Jump to content



Photo

Car tax disc to be axed after 93 years

uk car tax tax disc dvla digital tax disc

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#16 +Aheer.R.S.

Aheer.R.S.

    I cannot Teach Him, the Boy has no Patience!

  • 10,722 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 10
  • Location: Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
  • OS: Windows 7 X64 Ultimate Edition
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z1 Compact

Posted 05 December 2013 - 15:48

As if we weren't taxed enough..... 5% more??


#17 Soldiers33

Soldiers33

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,366 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 06
  • Location: London
  • OS: Windows 7 Professional

Posted 05 December 2013 - 15:48

Luckily I dont have to pay tax, since I got a company car, but when I did I paid £160 a year which is way too much. Tax this, tax that. All they do is spend the money on stupid pointless wars. Why cant we get someone good to run the country who doesnt just care about how much money goes into their pocket.



#18 Skiver

Skiver

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,829 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 05
  • Location: UK, Reading

Posted 05 December 2013 - 15:52

As if we weren't taxed enough..... 5% more??

If I have read correctly, that is actually less.

You get charged 10% extra if you choose to pay every 6 months instead of paying for the full year in one hit.  Now it's been reduced to 5% for monthly or the the 6 month payment. Again If I understood things correctly, there will be no charge for paying in one lump sum.



#19 Tomo

Tomo

    IT Engineer

  • 723 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 01
  • Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:01

If I have read correctly, that is actually less.

You get charged 10% extra if you choose to pay every 6 months instead of paying for the full year in one hit.  Now it's been reduced to 5% for monthly or the the 6 month payment. Again If I understood things correctly, there will be no charge for paying in one lump sum.

Yes but that's not the point. If you can afford to pay in one sum you don't get charged extra however if your not fortunate enough to afford this then you are charged either 5% or 10% extra because you earn less!



#20 +Aheer.R.S.

Aheer.R.S.

    I cannot Teach Him, the Boy has no Patience!

  • 10,722 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 10
  • Location: Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
  • OS: Windows 7 X64 Ultimate Edition
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z1 Compact

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:01

If I have read correctly, that is actually less.
You get charged 10% extra if you choose to pay every 6 months instead of paying for the full year in one hit.  Now it's been reduced to 5% for monthly or the the 6 month payment. Again If I understood things correctly, there will be no charge for paying in one lump sum.

You're probably right, and I could do with going back and re readin the article.

Just annoyed as my uk insurance group 15 car is now group 22, and insurance has gone up to an extortionate amount, this just felt like adding insult to injury..

#21 Skiver

Skiver

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,829 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 05
  • Location: UK, Reading

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:05

Yes but that's not the point. If you can afford to pay in one sum you don't get charged extra however if your not fortunate enough to afford this then you are charged either 5% or 10% extra because you earn less!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I am in support of being charged more to make payments manageable but the Govt. dropping the cost of something is difficult to be too angry with.



#22 Tomo

Tomo

    IT Engineer

  • 723 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 01
  • Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:08

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I am in support of being charged more to make payments manageable but the Govt. dropping the cost of something is difficult to be too angry with.

They aren't dropping the cost, they are charging more for using monthly direct debits, basically they are taxing the poor. It doesn't cost them more to take monthly payments over yearly payments, it's just another stealth tax.



#23 +Aheer.R.S.

Aheer.R.S.

    I cannot Teach Him, the Boy has no Patience!

  • 10,722 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 10
  • Location: Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
  • OS: Windows 7 X64 Ultimate Edition
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z1 Compact

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:13

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I am in support of being charged more to make payments manageable but the Govt. dropping the cost of something is difficult to be too angry with.

Yes, it is nice, but the 'oh hey, I'll add more charge to what you're paying, but don't worry, I might charge a little less more', is still more. :(
If they managed the revenue they're recieving better just like low income families have to, there'd be fewer people complaining.
They don't care about people complaining so long as we continue paying them like good little sheep.

#24 testman

testman

    Neowinian

  • 1,049 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 05

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:16

They aren't dropping the cost, they are charging more for using monthly direct debits, basically they are taxing the poor. It doesn't cost them more to take monthly payments over yearly payments, it's just another stealth tax.

The cost is dropping if you don't pay yearly.

In a period of one year, if you elect to pay for six months, then you pay twice, which at the price they set works out at 10% on top of the one 12-month lump sum.

With this new monthly direct debit way of paying coming out, if you elect to do that, you pay 12 times and the total amount is 5% on top of the one 12-month lump sum.

So, you pay less if you go for any option that isn't one lump sum.

If you pay yearly, the cost is the same as before.

So yes, quite why you have to pay more if you're paying in instalments baffles me, but fact is you're now not going to pay quite as much as you did before today.

You're probably right, and I could do with going back and re readin the article.

Just annoyed as my uk insurance group 15 car is now group 22, and insurance has gone up to an extortionate amount, this just felt like adding insult to injury..

They recategorised the insurance groups years ago.

#25 Skiver

Skiver

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,829 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 05
  • Location: UK, Reading

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:20

They aren't dropping the cost, they are charging more for using monthly direct debits, basically they are taxing the poor. It doesn't cost them more to take monthly payments over yearly payments, it's just another stealth tax.

I may be missunderstanding something here but I'm not sure how they are charging more. So before this you had the option to pay car tax based on emissions etc lets say that comes to £100. If you pay that off in one lump it's done, but if you paid it off in 6 month chunks it would have come to £55 each month being a total of £110 (10% more).

Under the new scheme the options would be;

Pay off in lump sum = £100
Pay off in 6 month chunk = £105 (5% increase for the benefit)
pay off monthly = £105 @ £8.75 per month (5% increase / 12)

Unless my understand of the above is wrong, it's less than it was previously? My maths is bad but I think even these sums I can work out!?  :rofl: 
 

 

Yes, it is nice, but the 'oh hey, I'll add more charge to what you're paying, but don't worry, I might charge a little less more', is still more. :(
If they managed the revenue they're recieving better just like low income families have to, there'd be fewer people complaining.
They don't care about people complaining so long as we continue paying them like good little sheep.

The problem is, any why I am not really annoyed about this is imo its a form of credit that works this way across the world. If you owe something but spread the costs, it tends to come with an interest factor. Retailers, Banks do this all over, why can't the Govt?

 

EDIT: Glad Testman seems to agree with the same theory I came up with.


Edited by skiver, 05 December 2013 - 16:21.


#26 Tomo

Tomo

    IT Engineer

  • 723 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 01
  • Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:26

It's the fact they you have to pay more if you pay in installments, it may be less then previous but it's still 5% - 10% more than the full payment!

 

£100 if you can afford it

£105 if you can't - not great if you're counting the pennies!



#27 +Aheer.R.S.

Aheer.R.S.

    I cannot Teach Him, the Boy has no Patience!

  • 10,722 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 10
  • Location: Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
  • OS: Windows 7 X64 Ultimate Edition
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z1 Compact

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:27

The problem is, any why I am not really annoyed about this is imo its a form of credit that works this way across the world. If you owe something but spread the costs, it tends to come with an interest factor. Retailers, Banks do this all over, why can't the Govt?

It's a matter of perspective, if you were living at or just below, or just above the poverty line, you'd feel differently, and unfortunately, they're always the ones to feel the pinch first. So many of the youthes feel they have little or nothing to lose, so crime can escalate, along with resentment and so on, but I'm getting off topic.

#28 testman

testman

    Neowinian

  • 1,049 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 05

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:28

EDIT: Glad Testman seems to agree with the same theory I came up with.

Yep, although it's not a theory, it's how it really is. Right now if you pay in instalments you pay 10% extra in one calendar year. From Oct 2014 you'll pay 5% extra.

Obviously if you want to avoid paying extra, you'd pay it in one lump sum. Being poor isn't really a proper defence, you can save up yourself 12 months in advance and then pay it in one lump sum when asked.

It's the exact same with insurance, landlines and countless other things which you pay in instalments.

Quite why they charge extra for paying in instalments is another thing entirely and a different argument for another thread (I for one think it should be the same, but from a business point of view of course they want more money in the coffers at any one time so lump sum payment is far more attractive to them).

#29 +Aheer.R.S.

Aheer.R.S.

    I cannot Teach Him, the Boy has no Patience!

  • 10,722 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 10
  • Location: Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
  • OS: Windows 7 X64 Ultimate Edition
  • Phone: Sony Xperia Z1 Compact

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:28

It's the fact they you have to pay more if you pay in installments, it may be less then previous but it's still 5% - 10% more than the full payment!
 
£100 if you can afford it
£105 if you can't - not great if you're counting the pennies!

Wow, I should bow out, you're much better at diplomatic responses than I :)

#30 Tomo

Tomo

    IT Engineer

  • 723 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 01
  • Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Posted 05 December 2013 - 16:29

I may be missunderstanding something here but I'm not sure how they are charging more. So before this you had the option to pay car tax based on emissions etc lets say that comes to £100. If you pay that off in one lump it's done, but if you paid it off in 6 month chunks it would have come to £55 each month being a total of £110 (10% more).

Under the new scheme the options would be;

Pay off in lump sum = £100
Pay off in 6 month chunk = £105 (5% increase for the benefit)
pay off monthly = £105 @ £8.75 per month (5% increase / 12)

Unless my understand of the above is wrong, it's less than it was previously? My maths is bad but I think even these sums I can work out!?  :rofl: 
 

 

The problem is, any why I am not really annoyed about this is imo its a form of credit that works this way across the world. If you owe something but spread the costs, it tends to come with an interest factor. Retailers, Banks do this all over, why can't the Govt?

 

EDIT: Glad Testman seems to agree with the same theory I came up with.

The Govt are supposed to looking after the interest of the public, help those in need not charging them more to spread the cost.





Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!