CHANCELLOR Gordon Brown is expected to clamp down on gas-guzzling 4x4s when he delivers his 10th budget tomorrow.
He is likely to increase the cost of the tax disc for vehicles which pollute most and cut it for greener cars.
Mr Brown's plan to make car tax greener has already been welcomed. Friends of the Earth spokesman Simon Bullock said: "We would like the Chancellor to bring the tax disc for the least polluting cars down to zero. It's a good thing that the Chancellor is now talking more about environmental issues such as this."
Another controversial move expected is higher taxes for the operators of super casinos.
The government was forced to reduce the proposed number of these big gaming centres. And areas such as Manchester and Blackpool are competing to attract one and become the `Las Vegas of the north'.
Tax bill
But the Chancellor is likely to announce that any company given to go-ahead to build a super casino will face a tax bill of around '5,000 for every major gambling machine - which could mean up to '6million just to set up the casino.
Mr Brown is likely to promise that by punishing the developers of the super casinos he could abolish tax on small scale gaming machines in an attempt to encourage the survival of family-run arcades in seaside towns such as Blackpool, which are popular with families.
MPs are also expecting the budget to announce extra support to train women to enter traditionally male professions such as plumbing, as well as an expansion of the children's trust fund to include further payments as a child grows up, probably at seven and 11.
The Chancellor is likely to use his budget - which could be the last before Mr Blair steps down to make way for Mr Brown - to reject suggestions that he would return to old Labour policies of tax and spend.
But financial experts are claiming that the nation's tax bill has risen by '219bn since Labour came to power in 1997 - equal to '9,000 for each household.
* CLICK onto www. manchestereveningnews.co.uk for our full live coverage of the Budget 2006 as the facts emerge.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 15 and replies | View All
Driver, Bolton (21/03/2006 at 14:43)
gertie, manchester (21/03/2006 at 14:45)
Ms D, Manchester (21/03/2006 at 14:57)
Chris, Manchester (21/03/2006 at 16:20)
Sports cars?
Luxury cars?
Vans?
It's the thin end of a very thick wedge, this targetting of individual road users based purely on their vehicle!
Joey, Ashton under Lyne (21/03/2006 at 16:21)
The pic in story is ??50,000 Beemer it looses ????????thousands every year in depriciation, What is ??2 a week extra to them, paying 20 pence per mile fuel tax compared to 10 pence means they are paying more than the average motorist anyway.
When it come down to the cleaner-greener issue that depends on the mileage covered, car used for the school run say a 1000 miles a year, compared to 10,000 for the average family car means that the family car would have to be 10 times cleaner (which is impossible) just to be an equal polluter.
Ricky G, Whitefield (21/03/2006 at 18:53)
There would be a lot less pollution if the bus lanes were disposed of - all those cars queuing through Whitefield every morning and evening rush hour.
Shame I can't put down my car, car insurance and tax down to expenses like MP's can - then again I have to pay my own mortgage and house insurance unlike MP's.
What a bunch of hypocrits they are.
Steve Williams, Stockport (21/03/2006 at 18:55)
Bit sexist isnt it .... what about assistance for men to be nurses, midhusbands, secretaries and househusbands
Jimmy, Rural Scotland (21/03/2006 at 21:02)
John Elleray, Winton (21/03/2006 at 21:03)
It is not exactly rocket science is it? I agree that we should target vehicles that pollute the most, but this doesn't automatically mean that 4x4's pollute the most. I drive a Freelander TD4 which gives 35 mpg around the town. My previous vehicle was a Renault 19 which barely got 35 mpg on a long run. I imagine that if you compare emissions, the Freelander would have been much less harmful to the enviroment than the Renault.
Does it seem fair to tax the Freelander heavier than the Renault - I think not
James Saul, Wolverhampton (21/03/2006 at 21:08)
It is LPG converted and thus is very clean as regards emissions, at the last MoT it was cleaner than our 3 yr old vauxhall.
On the topic of size, it also occupies less area on the road than our vauxhall (omega estate), it is simply taller, which as far as i'm aware does not contribute towards reducing available road area.
We are already paying the maximum RFL and pay more tax in fuel simply by using more, why should we have to have another tax hike when we have already invested in making our vehicle more environmentally friendly.
Bungle, Salford (22/03/2006 at 01:50)
J. Garforth, Manchester (22/03/2006 at 10:41)
They obstruct a small child's view of the road when they are trying to cross to the school and are completely unnecessary. The same is true where I work. These monsters fill up the car park and are only carrying one person, the driver!
I drive a small one litre car and am much happier that I don't have trouble parking at all, my tax is a lot cheaper and my fuel bill is so much better not to mention less pollution. My two children fit into it nicely. (I still try to walk to school when I have chance though). My suggestion to irate 4x4 drivers is, if you don't like the rise in tax, get a smaller car, it's not as if you can't afford it! How many people actually have a family of seven that requires the use of these cars on a daily basis anyway?? I just find it incomprehensible that a lot of 4x4 owners actually have smaller second cars for their spouses which get used far more than the beast itself! But, maybe I am being too harsh on the poor driver of the 4x4. Perhaps a better solution would be to keep the tax as it is and make it compulsary for a 4x4 owner to participate in car share schemes, at least it would be used to full capacity then. One other thing, take a look at the tyres on your 4x4, do they have much more than a coating of motorway dust? If not, I very much doubt your car has ever been off road at all, what's the point??
penelope, handforth (22/03/2006 at 14:12)
tom, evesham (22/03/2006 at 16:13)
Nick, Durham (23/03/2006 at 23:16)