Confusion over VED bands and charges

[ISL]

Just noticed that my new GR86 commands a £1595 first year VED, but then drops to £180 for the 2nd year exactly the same as my old Yaris Hybrid. A little concerned that in recent times the government have reverse taxed car owners and how long before the government decide to tax cars with high Co2 in a bid to remove them from the road. I also have a 2003 Porsche 911 with VED of £395 and a 2014 Volvo XC60 D5 with VED of £290, so the GR86 is a bargain at £180 but less so if you drive a Yaris Hybrid.

To make things more confusing my Father-in-law drives a 2015 Renault Clio Diesel with a VED cost of £0

When it comes to ULEZ, I can drive the 911 and GR86 FOC, whereas the Volvo and Renault command a charge of £12.50 a day. So I can drive all cars in the ULEZ, but the car with £0 VED pays £12.50 per day. 
 

Makes no sense to me 🤔

[Cyker]

I know, you can't make this  up!  

 

[flash22]

Diesels have to be euro 6 compliant (circa 2016), Renaults are particular bad due to the amount of diesel variants 2015 is very hit and miss its not the C02 it's the NOX levels

[Cyker]

And that is why the CO2 levels in London went up in the first ULEZ extension - We were all forced to switch from low CO2 diesels to massively higher CO2 petrols!

But their studies won't say that. Not all of them anyway. It's all spin - One day they'll say the levels are down, citing how successful their campaign is, then the next they'll say it's too high and a danger to humans and why we need even tighter restrictions.

They really need to read the boy who cried wolf, because when they do finally tell the truth about something catastrophic, nobody will listen because of all the half-truths and misrepresentations.

[Haliotis]

Is the £1595 on your GR86 because the price of the car was £40,000 or over?  Forget VED rates being all about emissions - the fiddling of the rates by the government (Chancellor George Osbourne being the instigator of punishment for cars priced at £40,000 plus) are all about pushing motorists towards the vehicles that they [the government] think we should be driving.  And recent fiddling is to rectify Treasury losses due to low, or zero, tax on certain cars, and zero tax on fully EV models.

As all embezzlers have discovered, once you start down that road repetitive embezzlement is necessary in order to maintain the fiddle that has commenced.  In the case of the government, they cover their misdemeanours under the cloak of the “law”!

[Cyker]

No, the car tax is normally a flat rate, but the first year is dependent on CO2 - The GR86 has a high CO2, so it's in a high tax band, so costs more.

TBH it's reasonable, as on the previous system it could be near that sort of cost *every* year!!  

On the one hand it's one of the stupidest things and has been driving the uptake of giant fuel-slurping vehicles - Pre-2017 they'd get hammered for car tax, but now everything is flat rate after the first year, whether it's a 0.6L 2-cylinder or a 10L V12!

But on the other hand, car tax should never have been used to try and change behaviour in the first place, and the flat rate is much more sustainable (Part of the reason for the change was so many cars were A-band, zero tax - which would have become all cars come 2030! - depriving them of a significant revenue stream.)