Very low car tax on big cars?!

The answer presumably lies in "second tax payment onwards" whatever the f*ck that's supposed to mean.

But the second tax payment onwards (which clearly means what you pay per= year from when the car is 1 year old until the end of it's life) is lis= ted on the link. It's =A3140 for any petrol or diesel car. So the same= for a 1 litre engined car as a 3 litre engined car.

-- =

The longest palindromic word is saippuakivikauppias - a Finnish word mea= ning a travelling salesman who sells caustic soda to the soap industry.

They say "list price". So is that when it was made or what it's worth n= ow? Because a used 4x4 costing under 40 grand will be decent.

Anyway, you're taking extremes. Consider a =A36000 3 door hatchback wit= h a 1 litre engine. Consider a decent family car costing =A335,000 with= a big engine which clearly uses way more fuel and wears out the roads w= ay more than the little one. They both have precisely the same tax.

Mind you, I think they should abolish the tax altogether, after all, if = you use twice the petrol, you pay twice the fuel duty.

I was just surprised to see them charge loads extra in the first year, t= hen nothing extra later on. They used to just charge per engine size.

And then there's that silly EU scheme where manufacturers must produce a= certain proportion of cars under a certain size. We really don't need A= LL these things, just one of them. It sticks of paperpushers with nothi= ng to do. Sack them all.

-- =

Q. What did the sign on the door of the whorehouse say? A. Beat it - we're closed.

James Wilkinson Sword explained on 31/03/2018 :

About 6 weeks ago I bought a 63-plate Lexus RX450h which has a 3.5 litre V6 engine for almost £25k. The road tax is £140 but I thought that was because it's a hybrid. Are you saying that ANY 3.5 litre car is now £140?

According to that link, any car manufactured after Spring 2017 is, yes. = You pay a huge (up to 2 grand) tax in the first year, but it's =A3140 a= fter that.

Had you bought a non-hybrid version of your car on a 63 plate, you'd be = paying from 0-535 quid a year depending on emissions. There's only =A31=

That does make me laugh this hybrid bullshit, you save f*ck all fuel wit= h those. It's been shown that a diesel VW Polo uses less fuel than a hy= brid Toyota Prius. Pointless waste of Lithium. ALL electric cars, fine= , but hybrids are pointless.

-- =

I have the world's oldest typewriter - it prints in pencil

If you get a "heritage vehicle" road tax is zero.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2018 18:10:29 +0100, harry w= rote:

But making the bloody thing start costs more than the tax you save.

-- =

Did you know that dolphins are so intelligent that within only a few wee= ks of captivity, they can train humans to stand at the edge of the pool = and throw them fish?

A diesel Polo will emit far more toxic material. Besides, miles per gallon is the wrong measure when comparing petrol and diesel because they have different energy densities. Miles per kilogram is the proper comparison.

But somewhat less CO2.

Thats true, but these days its CO2 emissions matter and diesels emit less CO2 than petrols for a given amount of power generated. Quite why is something a chemist would have to answer. You'd think given that diesel fuel has a higher percentage carbon content than petrol it would be the other way around.

But greenies don't have a clue. CO2 = global warming apparently, despite the ridiculous amount of snow the UK just had.

The conventional reason is that compression ratio gives a better conversion efficiency from fuel energy to mechanical energy.

Diesel does have a higher percentage of carbon (relative to hydrogen) and has a higher specific gravity. So even if the two engines had the same conversion efficiency, the diesel would consume a lower volume but a greater weight.

It would be good to know the correct values but take your pick from:

From first principles, wiki says graphite produces 32.7MJ/kg, hydrogen

Diesel centres around C15 which is 180:32, giving 45.9MJ/kg.

Shrug. No wonder politicians don't know how to tax them. But it should be clear that part of the reason petrol engines need a bigger tank is an innocent difference in the fuel.

In the short term yes, but NOx disappears from the atmosphere in a few hours to a few days and particulates settle into the ground. If all traffic stopped and factories and power stations shut down then the air over britain would be pristine within days.

Whoosh.

So what 'harm' does CO2 do then?

Giant triffids stalking the streets?

Learn some basic physics then get back to us.

Oh dear. The basic physics says that CO2 has almost no effect on climate. But a great effect on plant life.

You have fallen for the 'feedback' con haven't you?

Go and learn some basic physics.

Which part of "CO2 is an infrared absorber" is confusing you? That is a fact, and its not up for debate.

Translation: I don't understand the concept of positive feedback therefore I'll pretend it doesn't exist.

No one really knows what the effect will be long term, but if you put more energy into a system there WILL be an effect.

Thanks, but I did a degree in chemistry so I have a pretty good idea of it. What are your qualifications?

You're always going to get people who pick and choose the data to suit their arguments and looking at the comments section there it seems like the usual know-nothing baboons are believing them. I'll go with the > 90% majority consensus but you believe what you like.

What gas do you think plants breathe in? Imagine bountiful crops. F****it.

Pick and choose the data? PKB! Scientists producing the real results have been threatened with murder by governments who have already spent billions on CO2 s**te.

Anyway, your silly little project will fail, we WILL burn ALL the fossil fuels at some point anyway. Cars, gas, electricity, it'll use it all up. So if you really believe the bullshit you're spouting, you might aswell go kill yourself because the world is going to melt, ROTFPMSL!