ABD says London C-Charge is "Britain's Most Unfair and Absurd Tax Proposal"
I always take announcements by the Association of British Drivers (ABD) with a few heaping teaspoons of NaCL. After all, the ABD is the group that said teaching kids about climate control harks back to Nazi methds not too long ago, and they're not exactly at the forefront of green driving advocacy. With that in mind, let's see what they have to say about "Britain's Most Unfair and Absurd Tax Proposal." The Association's release is after the jump if you want to read it how they wrote it, but here's the gist.
Thanks to what the ABD calls "clever German engineering," BMW's large X5, an "Urban 4x4," will not have to pay the £25-a-day Band G "gas guzzler" congestion charge in London. ABD says that letting this £40,000 behemoth into London for 80p a day is wrong. The X5 emits between 231 and 299 gm of CO2 per kilometer, and Band G is supposed to hit any vehicles that spit out more than 225 g/km.
What ABD forgets to make clear is why the X5 will be exempt. Plus, the ABD's problem is not that the X5 will skirt by the charge, but that the charge exists at all, that it's "completely unreasonable." I'd like to know more about why the X5 will be exempted, as the news reports I can find about this issue still place the X5 in the Band G category. As for the "completely unreasonable" accusation, that's rich coming from the ABD.
Related:
[Source: ABD]
BMW's "Urban 4x4" to Escape £25 Congestion Charge
ABD Uncovers Britain's Most Unfair and Absurd Tax Proposal
Ken Livingstone's proposal to introduce a £25 congestion charge band for vehicles emitting more than 225 g/km have been exposed as ridiculous following news that BMW intend to launch a new version of their £40,000+ X5 - the definitive "Urban 4x4" - which will escape the increased charge.
Meanwhile, quite modest older petrol engined cars such as the 2003 VW Beetle Auto, will have to pay the huge new "Gas Guzzler" charge, and if they live inside the zone they will lose the residents' discount and have to pay the full £25 a day.
The ABD's Chairman, Brian Gregory, said today: "This must be worst tax proposal in Britain. The BMW X5 is exactly the sort of vehicle that Ken Livingstone wants to target with his draconian proposals. Campaigners like Sian Berry have successfully lobbied him for the "urban 4x4" to be penalised in this way. She must be incensed that all the time spent harrassing owners of such cars and lobbying for this completely unreasonable charge has been deftly side stepped by clever German engineering. My heart bleeds."
Far more incensed will be people strugging with heavy mortgage payments in Central London, who can't afford to buy a new BMW X5. They will probably be driving five year old petrol engined saloons with automatic gearboxes - Mondeos and the like - or maybe an older VW Beetle, which used to have versions that tipped just over the 225g/km threshold.
These people will lose their residents' discount and will have to pay £25 a day, while their wealthy X5 owning neighbours get away with 80p.
The Stern report, commissioned by the Government, suggested that £44 per tonne is an appropriate level of taxation for CO2 emissions.
Motorists already pay for their carbon at FIVE TIMES the level of the Stern recommendations - in fuel duty.
Now, Ken Livingstone intends to pick on a small number of people and charge them up to ANOTHER THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TIMES the amount of tax that experts suggest is reasonable.
Have we found the most unfair, unreasonable and disproportionate tax ever proposed in Britain?
The ABD thinks so - and the fact that buyers of brand new £40,000+ BMW X5's won't have to pay it is enough to drive us all to take a taxi. Until you realise that London Taxis tend to be automatics, which all emit well over 225g/km - and they dont have to pay the charge at all!
Notes for editors:
1. £25 less 80p is £24.20 extra a day for a resident of the central zone for driving a car with "Band G" emissions (over 225g/km).
The new BMW X5 3.0D will emit 213g/km (Autocar report), whereas a 2003 VW Beetle Auto produces 228g/km (SMMT website)- 15 g/km more.
Based on 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year, the brand new BMW X5 owning resident will pay £208 per year to drive in London. The owner of a £4000 secondhand VW Beetle Auto will have to pay £6500 - over THIRTY times as much.
If they both do 10km a day inside the zone, the VW Beetle owner will have to pay £161,333 for every extra tonne of CO2 he emits over and above the X5 driver.
The Stern report suggested that £44 per tonne was the justifyable level of taxation to cover the alleged "damage" from carbon dioxide. The VW Beetle owner is therefore paying 3666 times this amount for his extra emissions over and above a BMW X5.
2. LTI TXII Auto taxi - emission rated at 243 g/km on www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk
3. The ABD would like to point out that newer versions of the VW Beetle all emit under 225g/km
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Nigel Humphries 8:33AM (2/20/2008)
The ABD made it perfectly clear in its PR why the X5 will be exempt from the £25 charge - BMW have announced that there will be a new version with emissions reduced from 229 to 213g/km by the time the new charge comes in - this was referenced from Autocar.
Goodcheer - the 80p is what residents of the zone currently pay and will pay for 121-225g/km cars. They willhave to pay the full £25 under the new regime.
Tenbees - I cant understand why you think the details you have reproduced are different from what the ABD release says. Except that you have the Beetle wrong - a 2003 Beetle Auto had 228g/km emissions (again referenced in the PR) so will have to pay the £25 charge.
I would suggest you all get your facts right before you verbalise your sneering opinions!
Reply
Paddington Resident 8:05AM (2/26/2008)
No wonder the greens keep coming up with well-meaning but stupid illogical ideas, they can't read and they can't do sums. Also I wouldn't be surprised that the green writers don't live in a C-Charge Zone or drive a car. Tim - I am not sure why you think the ABD is a socialist group, they have all the hallmarks of Liberterianism. Tim please look to the Green Party for hard-left wing socialists, it was re-badged after some folks from Militant Tendency and Socialist Workers Party took over the then Ecology Party after the fall of Communism in the early 1990's. The Green Party are effectively a neo-Marxist group with money substituted for a carbon count currency. I know this since I was Militant member only because Thatcher closed our local coal mine and I know of former Militant members who have converted, or rather hijacked the Ecology Party. These days, I am all in for preserving civil liberties - socialists, including greens (aka watermelons, thin green skin but red to core) never were ones for liberty, they love to control people and hate reason. Worrying, they are now starting to use Nazi propaganda techniques to sell their green political policies. As for fascism, Sebastian Blanco, but this philosophy opened up a pandora's box and gave the world packaged political techniques that are still being used today by all sorts of political parties in democratic nations and they don't even realise they're using them! As one of Shami's Liberty supporter, I'm only too sensitive to them.
I've been in enviromental sciences for 15 years and the Greens are doing us enviromental science workers no favours apart from alientating us from the public by you lot pushing out psuedo-science. You may not like the ABD, but they do have valid points and the tax is unfair on working classes who can ill afford to sell their cars due to its depreciated value vs high cost of new cars, there is a credit crunch you know - oops sorry - you can't do sums.
Reply
GoodCheer 1:16PM (9/24/2007)
This report also suggests that car emitting less than 225 g/km pay only 80p to drive into the congestion zone. I was under the impression that the proposed system was to be tiered based on emission, and that only electrics and sub 120 g/km (or was it 125) would be free. Between 120 and 225 there are to be a couple of different levels, and the X5-3.0D I presume would fit into the second highest tier if the 213g/km number in their report is correct.
Did the ABD, or did I miss-understand how the proposed system was to work?
Reply
Tim 4:18PM (9/25/2007)
What did you expect from socialists?
Reply
TenBees 9:28AM (9/26/2007)
The ABD response is to be expected if you don't read the proposals properly. I've copied them below for reference. Both cars in the ABD example would come under the moderate emissions (£8 - £2080pa)
* High emission cars emit more than 225g/km. Drivers of these cars would have to pay the higher £25 charge. (Cars first registered with the DVLA before 1 March 2001 would incur the higher £25 charge if their engines are over 3,000cc in size)
* Moderate emission cars emit between 121g/km and 225g/km. Drivers of these cars would continue to pay the standard £8 charge, as would drivers of cars produced before 1 March 2001 with an engine size of up to and including 3,000cc
* Low emission cars emit 120g/km or less. Drivers of these cars could register for the 100 per cent discount if their car met the Euro 4 standard for air quality
Reply