View Full Version : Increase in Motorcycle Tax
Apologies if this has been posted already - would a mod please remove if so.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/motorcycleved/
I was signing a petition about fuel duty and saw this. Thought it might be of interest.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 02:59 PM
Where is the increase given?
There was another "Stop the increase in M/C tax" floating around recently that was a bit of a let down because there was no proposed increase!!:D
I found THIS (http://www.jamescargo.com/motorcycle_transportation/news/petition.htm), but it's the first I've heard of it.
the_lone_wolf
11-02-10, 03:07 PM
It's on the BMF site too:
http://www.bmf.co.uk/pages/news.php?fullstory=951
Drew Carey
11-02-10, 03:08 PM
Here you go.....
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/PreBudgetReport2009/DG_183034
Drew Carey
11-02-10, 03:08 PM
It a standard minimal increase. That is the only change on the interweb I can find anything about.
£4 over a year isn't going to break the bank, but it is yet another way the current powers that be are scr*wing us.
Drew Carey
11-02-10, 03:15 PM
The BMF's argument is apparently that although the increase isn't significant, it is in percentage terms when compared with other vehicles (IE cars) with a similar CO2 output.
I kind of agree with that argument, but am I too fussed?!? Nah, works out at approx 7p per week over the year.
Not going to argue over £4.00 ...... but when a BMW can drive around for free ..... £70 seems a bit steep for a bike ....
Mmmm my bike tax will be more than my car tax. Strange!
Specialone
11-02-10, 06:12 PM
Its alright saying £4 isnt a lot, but when one eye starts putting £4 on 20 or 30 taxes that you have the misfortune to have to pay then it will start to get expensive.
He is not gonna make it obvious how he is gonna get himself and us out the sh*t we're in, he's gonna do it nice and stealthy so you dont notice a few quid on this and that.
You would not believe how many stealth taxes there are, especially the ones brought in the last 12 years.
Beware, protest against everything regarding price rises cos if you dont, he'll do it more.
EssexDave
12-02-10, 09:56 AM
As people have said, only £4.
For those who have a second bike, both over 600, that's £8 a year.
Fuel duty has increased enough recently too.
As said above, stealth taxes.
EssexDave
12-02-10, 10:00 AM
Oh and just to add after having a quick look...
National Insurance
Pre-Budget 2009 announced an increase of 0.5 per cent in the National Insurance contribution (NIC) rates for employees, employers and self-employed people from April 2011.
This is in addtion to the 0.5 per cent increase announced in 2008's Pre-Budget Report
What we shoudl be doing is asking for the band to be moved 100CC to 700. It still niggles me that you can tax a SS600 for les then our 650 twins
EssexDave
12-02-10, 10:41 AM
What we shoudl be doing is asking for the band to be moved 100CC to 700. It still niggles me that you can tax a SS600 for les then our 650 twins
Indeed. The bands are a bit odd for bikes.
Seems like we should all be signing this regardless. If the rise is implemented without much opposition then they may assume they can add another increase in a couple of years time (when we've all forgotten about this one).
Gabriel2k
12-02-10, 12:14 PM
It already annoys me that I pay more road tax on the bike than I do for the car, especially as im more likely to be killed on the bike due to the lack of money actually spent on the roads i.e. all the potholes.
muffles
12-02-10, 01:12 PM
The BMF's argument is apparently that although the increase isn't significant, it is in percentage terms when compared with other vehicles (IE cars) with a similar CO2 output.
I kind of agree with that argument, but am I too fussed?!? Nah, works out at approx 7p per week over the year.
Does the BMF argument consider CO2 output in total per vehicle, or does it scale it somehow? It's easy to say "bikes pollute less than cars" but bikes are generally more polluting if you scale them, e.g. scaled by CC, or weight, etc. I've always thought of it as a dangerous thing to bring to the government's attention!
What we shoudl be doing is asking for the band to be moved 100CC to 700. It still niggles me that you can tax a SS600 for les then our 650 twins
Bit confused by this in that the current banding is more or less arbitrary, moving it to 700 would then mean you'd have the same fight with someone on a 750 cruiser (for example) moaning that you can 'tax a "sporty" SV650 for less than our 750 cruisers'. I can't see that moving the bands is the answer here (also, what is it we are trying to tax? Power? Desirability? Genuine question as your original comment just made me think of this).
EssexDave
12-02-10, 02:09 PM
It already annoys me that I pay more road tax on the bike than I do for the car, especially as im more likely to be killed on the bike due to the lack of money actually spent on the roads i.e. all the potholes.
This is my problem with motoring taxes all together.
If you actually look at the amount of tax you pay to own and run a vehicle, it is phenominal.
VAT on a brand new vehicle.
Duty on fuel (which is a lot let's be honest)
Road fund license
VAT on parts you buy
All of this goes into one pot used by the government for everything. It seems roads are being pushed further and further down the list, while money making incentives, (read speed cameras) go up up up and away.
the_lone_wolf
12-02-10, 02:10 PM
VAT on a brand new vehicle.
Duty on fuel (which is a lot let's be honest)
Road fund license
VAT on parts you buy
Don't forget the VAT you pay on the DUTY you pay on the fuel
They tax you for the privilege of paying your taxes:thumleft:
ETA: On a tangent but the "victim support fee" levied on anyone given even the most mundane motoring offense is effectively a genius idea to tax crime itself
ETA: On a tangent but the "victim support fee" levied on anyone given even the most mundane motoring offense is effectively a genius idea to tax crime itself
I thought that was for offences heard in court having being found guilty, not for normal on the street tickets.
until the people of this country actually get up off their bums and do something about this government then expect to get more of the same treatment. petitions and rallies wont make the government change their minds and as fer as they are concerned we are all 'them people' and will do as we are told or they will make another law to keep us subdued.
so all of you better be good little citizens and just pay up or else.
muffles
13-02-10, 07:14 AM
This is my problem with motoring taxes all together.
If you actually look at the amount of tax you pay to own and run a vehicle, it is phenominal.
VAT on a brand new vehicle.
Duty on fuel (which is a lot let's be honest)
Road fund license
VAT on parts you buy
All of this goes into one pot used by the government for everything. It seems roads are being pushed further and further down the list, while money making incentives, (read speed cameras) go up up up and away.
To be fair, though, taxes are a bigger part of the general money flow than people think - you pay tax on your earnings, then you pay VAT on stuff you buy with those, and if you look at the raw materials of whatever you bought that's often taxed too. In your example above I'd probably remove the VAT bits as being not relevant, however I would say that the remaining two are still quite high taxes for motoring so would agree then :) it's well known that motoring taxes pay for much, much more than just the roads though.
beabert
13-02-10, 08:03 AM
The money just flows in then back out again, the have created money out of nothing to support the economy and now there is too much of it and it needs deleting. If they simply erase it, there will be huge cuts. If there are no cuts there will need huge tax rises to get the money back in faster than it flows out so it can be erased ie pay off the created money.
Either way, we will now pay the price with a lower standard of living for the next decade or more...
muffles
14-02-10, 08:31 AM
The money just flows in then back out again, the have created money out of nothing to support the economy and now there is too much of it and it needs deleting. If they simply erase it, there will be huge cuts. If there are no cuts there will need huge tax rises to get the money back in faster than it flows out so it can be erased ie pay off the created money.
Either way, we will now pay the price with a lower standard of living for the next decade or more...
I guess you are talking about the £200 billion put into the economy? Well...I agree with what you're saying just not how you're saying it, printing money (effectively what they did) creates inflation, taxes can be increased as one way to keep it under control. I assumed that's what you meant by 'pay off' the created money.
Actually, though, I was just talking about general taxation (from any time, not just the last few years). It's just surprising when you think about it, how much of your money actually returns to the government as tax. It's because there's tax at many different stages of money transferring that we don't realise, I think.
Just look at london the congestion charge is on the up so people bought bikes and because they were losing money they decide to charge motorcycles to park...Climite Change my ****...more stealth taxes and only a 2% reduction in carbon emissions by this year instead of a unachievable 20% i think we should brace ourselves for more from this poxy goverment
Specialone
14-02-10, 06:31 PM
Dont even get me started on Climate change and taxing to improve carbon footprints and all that garbage.
These taxes are for 1 thing, paying off national debt, nothing more, nothing less.
We contribute 0.2% to the worlds carbon emissions, even if we cut our emissions by 20% it wont make the slightest difference.
The only thing these taxes will help cut is the amount of disposable income we all have(nt).
northwind
14-02-10, 06:35 PM
As people have said, only £4.
For those who have a second bike, both over 600, that's £8 a year.
As said above, stealth taxes.
If you can afford 2 bikes over 600cc how can you not afford £4? And what's stealthy about this very visible tax?
If you look over the historical rates, motorbikes generally get inflationary or below inflationary increases. The lower bands got no increase at all this year, again. All in all we do pretty well on tax as bikers.
And don't do the environmental argument, because bikes are miles worse than they should be even before the owners remove the cats and the pair valves and all that stuff. If we keep making that argument sooner or later someone's going to ask the bike industry to walk the walk, and it will not be good.
Don't forget we pay VAT on the duty on fuel (yes, really), and also insurance premium tax.
Car VED (road tax) is being revised as of April, so band B (<110gm/km) drops from £35 to £20, band C (<120gm/km) is £35 (etc). Bikes like the SV would probably be band C equivalent if they were tested, I reckon, so we're paying double an equivalent car tax. Band A (<100gm/km) is zero, I reckon things like 125cc bikes would fit that easily so ought to be zero also.
Government would be happy if bikes were off the road altogether, so it's just their way of shafting us. No-one ever said life was fair.
peterco
14-02-10, 09:17 PM
Don't forget we pay VAT on the duty on fuel (yes, really), and also insurance premium tax.
Car VED (road tax) is being revised as of April, so band B (<110gm/km) drops from £35 to £20, band C (<120gm/km) is £35 (etc). Bikes like the SV would probably be band C equivalent if they were tested, I reckon, so we're paying double an equivalent car tax. Band A (<100gm/km) is zero, I reckon things like 125cc bikes would fit that easily so ought to be zero also.
Government would be happy if bikes were off the road altogether, so it's just their way of shafting us. No-one ever said life was fair.
Current bike sv650 sk8 sports
as per v5 CO(g/km) is 0.520
pete
Current bike sv650 sk8 sports
as per v5 CO(g/km) is 0.520
pete
Need CO2 rather than CO. Is it given? I didn't think bikes were categorised by CO2.
peterco
14-02-10, 10:00 PM
Need CO2 rather than CO. Is it given? I didn't think bikes were categorised by CO2.
Nothing on the v5 re co2
northwind
14-02-10, 11:03 PM
if they were tested
Testing goes both ways, I reckon if we want to get this sort of advantage we'd have to expect emissions testing at MOT too. Avoiding that sort of shenanigans is worth £4 a year I reckon!
I'd rather pay £35 than £70 though.
In fact I'd rather pay £70 than £140 (2 bikes at 650cc).
muffles
16-02-10, 11:31 PM
Don't forget we pay VAT on the duty on fuel (yes, really), and also insurance premium tax.
Car VED (road tax) is being revised as of April, so band B (<110gm/km) drops from £35 to £20, band C (<120gm/km) is £35 (etc). Bikes like the SV would probably be band C equivalent if they were tested, I reckon, so we're paying double an equivalent car tax. Band A (<100gm/km) is zero, I reckon things like 125cc bikes would fit that easily so ought to be zero also.
Government would be happy if bikes were off the road altogether, so it's just their way of shafting us. No-one ever said life was fair.
Just curious where you get the band C equivalent thing from? For the SV I mean?
I am guessing it is from the size of the engine (i.e. that sort of engine in a car would probably be band C)?
That's kinda what I was getting at with the first post I made - that it might not make sense to think of it that way, after all bikes are very much smaller than cars and so maybe a bike's band C should be <25gm/km or something. Similar to what Northy said, don't go down the bike/environmental route, it only ends badly...
A car in band C would be certified at something like 50-60mpg combined, band B are typically just over 60mpg. I guess an SV would end up somewhere round the 55-60mpg range purely based on what they do in real life, probably 110-115gm/km CO2. That's just an educated guess, mind. It might better that and come in above 60mpg and scrape a band B, the car drive cycles would be pretty tame for a bike so small throttle openings and no need for high revs.
As said, it was decided by powers-that-be that bikes wouldn't be categorised in the same way as cars, just by engine capacity. If bikes were categorised by CO2 emissions I see no reason why the drive cycles and weighting ought to be any different to cars.
muffles
18-02-10, 11:10 PM
A car in band C would be certified at something like 50-60mpg combined, band B are typically just over 60mpg. I guess an SV would end up somewhere round the 55-60mpg range purely based on what they do in real life, probably 110-115gm/km CO2. That's just an educated guess, mind. It might better that and come in above 60mpg and scrape a band B, the car drive cycles would be pretty tame for a bike so small throttle openings and no need for high revs.
As said, it was decided by powers-that-be that bikes wouldn't be categorised in the same way as cars, just by engine capacity. If bikes were categorised by CO2 emissions I see no reason why the drive cycles and weighting ought to be any different to cars.
Yeah I see why you came to the band C conclusion, and that's what I thought you were thinking. To put it bluntly, though, 50-60mpg is rubbish for an SV. It's hauling around what - one fifth? - of a car's weight yet does the same mpg. It's a bit like going the other way, I don't know the details but I'm sure many trucks do rubbish mpg (compared to cars) yet they might actually be pretty damn efficient for what they are.
The same argument as above can be said for the emissions, too.
This is why Northy said you don't want to try and argue that point (I agree, too).
As a side note, I'm mildly unsure why bikes shouldn't be categorised differently (which I guess is your rebuttal to the above). They aren't cars, after all? They *are* a different category of vehicle, and if you are going to measure how 'efficient' they are you are going to need to assess them differently.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.