*BREAKING NEWS* Tax Exemption extended to 1974!
- Thread starter redrover
- Start date
Pilkie said:
I'm quite glad that it's a 40 year-old cut off, as at least by that stage, almost all of the cars are owned by enthusiasts, whereas an awful lot of cars can, with a little help, survive to 30. If the numbers are kept relatively small, it means that there are fewer chances of the use of our cars being restricted, as is the case in some other countries. I'm pretty sure that the 40 year-old exemption will come in, and this will lead to a much more steady market, and fewer rash decisions by owners.
NickDunning
Active Member
I have a feeling we're looking, long term, at a 40 year rolling then. Could be a lot worse.
Pilkie
Active Member
I would imagine there are more 1974-1980 cars than 1980-1984 cars surviving, as imho the built quality really went to pot in the 80's with Ford/Vauxhall/Austin Rover!
Built to last wasn't on their mind,more like built to last 10-15yrs then scrap it!
Performance technology,the microchip,electronics,and associated bonkers parts prices all killed the s/h market for many cars from the last 20yrs!
That 1999 XK8 I bought,if the gearbox or engine had gone bang,,due to the built in technology,it was as good as scrap,as a new box costs way more than the car was worth!
Some will make it,some will fix them at whatever cost.
Many owners were hoping for the 25yr to be reinstated,but could tolerate a stretch to 30yrs,but a big hike up to 40yrs,they will be very unhappy!
It seems its always a token gesture or slap in the face!
Still when does a Govt ever do anything the public wanted them to do!! rant,rant.rant,,,, :twisted: :twisted: :evil:
Built to last wasn't on their mind,more like built to last 10-15yrs then scrap it!
Performance technology,the microchip,electronics,and associated bonkers parts prices all killed the s/h market for many cars from the last 20yrs!
That 1999 XK8 I bought,if the gearbox or engine had gone bang,,due to the built in technology,it was as good as scrap,as a new box costs way more than the car was worth!
Some will make it,some will fix them at whatever cost.
Many owners were hoping for the 25yr to be reinstated,but could tolerate a stretch to 30yrs,but a big hike up to 40yrs,they will be very unhappy!
It seems its always a token gesture or slap in the face!
Still when does a Govt ever do anything the public wanted them to do!! rant,rant.rant,,,, :twisted: :twisted: :evil:
colnerov
Well-Known Member
Hi, Pilkie is right when was the last time anyone saw any 80s cars being used on a daily basis?
The scrappage scheme a few years ago saw alot away. A friend of mine breaks a lot of late 90s
early 00s cars because they can be picked up cheap and they break for more than he pays for
them and gets the weigh in money as well. In 10 years time there wont many 30 year old cars
let alone 40 year olds.
So I think the rolling 40yr is going to be academic and they are not giving much away.
Colin
The scrappage scheme a few years ago saw alot away. A friend of mine breaks a lot of late 90s
early 00s cars because they can be picked up cheap and they break for more than he pays for
them and gets the weigh in money as well. In 10 years time there wont many 30 year old cars
let alone 40 year olds.
So I think the rolling 40yr is going to be academic and they are not giving much away.
Colin
I'm inclined to agree with Frazzle - iIgnoring our individual circumstances. By the time a car reaches 40 it is absolutely certain to have needed something major.Thus 40 year old cars are almost certain to be owned by enthusiasts who take care of them and do relatively low miles. With luck and a trailing wind an awful lot of cars can reach 30 - and therefore be in the hands of run it till it drops dangers to the public. I don't want to encourage that type of motorist, so 40 seems about right to me.
Chris
Chris
Willy Eckerslyke
Well-Known Member
I'm not so sure. The fixed pre-1973 cut-off certainly provided an incentive for the morally challenged with cars that were never going to become tax exempt. At the very least this change hints at more in the future, giving potential ringers a reason to wait. Or to put it another way, it shows honest owners that they may be rewarded one day. While nothing's going to stop the terminally unscrupulous, a little encouragement could prevent the average, downtrodden, classic owner from crossing the line.Pilkie said:
redrover
Well-Known Member
I agree!Willy Eckerslyke said:
I remember reading a letter in Practical Classics last year asking about lobbying for future exemption and demanding to know "how PC would be using its influence". A good question, and the response was a very shrewd one - the economic times are not favouring the vast majority of people, and for a small group of people to lobby for and gain considerable financial favour for what is (to all intents and purposes) a glorified hobby, there was the risk of very bad publicity which could ultimately consign the whole exemption scheme to the bin, or even worse enforce limited use, etc. I agreed with that, and I'm more than happy with yesterday's announcement.
I strikes me that the FBHVC et al will have presented a very thorough case to the Treasury on this one. They know from the DVLA how many taxed cars there are registered in 1973, and therefore the amount of revenue they generate - which is at best a fixed sum per annum, but more likely gradually decreasing as cars are scrapped/SORN. This revenue is also net of the admin cost required to collect the tax (obviously a considerable sum if the SORN is to become indefinite - another cost saving measure, I'm sure), so it really can't represent that much actual income to the govt.
Furthermore, the British classic car industry is worth £4bn and directly employs 28,000 people [1] (always cite your source!), so taking 1 year's worth of cars out of tax, and therefore forgoing a set amount of revenue, is actually a trigger for growth in that industry, which, though continuing to expand, has been hampered by something of an 'elastic ceiling' since 1997.
I think that is the strongest case for a rolling 40 year exemption.
Would I have liked the reinstatement of the 25 exemption? Hell yes! Would 30 years have been a reasonable compromise? Damn sure. But I really don't think the 'slap in the face' attitude is a good one, sorry. It's just not worth standing around beating the flaming oil drum about how hard done by we are, when it would have been so easy to have continued giving us nothing, or worse to have taken away.
£2.5bn is coming out of frontline public sector services this year, and the benefits reform will unquestionably force a significant number of families into poverty. It strikes me that not only did we keep our minor little privilege, we actually gained on it... when all about are losing theirs!
I'm not being cantankerous, or trying to incite political argument. I just know which side my bread's buttered on.
Michael
Pilkie
Active Member
Willy Eckerslyke said:
True,but only if??? they re-introduce the rolling exemption!! :|
Whatever it turns out to be,if they do it,,30 or 40 yrs, at least it shows some common sense for once!
Only 3 yrs too late on their promise to reinstate the rolling date though!
Oh hang on its not yet totally fulfilled its promise,just given us a sweetener to pacify us!!
suffolkpete
Member
I think Redrover's hit the nail on the head there. If you read the press this morning, there is no mention of it, so it's slipped under the radar, which would probably not have been the case had a 25 or 30 year rolling exemption been introduced. It could be extended by another year next year or made into a rolling exemption and would probably not be noticed then either. We're all facing hard times and we should be grateful for what we can get. The last thing we want is is the classic car movement vilified in the media, or people baying for restrictions on use. I can just visualise the pictures in the Daily Mirror of the tax free Silver Shadow and the Ford Focus attracting £220 VED.
I've seen on another forum that Classic & Sportscar have contacted the Treasury to seek clarification on the rolling 40-year issue. Only request for clarification received, it would seem.
Reply today was that legislation is a one-off at the moment and that any extensions to 1974 rule will be considered annually at each budget. There must be a reason behind what appears to be a relatively minor change after all these years.
Future plans to prohibit 40+year old pollution belching machines from city centres, with an easy reference point -the balance being free road tax?? :shock: Who knows.
Pure speculation, of course, but it can't be much of a vote winner on its own.
Reply today was that legislation is a one-off at the moment and that any extensions to 1974 rule will be considered annually at each budget. There must be a reason behind what appears to be a relatively minor change after all these years.
Future plans to prohibit 40+year old pollution belching machines from city centres, with an easy reference point -the balance being free road tax?? :shock: Who knows.
Pure speculation, of course, but it can't be much of a vote winner on its own.
Richard Moss
New Member
Probably next to nothing - nor will it cost the government much, I would think.colnerov said:
If the road tax is "free" then more cars will drive more miles, burning more fuel (VAT & fuel duty), using more spares and consumables (VAT) and paying more Insurance Premium Tax because of the greater number of insured vehicles. Added to which, more cars are likely to be restored, again adding to the VAT "pot".
suffolkpete
Member
I think you'll find that exemption will be given on all cars registered up to 7th January without the need for proof. It was for the 1973 exemption.NICK T said: