If anyone remembers this one:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Reject any proposals
to ban or restrict the use of older cars."

There's a response he
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15326.asp

Willy Eckerslyke wrote:
If anyone remembers this one:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Reject any proposals
to ban or restrict the use of older cars."

There's a response he
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15326.asp

Reading between the lines, if you own a Taxation Class Historic you will
probably always be OK, but the 1970s cars that don't qualify might be a
long term risk

Time to start pressurising the Government to reset the Historic date,
perhaps?

Jim

Jim Warren wrote:
Willy Eckerslyke wrote:
If anyone remembers this one:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Reject any
proposals to ban or restrict the use of older cars."

There's a response he
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15326.asp

Reading between the lines, if you own a Taxation Class Historic you
will probably always be OK, but the 1970s cars that don't qualify
might be a long term risk

Time to start pressurising the Government to reset the Historic date,
perhaps?

Jim

conservatives brought it in, when it was a rolling 25 year exemption, labour
capped it at 1973. Make it a condition you demand of your MP at the next
election and vote conservative.

In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:
conservatives brought it in, when it was a rolling 25 year exemption,
labour capped it at 1973. Make it a condition you demand of your MP at
the next election and vote conservative.

Be nice if you could impose conditions on your MP in exchange for your
vote. ;-)

I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being a classic car owner
I've a gut feeling there are more deserving cases for taxation reduction
than someone's hobby.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being a classic car owner
I've a gut feeling there are more deserving cases for taxation reduction
than someone's hobby.

I see it more as a way of papering over the cracks in vehicle taxation.
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.

"Willy Eckerslyke" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being a classic car owner
I've a gut feeling there are more deserving cases for taxation reduction
than someone's hobby.

I see it more as a way of papering over the cracks in vehicle taxation.
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.

Yep, like the Dodge Ram 4x4 fitted with the 5.7 V8 Hemi engine! It only
attracts £175 in VED as it is classed as a light goods vehicle - yet my
Chrysler 300c with the same engine, better mpg and lower emissions, is now
£400 in VED for the same 12 month period. How unfair is that?? I just wish
they'd scrap VED and put it on fuel - now that would be the fairest solution
by far!
Badger.

In article ,
Willy Eckerslyke wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being a classic car owner
I've a gut feeling there are more deserving cases for taxation
reduction than someone's hobby.

I see it more as a way of papering over the cracks in vehicle taxation.
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?

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

But we've been down this route before...

--
*Don't squat with your spurs on *

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

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:58:15 +0100, "Badger"
wrote:


"Willy Eckerslyke" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being a classic car owner
I've a gut feeling there are more deserving cases for taxation reduction
than someone's hobby.

I see it more as a way of papering over the cracks in vehicle taxation.
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.

Yep, like the Dodge Ram 4x4 fitted with the 5.7 V8 Hemi engine! It only
attracts £175 in VED as it is classed as a light goods vehicle - yet my
Chrysler 300c with the same engine, better mpg and lower emissions, is now
£400 in VED for the same 12 month period. How unfair is that?? I just wish
they'd scrap VED and put it on fuel - now that would be the fairest solution
by far!
Badger.

I guess it's fairer for those of us that own more than one or two cars,
though I think our fuel is taxed enough already. My Libyan work
colleague tells me that fuel is 7p/litre out there.
It might also encourage some people to buy more fuel-efficient cars -
though that doesn't help me much with my VW & Previa!
--
Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by plain text email)
------1967 Riley Elf------1978 Mini 1000------1971 Mini Clubman------
--1972 Mini Clubman estate--1979 Ford Capri--1984 VW Type 25 camper--

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I've got mixed feelings about this. Despite being a classic car owner
I've a gut feeling there are more deserving cases for taxation
reduction than someone's hobby.

I see it more as a way of papering over the cracks in vehicle taxation.
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.

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

I'm saying nothing of the sort. Removing an unfair tax is not the same
as providing a subsidy. Without this concession, it could be argued that
VED on low mileage vehicles was actually subsidising high mileage drivers.

But we've been down this route before...

I know...

Badger wrote:
"Willy Eckerslyke" wrote in message
...

And there are plenty of _far_ less deserving cases for tax relief out
there.

Yep, like the Dodge Ram 4x4 fitted with the 5.7 V8 Hemi engine!

Well no, I was thinking more of the 25 billion pounds that the TUC claim
is being avoided every year by companies and wealthy individuals
manipulating the tax system, compared to which the VED of a few classic
cars would barely even register.