* Who says what about Budget * Lobbyists & pressure groups react * Tell us what you think...
We want to hear your views on the Budget. Email us your thoughts by clicking (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Budget 2008)here.
Am I missing something or has Gordon Brown and his darling Darling, and the green lobby lost the plot? Surely emissions are a result of actually driving a car not the actual size of the engine.
I have a relatively cheap (bought new) people carrier the Kia Sedona, which has an emissions rate of around 225, yet I only use it mainly at weekends and drive approx. 7,000 miles a year. Now I am not sure if there are that many cars with half the emissions of my car but lets say there was one, if that car drove approx 14,000 mile a year, just above the average, but twice the amount of my car then surely they would output the same amount of Co2 as my car. Yet I will be paying a far greater amount in vehicle excise duty.
So what is Gordon Brown saying to me, "I am going to screw you for more tax just to let your car stand on the drive way". So what should I do, go out and drive more to get my money's worth and therefore polluting the air even more?
And will increases in vehicle excise duty really effect those that can pay mega thousands for those huge 4x4s?
I certainly won't forget this when the next general election comes round.
We own 2 x Land Rovers, but both are low mileage each year. We never use aeroplanes, instead we've driven abroad with our 5 sons. When we have the option of using the disel equivalent (as is readily available in France) we use it instead of the diesel, however I've not noticed it is not being sold very readily where we live in Hull.
Is it perhaps that the government are making too much money on petrol/diesel to warrant persuading the public to use the alternatives? As a family that recycle everything we can I just feel that we're an easy target because of the 4 x 4s! What happenend to raising the air tax?
Once again the chancellor misses the point from a VED perspective, it will now be cheaper to own 2 relatively green cars each producing 150g/km of CO2, rather than 1 gas guzzler MPV of 248g/km. Overall not a great proposition for the environment, and not a great proposition for large families.
And fixed rate taxes dont punish the true cause of CO2 emissions - a gas guzzler that does a low mileage is a not damaging the environment as a green car doing a high mileage.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of raising car duty it will lead to an increase in inflation with demands for higher wages and borrowing costs. Also it will hit producers of larger vehicles.
By his own speech Mr Darling indicted that car and lorries create 22% of the emissions. Because it is easy to tax road users rather than larger users like airlines and industry who have more clout he has gone for this dispropotionate approach.
Additionally very little of the funds raised will be spent on transport.
C K Bailey
I'm confused, I need a large car to transport things around, I bought a premier marque estate - not SUV with an EU4 Diesel (cleaner) which returns 40mpg average -with the associated higher price .Not brilliant mpg but reasonably frugal for a large car.... but in line with the current trend, the chancellor has just significantly raised hidden personal "tax" again by reducing the second hand value of my car.
If manufacturers or dealers behaved in this way, the office of fair trading would take them to court. For those of us who need larger cars with good reason, the only solution appears to be a Smart car with a trailer !
'There is a belief that 4x4s are the devil in disguise and that they are the sole reason for global warming. This is not true. However, my main quibble with the charges levied on such vehicles is the assumption that all people who drive 4x4s live in cities and use them for a school run of one mile,
'This is untrue! Many people, such as myself, live in the country and NEED to use a 4x4 to get around - country lanes, tracks, flooded roads etc.
'We are thus being penalised for living in the country. The taxes on such vehicles will no affect the multi-millionaires that live in Chelsea and only buy them for pose value, the taxes will hit those people that NEED a 4x4!'
In days gone by, the budget told us what would happen next year. Now, the budget drills on about years to come. Why?
Darling's budget read exactly like one written by Brown. A load of figures, no fact, wait for tomorrow while the actual budget is revealed by the financial press and the accountants.
What a waste of time.
Ok, I am all for saving the planet, and know by setting an example we can hope to involve others, but if you have ever been aboard to the likes of Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. or U.S.A.?
This is just to raise taxes, no other reason. We will not save the planet alone and in the mean time this excuse will be used as a stick to beat us and get money for the government to spend on other things.
T B Kichenside
The suspension of the 2p litre increase in fuel duty is a token offering that again fails to see the bigger picture. These so-called environmental taxes are nothing of the sort as can be seen by the state of the UK economy. They are simply crafty ways of taxing the British motorist to increase funds for government spending. I am not impressed.
I have just renewed my road tax online to find that I was required to pay an additional 100 to tax my Subaru Legacy - 400 versus the 300 stated on the reminder notice I received before the Budget!
I live in the country and the car's four-wheel-drive system means that I have been able to get through floods and snow to get to work when others were unable to do so. Now my car is deemed to be as anti-social as a Lamborghini Diablo, so I might as well get a real gas-guzzler as the road tax will be the same.
If there were any evidence of the roads being maintained properly I might get rid of the 4x4, but judging by the growing number of potholes that won't be possible. What next, a return of the window tax for car owners?
My four-year-old Porsche Boxster 2.7 emits 233g/km of carbon dioxide, so road tax will change from 210 to 415 in 2009!
It's my weekend car, so I do maybe 3000 miles a year.
Ironically, the newer 987 model has more power but only emits 222g/km of carbon dioxide, so owners will pay 100 less.
This retrospective tax punishes me. It should only apply to new cars. I think more people won't tax their cars now. If they put more tax on petrol then everybody would pay for how much they drive.
Those who read the Budget reports will see that the Government wants to expand flights (emissions) and encourage oldies to burn more fossil fuels (more emissions). And in London, Green Ken shows his credentials by regularly letting off 300,000 worth of fireworks (even more emissions).
What a joke - how will this Budget make people use their car less? If my annual tax bill is increased form 210 to 300 regardless of mileage, I will use my car more, not less.
Also, if my car is prohibitively expensive to tax, it becomes worthless as a used car, so I have to keep it longer before I change it for something more economical and less harmful for the environment, thereby increasing pollution.
Once again, the Government has hit the motorist hard. The new proposed tax bands are ludicrous to say the least. All this means is that the tax coffers get enhanced at the expense of the motorist.
It will do absolutely nothing for the environment since there is no indication that the money raised will be spent to improve the carbon footprint.
Anyone who believes that motorists will get rid of their cars or go to the expense of changing them for lower-emission cars in the short term is living in La-La Land.
Same old rubbish from a tired out, tax-mad government. Every time that they penalise road users, it affects the price of every item in the UK.
Global warming may be occurring but it is being used to justify tax increases and fund road pricing. It is of no use to force people out of their cars when in many cases there is no viable alternative means of travel.