unwanted legislation etc.

deshollier · Post by **deshollier** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:32 pm

You may find this petition of 21 June 2007 interesting:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to change the tax exemption laws for historic motor cars."

Details of Petition:

"Currently cars have to have been constructed before a set date - the 1st January 1973 to be eligible for historic car tax exemption. We the undersigned would like the date to be move as it has been fixed for a number of years. A number of cars which were built in British factories are becoming few and far between and would like the Government to help preserve these cars by offering and extension on the current exemption date."

Government's response; 'The Government is committed to using Vehicle Excise Duty as a means of bringing environmental factors into consideration when people choose to take ownership of a car. Vehicle Excise Duty also helps to support the Government's wider policy objectives by providing a valuable source of revenue from which important public services may be funded'.

The Government recognises that many historic car owners would have been disappointed when the 1998 Budget decision was made to freeze the rolling 25 year exemption at 1973. However, the Government continues to judge that in the light of its environmental focus for Vehicle Excise Duty it would be inappropriate to extend the exemption at this point in time.

It should be noted that the current exemption remains in force, currently benefiting some 307,407 vehicles, many of which will be maintained in careful preservation by their owners. The exemption applies equally to all historic cars built before January 1973 irrespective of their country of manufacture.

Some other types of historic vehicle are also exempt from payment of Vehicle Excise Duty. This Government decided to make all steam powered vehicles exempt from April 2001, benefiting vehicles like preserved steam powered road rollers and traction engines. Historic lorries built before 1973 are also exempt, provided that they are not used commercially.

The Government believes that it has got the balance right in the current exemptions it offers. In considering the case for further exemptions or changes to existing ones the Government has to consider the stability of its tax measures, the consistency of its environmental signal, and the costs of delivery - these would include initial implementation costs and ongoing administrative costs.'
Keep smiling!

AJS650 · Post by **AJS650** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:14 pm

quote:
handcuffs
guys guys don`t any of you have jobs to do..... i`m out there keeping your pensions going and missing out on chat.... then i get home to find itma wanting to play handcuffs with janet!!!!!

lawrence · Post by **lawrence** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:11 pm

quote: It probably does but I pay a higher premium to be covered for business use, not just commuting.

So do I. This is a very important point. Many classic policies will not cover you for riding to work. Carole Nash is a good example, offering three levels of cover. Unless you ask specially you will get the leisure only option. If you have an accident when taking the bike to work 'because it is a nice day' it could be very expensive.

Footman James, I believe, offer the full package as standard. Check it out whoever you are with.

lawrence · Post by **lawrence** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:14 pm

quote:
then i get home to find itma wanting to play handcuffs with janet!!!!!

But some of us would remember what to do with her once she's in them

Sorry Janet, please, no spells Edited by - lawrence on 19 Mar 2008 10:15:20 PM

itma · Post by **itma** » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:47 pm

I'd get my leg over Nellie,at least

Janet · Post by **Janet** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:00 am

quote: Footman James, I believe, offer the full package as standard.
They wouldn't give it to me some years ago, even as an add-on for more money, which is why I went to Carole Nash, where I also got unlimited mileage.

Circlip · Post by **Circlip** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:19 am

Not familiar with all this stuff, Ive heard of it and most of my motor dealer mates sell off cars with this in mind --no tax.

Its very tempting but who wants to ride around in a Ford Cortina? Of course no one, is the answer.

So what is there then/ an old Cloud or Shadow, YUK

Rover 3.5 Mmm, maybe. I could,- because I fixed that stuff years ago but to the man in the street that will be expensive maintenance.

Ok what about a nice 1973 Jag Xj6. I could live with that. I know a few little tricks with them.

deshollier · Post by **deshollier** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:35 am

As I said originally, the exemption for vehicle excise tax was extended from some other classes already entitled to it, to 'Historic vehicles', primarily to allow owners of vehicle collections, to get their vehicles on the road for events and runs without the crippling costs of having to tax the lot. It never was intended - though not ruled out - for any old ancient crap to be kept on the road just to avoid the tax!

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 11:40 am

(for any old ancient crap to be kept on the road just to avoid the tax!) harsh but true

crawsue · Post by **crawsue** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:14 pm

Circlip has a point about old Cortinas etc,you just wouldn't want to do that,compared to ANYTHING built in the last 10 years,without exception all that 60s/70s/80s British stuff is just JUNK.And that includes Rollers ,Jags,Rovers..the lot!I had a stupid idea of putting a 1978 MGB on the road...seemed like cheap motoring with zero depreciation....out a run one day with a mate who had had a TR6 back then,we were passed by a couple of girls in a Corsa,we were doing about 70 hanging on for dear life...the girls were chatting and smiling....it was then that I realised that even the smallest ,cheapest Euro hatchback could out perform one of Britains iconic sports cars...in every respect.But then pit a G80 against a Fireblade...no contest!