On Monday, 17 April 2017 16:48:16 UTC+1, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 17/04/17 11:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Huge wrote:

The (proposed) scrappage scheme is geographically based, so your figures
are irrelevant.

So to be even vaguely worthwhile (a grand or two) it will need to be
highly selective, applying to 0.5 to 1% of all cars?

Presumably these will be in marginal constituencies, then ...

It will be the usual mess. Based on age or whatever, rather on the worst
polluting vehicles. Which aren't always going to be the oldest.


Shouldn't we _not_ be rewarding car manufacturers with opportunities to
make more sales of vehicles? They themselves should be funding the
scrappage, not the tax payer.

Should all tax payers _not_ be subsidising those lucky enough to be in
the situation of nearly buying a new car? It's like Solar panels and FIT.

Scrappage is a discount of a *new* vehicle, the type of purchase that
devalues by a similar or worse amount in days when first driven off the
forecourt.

As a lot of folks are a bit wiser than that, I'd rather something was
done on secondhand trades. Was it? I wasn't watching the 2009 scrappage
thing that closely.

A new equivalent for my 2004 diesel lump with similar fuel/pulling
performance would be a smaller engine with a necessary turbo charger.
Sod it, I'll be going electric...

... and ten years time, will be the electric vehicle scrappage event.
Car electromagnetic field emissions seriously harming the directional
finding abilities of Pigeons we'll be told ...


--
Adrian C

Be warned.
Nobody can fix electric/hybrid cars should it go wrong.