i stumbled across this post with a detailed breakdown of costs regarding motoring and what mr average earns.
it makes me sick to read.
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread822981/pg1
by the time my six year old is old enough to drive he will not be able to afford to.
priced off the roads, we certanly are
|
I am pretty sure your 6 year old will not be insisting on buying a new car when he passes his test, nor will he be having it serviced at main dealer rates.
Just like millions of other "kids just passed" before him.
Dont be sick, recognise scaremongering when you see it.
|
|
What Car? magazine calculates cost per mile for 3 years ownership. The last time I looked something like mine was in excess of 40p per mile. Most drivers don't calculate the true cost per mile.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sun 25 Mar 12 at 14:33
|
I think the message there is think carefully before buying a new car.
The sums are a bit off as well. The insurance looks steep at £921. There's no VAT on insurance premiums, only IPT, and a five year old car with 60,000 miles isn't worthless - especially if you keep it instead of buying a new one.
|
I just had my tax stuff through from the revenue here, and I see they're pulling the same stunt as the UK. The mileage allowance hasn't changed in 4 years now, yet running costs seem to increase year on year.
Never mind, I just stick a few extra km's on each journey logged.
|
Of all the internet sources to pick, I'm not sure that ATS is amongst the most credible.
It's good fun sometimes but heavens, you need to tread carefully. Just look at what's on their home page to get a flavour of the place.
www.abovetopsecret.com/
Last edited by: Crankcase on Mon 26 Mar 12 at 09:22
|
|
Thanks Diddy. Nice to see something with calculations.
|
|
Even if they're wrong? Worse, mathematically illiterate? VAT is 20/120 or 1/6 of the final price, yet this consistently divides by 5 to get the amount paid. My 10yo can get that right; this is just binworthy.
|
Average cost of second hand car is about £8k. It used to be £6k many moons ago so people aren't spending much more.
From what the Rowntree foundation said you need to earn about £15k to have any quality of life and that doesn't include a car. The point is unless you earn over £20k a year you probably can't afford to run a car easily.
Average insurance is £1400 pa according to an article I remember recently.
You can get something half decent for £2k. You'll probably get 3 or 4 years out of it if you buy wisely then it will be scrap.
Cost me £40 for 30 litres of fuel yesterday. About 220 miles worth or 18p a mile. Still feels expensive.
What I object to is VAT being on fuel. VAT is for luxuries. Fuel is not a luxury. If they are going to sort out anomalies then VAT needs removing.
|
I know it is all averages but in the case of my dad, £6500 for a brand new car, £280 a year insurance with all the extras bolted on (business use, legal protection, no claims protection etc).
If you think 18p a mile is expensive then compare the costs of bus travel! Once all the flat rate stuff is paid for (insurance, loan etc) then the cost per mile of motoring is still very cheap.
Transport is just very expensive in the UK full stop. I earn less than £15k and can easily run my two year old Panda although if I moved out by myself I could only afford a bedsit (but in a decent area) so that is probably not classes as a quality of life.
You certainly do not need to spend anything like £8k second hand to get a decent car though.
|
|
Better take it off clothes while you're at it, then, TB. And furniture, 'cos ya gotta have something to sit on, right? Trouble is, you're then left with a big hole that the government will have to fill by increasing tax on something else. Thinking "I'd be £nnn better off if it wasn't for this unfair tax on..." just doesn't work.
|
VAT on fuel adds to the input cost of everything. You can buy second hand furniture and clothes. You can't buy second hand fuel so it cannot be avoided.
If they made companies pay their tax they'd have another 24 Billion to play with.
|
>> If they made companies pay their tax >>
>>
Those companies would then pass on the cost to you.
Money don't grow on trees.
Owning a car is not a right. Owning a car is a luxury that in recent times has come to be seen as a right. If you need more to pay for your car habits, you have to earn more to feed those habits.
If you are desperate for a cheap new car, you have one week to get one for the price of another luxury - a daily cup of coffee:
"Volkswagen is currently charging the same for a hot, little new car as Starbucks charges for a large, warm coffee in a paper cup – about £3. I'll explain.
For a similar price of a tall, frothy cappuccino, the VW Up city car is yours, thanks to the German company asking for only £2.70 a day from you, dear potential customer."
Last edited by: John H on Mon 26 Mar 12 at 12:35
|
|
Taxes are calculated on company profits. There is no need to increase costs to a consumer.
|
>> Taxes are calculated on company profits. There is no need to increase costs to a consumer. >>
does not make sense with
>> If they made companies pay their tax >>
If you believe that companies are not paying £y tax, then it follows that those companies taking home £x now would only take home £(x-y).
It follows that they will then try to make up the shortfall to restore that net £y missing from their balance sheet.
Simples. It is the bottom line that matters. Most businesses exist not because they like to employ people and enjoy making/selling things. They exist to make money. It is all about the money, money, money. True for the workers, true for the bosses, true for the investors.
Take the example of Arcadia, where Green is accused of using legal means to avoid tax. If those taxes had to be paid by Arcadia, then Green could decide that it was not worth his money and shut down the Group. Or he could try to charge more for products to restore the stauts-quo. If that resulted in the Group's products becoming unprofitable, the result would again be closure of the chain. In either scenario, there would be consequent losses of jobs (and the loss of tax paid by those workers and the cost of benefits for those made jobless). The tax that the Group currently pays would be lost as well.
Take for example today's headline: "Game Group has gone into administration putting 6,000 jobs at risk ".
|
>> What I object to is VAT being on fuel. VAT is for luxuries. Fuel is
>> not a luxury. If they are going to sort out anomalies then VAT needs removing.
VAT is a tax on pretty well everything. Few exceptions or zero rates including most food, kiddies clothes, public transport and books/newspapers. There was briefly a luxury rate in the seventies - charged in luxuries such as fridges and washing machines!!
|
the true cost of motoring - Zero
