there been a big surge in people running 1972 cars into the
ground
as daily drivers?


There has been a surge in people running such cars whilst wanting to
modify them because they really want more modern braking or
performance though...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

Hmm, if one were rational VED is a stupid tax. It would be better to put
the tax on fuel so that it has a direct relationship to fuel
consumption. Oh hang we already do that as well.

In article ,
:Jerry: wrote:
To me that's rather more than simple modification. A custom car,
really.

But still modification, what if someone squeezed the MGB 1800 lump
into a A40, mounted a MBG rear axle and up-rated the brakes - all
things that BLMC could have done, is that just up-rating an A40 or
re-deisgning the car?

Those are rather more fundamental changes than bolting in a later - but
externally similar engine. The B series is larger and heavier. The MGB
axle has a different track.

--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *

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

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Hmm, if one were rational VED is a stupid tax. It would be better to put
the tax on fuel so that it has a direct relationship to fuel
consumption. Oh hang we already do that as well.

Perhaps you should pay a TV licence proportional to the amount you watch
too. It's a very similar cost. Then there's council tax.

Every tax ever invented is considered unfair and unjust by some.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Hmm, if one were rational VED is a stupid tax. It would be better to put
the tax on fuel so that it has a direct relationship to fuel
consumption. Oh hang we already do that as well.

Perhaps you should pay a TV licence proportional to the amount you watch
too. It's a very similar cost. Then there's council tax.

Yes dave, I'm well aware of your theory that everyone should pay lots of
tax and be happy to do so.

Every tax ever invented is considered unfair and unjust by some.

By everyone other than the brainwashed.

Yippee wrote:

(Steve Firth) realised it was Sat, 26 Apr 2008
15:42:50 +0100 and decided it was time to write:

Perhaps you should pay a TV licence proportional to the amount you watch
too. It's a very similar cost. Then there's council tax.

Yes dave, I'm well aware of your theory that everyone should pay lots of
tax and be happy to do so.

Every tax ever invented is considered unfair and unjust by some.

By everyone other than the brainwashed.

Why do you lower yourself to personal attacks? Are you out of arguments?

Please feel free to point out the personal attack.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
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.

Hmm, if one were rational VED is a stupid tax. It would be better to
put the tax on fuel so that it has a direct relationship to fuel
consumption. Oh hang we already do that as well.

Perhaps you should pay a TV licence proportional to the amount you
watch too. It's a very similar cost. Then there's council tax.

Yes dave, I'm well aware of your theory that everyone should pay lots of
tax and be happy to do so.

I'm certainly well aware many want to pay less tax and pass the burden on
to others. I take it you fall into this category?

Every tax ever invented is considered unfair and unjust by some.

By everyone other than the brainwashed.

Perhaps you fit into that too. The VED is a tiny part of the overall costs
of running a car.

--
*A person who smiles in the face of adversity probably has a scapegoat *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Yes dave, I'm well aware of your theory that everyone should pay lots of
tax and be happy to do so.

I'm certainly well aware many want to pay less tax and pass the burden on
to others. I take it you fall into this category?

No, I'm in the group that wants government to stop stealing money. You
seem to be in the group that wants to burden other people with taxes
they can't afford. You know, like the poor buggers recently hit by
Gordon "tax the poor" Brown.

I simply want a level playing field. Preferably one in which the
government taxes are zero. Since that's unlikely, as close to zero as
possible.

Every tax ever invented is considered unfair and unjust by some.

By everyone other than the brainwashed.

Perhaps you fit into that too. The VED is a tiny part of the overall costs
of running a car.

VED is a pointless tax. It achieves nothing, is expensive to administer
and had a high avoidance rate. The only purpose for VED is to employ
some useless drones in Swansea as an alternative to the dole.