On 27/05/2016 10:04, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:18, Muddymike wrote:
On 26/05/2016 15:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/05/2016 13:40, Fredxxx wrote:
On 24/05/2016 13:25, AnthonyL wrote:


So what's the point of the EPC which seems just a work of fiction?

It is not unreasonable to take the running costs of a house into
account
when making a purchase.

Absolutely.

Except EPCs are so inaccurate as to be useless.

Even to compare one house to another? To someone who had no idea on
how to
DIY this? Just curious - I've no experience of them.

What is absolutely ludicrous is having to have one for holiday let
properties. I don't believe anyone would choose a holiday cottage by its
EPC. Yet its a government requirement.

If it is rented for more than 4 months of the year.

We don't know at the beginning of any one year how many weeks/months it
will be rented for.

How long does the EPC last?

I believe 10 years.

I agree it is daft if you pay for the utilities and not the occupier.
Exactly, yet our booking agency insisted it be done when the rule first
came into force.

Mike

On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

I now drive a car I didn't know existed until seeing it in the low CO2
band of a fleet listing.

Mike

In article ,
Muddymike wrote:
On 26/05/2016 14:35, AnthonyL wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:06:36 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 19:07:39 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
Does anyone buy a car on the MPG figures?


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.

Like for like, low CO2 output should equate to good MPG.

--
*If you don't pay your exorcist you get repossessed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 27/05/16 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

I now drive a car I didn't know existed until seeing it in the low CO2
band of a fleet listing.

Mike

Yet another bit of useless EU legislation designed to force you to buy a
given product.


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 27/05/2016 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

I now drive a car I didn't know existed until seeing it in the low CO2
band of a fleet listing.

Mike

Yet another bit of useless EU legislation designed to force you to buy a
given product.

I don't see force, just gentle encouragement.

Everyone is still free to purchase the car of their choice, taxes have a
marginal effect on overall cost of car ownership.

On 27/05/2016 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

£1300 per year? How?

On 27/05/16 12:00, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

I now drive a car I didn't know existed until seeing it in the low CO2
band of a fleet listing.

Mike

Yet another bit of useless EU legislation designed to force you to buy a
given product.

I don't see force, just gentle encouragement.

If you are on a low mileage and fuel doesn't come into play, low car tax
makes a HUGE difference to annualised costs. Despite the fact you are
not doing the miles therefore not generating the CO2.

If they wanted to reduce CO2 add cost to the FUEL, Oh no. Tax the car,.
So its nothing to do with reducing CO2 at all, its just another tax with
a green excuse, and a way to make newer cars cheaper to run



Everyone is still free to purchase the car of their choice, taxes have a
marginal effect on overall cost of car ownership.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 27/05/16 12:01, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

£1300 per year? How?

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-faq...my-bik-tax-/2/

May offer a clue.

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On 27/05/2016 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 12:01, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

£1300 per year? How?

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-faq...my-bik-tax-/2/

Ah, I thought no one in their right mind had a company car these days
unless they were being stung by the CSA or similar and wanted their net
salary to look artificially low.

On 27/05/2016 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

I now drive a car I didn't know existed until seeing it in the low CO2
band of a fleet listing.

Mike

Yet another bit of useless EU legislation designed to force you to buy a
given product.



The UK government sets the tax rate and bands not the EU.
They have complete freedom to do so, so you should be happy.

On Fri, 27 May 2016 12:47:36 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 27/05/2016 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yet another bit of useless EU legislation designed to force you to buy
a given product.

The UK government sets the tax rate and bands not the EU. They have
complete freedom to do so, so you should be happy.

Quite. Some countries have zero VED-equivalent for any car, some
countries have rates MUCH higher than ours. New cars from next year will
have a very different rating system, while cars from before 2001 aren't
CO2-taxed at all.

But since when did facts and reality ever stop TurNiP from having an anti-
EU rant?

On 27/05/2016 12:49, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2016 12:47:36 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

On 27/05/2016 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yet another bit of useless EU legislation designed to force you to buy
a given product.

The UK government sets the tax rate and bands not the EU. They have
complete freedom to do so, so you should be happy.

Quite. Some countries have zero VED-equivalent for any car, some
countries have rates MUCH higher than ours. New cars from next year will
have a very different rating system, while cars from before 2001 aren't
CO2-taxed at all.

But since when did facts and reality ever stop TurNiP from having an anti-
EU rant?


Well there are some idiots about that will believe what he says, mainly
because they also make stuff up about the EU.

On 27/05/2016 12:47, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 12:01, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In
fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

£1300 per year? How?

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-faq...my-bik-tax-/2/

Ah, I thought no one in their right mind had a company car these days
unless they were being stung by the CSA or similar and wanted their net
salary to look artificially low.

Numbers are down by c1 million from the peak in the 1990s but there were
still 940,000 company cars for tax purposes in 2013-14.

It could be that many of those those drivers are not so much mad as
clued up on the way the BIK charge and the statutory mileage allowances
can give very different results.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 27/05/2016 12:47, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 12:01, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In
fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

£1300 per year? How?

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-faq...my-bik-tax-/2/

Ah, I thought no one in their right mind had a company car these days
unless they were being stung by the CSA or similar and wanted their net
salary to look artificially low.

Trust me I have looked long and hard into alternatives. The revenue have
it pretty finely tuned to make company cars just beneficial despite the
taxation.

The one big issue I have is young Salespeople who would be quite happy
with something small and trendy instead of the Mondeo sized estate cars
I require them to drive in order to carry the required samples.

Why should they be taxed on something they don't actual want?

Mike

On Fri, 27 May 2016 16:07:20 +0100, Muddymike wrote:

The one big issue I have is young Salespeople who would be quite happy
with something small and trendy instead of the Mondeo sized estate cars
I require them to drive in order to carry the required samples.

Why should they be taxed on something they don't actual want?

They don't have to be.

They're taxed because they have the car available to them outside work.
If they left it at work, and never used it for personal use, then they
wouldn't be taxed on the benefit in kind, since it wouldn't be one.

As it is, they're being taxed on the Mondeo-sized estate that they have
available to them for their personal use.

On 27/05/2016 16:07, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:47, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 12:01, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In
fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

£1300 per year? How?

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-faq...my-bik-tax-/2/

Ah, I thought no one in their right mind had a company car these days
unless they were being stung by the CSA or similar and wanted their net
salary to look artificially low.

Trust me I have looked long and hard into alternatives. The revenue have
it pretty finely tuned to make company cars just beneficial despite the
taxation.

I guess only after you factor in the depreciation associated with a new car.

But then I would never have a car younger that 2 years old and so to let
someone else stomach all that loss in value.

The one big issue I have is young Salespeople who would be quite happy
with something small and trendy instead of the Mondeo sized estate cars
I require them to drive in order to carry the required samples.

Why should they be taxed on something they don't actual want?

If that's company policy, then company must compensate.

Of course, they could have their own, and only use company cars for
company work.

On 27/05/2016 09:57, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Huge wrote:

I moved house at the beginning of this year,
and no-one gave a damn about EPCs.

I thought all that got scrapped when the coalition got in.

I think the Home Information Pack got junked but somehow the EPC, which
was part of it, remained.

I may be wrong, but ISTR there was a EU directive requiring the EPC or
similar?


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 27/05/2016 12:47, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 12:01, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In
fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

£1300 per year? How?

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-faq...my-bik-tax-/2/

Ah, I thought no one in their right mind had a company car these days
unless they were being stung by the CSA or similar and wanted their net
salary to look artificially low.

The added BIK makes your earnings look larger not smaller.

But in general, company cars are far less attractive than they were at
one time. For most people, using their own car and claiming 45p/mile for
business mileage is preferable.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Friday, 27 May 2016 11:01:17 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Muddymike wrote:
On 26/05/2016 14:35, AnthonyL wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:06:36 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 19:07:39 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
Does anyone buy a car on the MPG figures?


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.

Like for like, low CO2 output should equate to good MPG.

--
*If you don't pay your exorcist you get repossessed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Nope.
Indicates how much petrol/diesel is burned, not how much of it is converted to mechanical power.

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2016-05-26, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

EPCs are so inaccurate as to be useless.

Even to compare one house to another? To someone who had no idea on how
to
DIY this? Just curious - I've no experience of them.

Have a look a few from e.g. your own street

https://www.epcregister.com/reportSearchAddressByPostcode.html

See how much is based on assumption, and what variations have an impact
on the A-G rating, see how many thousand of pounds are typically
recommended to be spent on improvements for a meagre few tens of pounds
per year saving.

As "everyone" down this road has gas C/H and double glazing, the
difference between a C or D rating seems to depend more on whether you
have energy saving light bulbs than how much loft insulation you've got.

It's all utter wank.

+1


--
Adam

On 27/05/2016 18:31, harry wrote:

Like for like, low CO2 output should equate to good MPG.

Nope.
Indicates how much petrol/diesel is burned, not how much of it is converted to mechanical power.

No, he's right, and you're wrong.

CO2 output for cars is specified in grams per km. Pretty much all the C
in the fuel should be converted to CO2, so that's directly related to MPG.

On 27/05/16 09:57, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Huge wrote:

I moved house at the beginning of this year,
and no-one gave a damn about EPCs.

I thought all that got scrapped when the coalition got in.

I think the Home Information Pack got junked but somehow the EPC, which
was part of it, remained.


EPC is a EU directive.


--
djc

(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

On 26/05/16 22:54, Peter Parry wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2016 15:09:02 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:


Even to compare one house to another? To someone who had no idea on how to
DIY this? Just curious - I've no experience of them.

From what I have seen of them they are so wildly inaccurate that you
couldn't use them to compare both sides of a semi detached house. When
first introduced vast numbers of hairdressers abandoned their salons
and paid a few thousand pounds to go on a course to become "qualified"
EPC assessors. They were promised large rewards and steady
employment. Unfortunately (for them) neither came to pass and the few
left are trying to undercut each other to peddle their services. You
can get an EPC for about £30

Or less. When I sold my flat the Agent didn't charge for the EPC. That,
the floorplan and the photography were all supplied by a single
specialist company. So the EPC was done by the same person as the floorplan.




One such assessed a friends house that had the thermal characteristics
of a Chieftain tank. It was a single pre cast concrete wall
construction with render on the outside. Surveyor put it down as an
insulated cavity wall. The attic had at least 2mm of ancient
insulation of unknown provenance or material. That was put down as
200mm of fibreglass because there was no loft ladder so he looked up
at it from the landing. The fact that you could see light through the
roof should have been a clue all was not well. One recommendation was
to add solar water heating which it was estimated would save £40 per
year for an outlay of only £6,000.

The overall assessment was D when by any sensible assessment G would
have been right.



--
djc

(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

On Friday, 27 May 2016 19:14:14 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 27/05/2016 18:31, harry wrote:

Like for like, low CO2 output should equate to good MPG.

Nope.
Indicates how much petrol/diesel is burned, not how much of it is converted to mechanical power.

No, he's right, and you're wrong.

CO2 output for cars is specified in grams per km. Pretty much all the C
in the fuel should be converted to CO2, so that's directly related to MPG.

Just because the fuel is burnt doesn't mean it's converted to mechanical power.
There'd be no point in specifying MPG and mg CO2/mile otherwise.

Not all the fuel is burned either.

Get yourself an education.

In article ,
DJC wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:57, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Huge wrote:

I moved house at the beginning of this year,
and no-one gave a damn about EPCs.

I thought all that got scrapped when the coalition got in.

I think the Home Information Pack got junked but somehow the EPC, which
was part of it, remained.


EPC is a EU directive.

It's not actually that bad an idea if done correctly. But as usual with
these things ends up in the hands of charlatans and crooks.

Not restricted to the EU either. Few law makers have a clue on how that
'law' will be implemented in practice or ramifications of it being enacted.

--
*To steal ideas from *one* person is plagiarism; from many, research*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/05/2016 11:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DJC wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:57, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

Huge wrote:

I moved house at the beginning of this year,
and no-one gave a damn about EPCs.

I thought all that got scrapped when the coalition got in.

I think the Home Information Pack got junked but somehow the EPC, which
was part of it, remained.


EPC is a EU directive.

It's not actually that bad an idea if done correctly. But as usual with
these things ends up in the hands of charlatans and crooks.

Not restricted to the EU either. Few law makers have a clue on how that
'law' will be implemented in practice or ramifications of it being enacted.

Which itself seems to come from the UN.

Looks to me as if the people at the top might have genuinely expected
better implementation.

--
Rod

On 28/05/2016 07:23, harry wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 19:14:14 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 27/05/2016 18:31, harry wrote:

Like for like, low CO2 output should equate to good MPG.

Nope.
Indicates how much petrol/diesel is burned, not how much of it is converted to mechanical power.

No, he's right, and you're wrong.

CO2 output for cars is specified in grams per km. Pretty much all the C
in the fuel should be converted to CO2, so that's directly related to MPG.

Just because the fuel is burnt doesn't mean it's converted to mechanical power.
There'd be no point in specifying MPG and mg CO2/mile otherwise.

Doesn't matter if the fuel is burned in the engine or eg in the DPF
(cleaning it out), it still counts towards both MPG and CO2 in exactly
the same manner.

Not all the fuel is burned either.

Yes it is. You're not allowed to have hydrocarbons coming out of your
exhaust.

Get yourself an education.

Got any suggestions? I quite liked the film of that name.

On 27/05/2016 18:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 11:01:17 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Muddymike wrote:
On 26/05/2016 14:35, AnthonyL wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:06:36 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 19:07:39 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
Does anyone buy a car on the MPG figures?


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.

Like for like, low CO2 output should equate to good MPG.

Nope.
Indicates how much petrol/diesel is burned,

Which per mile/km is what is being discussed here

not how much of it is converted to mechanical power.

Someone else who does not understand the difference between energy and
power. You should go into politics harry.

Power is certainly not relevant here, especially as you don't even know
the weight of the vehicle. What we *are* interested in is the amount of
*energy* used per unit distance. The CO2/km figure neatly dispenses with
the need to know much of the detail of the vehicle or anything about its
efficiency. It just needs to act as a proxy for the amount fuel consumed
per km.

Two vehicles may have identical efficiencies and yet one could have a
higher CO2/mile. That's usually a good indication its larger / heavier.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/05/2016 12:26, Clive George wrote:
Yes it is. You're not allowed to have hydrocarbons coming out of your
exhaust.

That might be true. Tell it to the numerous vehicles I follow which are
belching clouds of blackness. Or their owners/drivers. Actually, might
as well tell it to the vehicles - it won't make any difference.

I'd be delighted to see a mobile vehicle pollution check on some of the
nearby hills.

--
Rod

On Saturday, 28 May 2016 12:26:10 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 28/05/2016 07:23, harry wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 19:14:14 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 27/05/2016 18:31, harry wrote:

Like for like, low CO2 output should equate to good MPG.

Nope.
Indicates how much petrol/diesel is burned, not how much of it is converted to mechanical power.

No, he's right, and you're wrong.

CO2 output for cars is specified in grams per km. Pretty much all the C
in the fuel should be converted to CO2, so that's directly related to MPG.

Just because the fuel is burnt doesn't mean it's converted to mechanical power.
There'd be no point in specifying MPG and mg CO2/mile otherwise.

Doesn't matter if the fuel is burned in the engine or eg in the DPF
(cleaning it out), it still counts towards both MPG and CO2 in exactly
the same manner.

Not all the fuel is burned either.

Yes it is. You're not allowed to have hydrocarbons coming out of your
exhaust.


Why do you suppose "cats" are fitted to cars?
Are you totally brain dead?

On Saturday, 28 May 2016 13:37:13 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/05/2016 18:31, harry wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 11:01:17 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Muddymike wrote:
On 26/05/2016 14:35, AnthonyL wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2016 19:06:36 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 24 May 2016 19:07:39 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
Does anyone buy a car on the MPG figures?


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.

Like for like, low CO2 output should equate to good MPG.

Nope.
Indicates how much petrol/diesel is burned,

Which per mile/km is what is being discussed here

not how much of it is converted to mechanical power.

Someone else who does not understand the difference between energy and
power. You should go into politics harry.

Power is certainly not relevant here, especially as you don't even know
the weight of the vehicle. What we *are* interested in is the amount of
*energy* used per unit distance. The CO2/km figure neatly dispenses with
the need to know much of the detail of the vehicle or anything about its
efficiency. It just needs to act as a proxy for the amount fuel consumed
per km.

Two vehicles may have identical efficiencies and yet one could have a
higher CO2/mile. That's usually a good indication its larger / heavier.

I understand it perfectly well thanks.
The very point I was making if you'd troubled to read the thread instead of coming in with your drivel.

They can also be the same weight and have different mpg and different Co2/mile/Km.
The efficiency varies for different reasons.

On 29/05/2016 07:20, harry wrote:
Why do you suppose "cats" are fitted to cars?
Are you totally brain dead?

To ensure compliance with the requirement that no (or next to no)
hydrocarbons come out of the exhaust.

It matters not one jot to the hydrocarbon emissions whether the
"burning" occurs in the engine or in the catalytic converter.

--
Rod

On 29/05/2016 07:24, harry wrote:


I understand it perfectly well thanks.

You do now its been explained to you.
Next you will be claiming you knew all along.

The very point I was making if you'd troubled to read the thread instead of coming in with your drivel.

They can also be the same weight and have different mpg and different Co2/mile/Km.
The efficiency varies for different reasons.


See told you so.
That's what you were told by the posters you accuse of being brain dead.

You really need to try something new as everyone knows what you keep doing.

On 29/05/2016 07:20, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 28 May 2016 12:26:10 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 28/05/2016 07:23, harry wrote:
On Friday, 27 May 2016 19:14:14 UTC+1, Clive George wrote:
On 27/05/2016 18:31, harry wrote:

Like for like, low CO2 output should equate to good MPG.

Nope.
Indicates how much petrol/diesel is burned, not how much of it is converted to mechanical power.

No, he's right, and you're wrong.

CO2 output for cars is specified in grams per km. Pretty much all the C
in the fuel should be converted to CO2, so that's directly related to MPG.

Just because the fuel is burnt doesn't mean it's converted to mechanical power.
There'd be no point in specifying MPG and mg CO2/mile otherwise.

Doesn't matter if the fuel is burned in the engine or eg in the DPF
(cleaning it out), it still counts towards both MPG and CO2 in exactly
the same manner.

Not all the fuel is burned either.

Yes it is. You're not allowed to have hydrocarbons coming out of your
exhaust.


Why do you suppose "cats" are fitted to cars?
Are you totally brain dead?

Because you're not allowed (among other things) hydrocarbons coming out
of your exhaust. The CO2 is measured after the cat, not before.

On 27/05/2016 18:03, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:47, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 12:01, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In
fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

£1300 per year? How?

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-faq...my-bik-tax-/2/

Ah, I thought no one in their right mind had a company car these days
unless they were being stung by the CSA or similar and wanted their net
salary to look artificially low.

The added BIK makes your earnings look larger not smaller.

You mean you pay more tax and your net earnings, the ones CSA use, look
higher?

On 29/05/2016 16:42, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 18:03, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:47, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 12:01, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In
fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it
not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a
matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

£1300 per year? How?

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-faq...my-bik-tax-/2/

Ah, I thought no one in their right mind had a company car these days
unless they were being stung by the CSA or similar and wanted their net
salary to look artificially low.

The added BIK makes your earnings look larger not smaller.

You mean you pay more tax and your net earnings, the ones CSA use, look
higher?

I recall a friend in near panic, when his company were withdrawing his
company car, and he was being paid an allowance to provide one himself.

It was going to be a double whammy, where his income was going to be
higher, and going to be taxed less. His net income was going to be
substantially more, but was then going to see a substantial chunk taken
away.

On 29/05/2016 16:42, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 18:03, John Rumm wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:47, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 12:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 12:01, Fredxxx wrote:
On 27/05/2016 10:51, Muddymike wrote:
On 27/05/2016 09:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/05/16 09:15, Muddymike wrote:


I chose my current car mostly because of its low CO2 rating. In
fact I
would never have considered one or known of its existence had it
not
appeared where it does in a list by CO2 rating.


Is this a recognised medical condition, or is that simply a
matter of
the tax banding?

Mike


BIK Tax banding. The CO2 level sets the % of list price I have to pay
40% tax on each year.
By choosing a car with a lower CO2, yet a higher list price than the
Audi Allroad I last had I save £112 every month.

£1300 per year? How?

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-faq...my-bik-tax-/2/

Ah, I thought no one in their right mind had a company car these days
unless they were being stung by the CSA or similar and wanted their net
salary to look artificially low.

The added BIK makes your earnings look larger not smaller.

You mean you pay more tax and your net earnings, the ones CSA use, look
higher?

You certainly pay more tax - I have no idea what figures the CSA use,
however many financial bodies will take BIK as being the equivalent of
earnings.

Typically some calculation is done to decide on the level of "benefit"
the car brings... they have used various factors over the years
including its price, age, engine size, the amount of business mileage
per year, CO2 emissions per km etc and whether fuel for personal use is
also included.

So you start with the list price of the car as a baseline. Add to it the
cost of any accessories or options paid for by the employer. Take of any
contribution made by the keeper. Then take a proportion of that based on
some of the factors described above. That gives you a figure on your
P11D (BIK) working sheet. HMRC then use that typically to adjust your
tax code to "code out" the tax on the benefit currently not being
collected PAYE. So your available tax free pay will be lower each month.
Your BIK could even add (say) and extra BIK of £11K/year - completely
eliminating the personal tax allowance. This will yield a "negative" (or
"K") tax code for those people (i.e. if you earn zero pounds that month,
then you still have some tax to pay). How much any of that costs in real
terms will depend on your tax bracket.

In addition, if the employer is VAT registered, then there will be a VAT
road fuel scale charge for the business has to pay for any vehicle where
fuel is provided for private use. This is a flat rate change based on
CO2 or if unavailable, engine size. That can currently vary from just
under £500 to over £1,600 year extra.





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/