So, had a reasonable amount of time to consider things
On the VED for existing cars. The policy isn't great
- They don't tend to retrospectively change VED, so that people can make decisions to spend more low emission vehicles knowing that ongoing costs were lower. This was true for ICE last decade, and EVs this decade.
- Other cars which are considerably more polluting are low or zero VED. On one hand, these are now likely to be driven by those with less money to spare, but it feels wrong to re-evaluate EVs without re-evaluating older ICE vehicles. Plus EV owners are likely to be caught more with income tax increases (Broadest shoulders, I don't actually have an issue with this)
The expensive car supplement on VED on new cars from 2025 is considerably more problematic.
- The expensive car supplement was supposed to catch luxury vehicles, cars in general have increased in price dramatically since the pandemic
- 40k for an ICE is still a somewhat premium car. EVs are simply more expensive, and need a higher allowance
- The hard limit also makes limited sense, and reduces the inventive to buy a more efficient EV. For example skip a heatpump, and you can fit under the expensive car allowance. Not incentivising efficiency will (in the medium term) increase demand on EV chargers and the grid and increase CO2 emissions.
- Some cars have hybrid models which won't attract the luxury vehicle tax, but have an EV version which will. To me, that's utterly perverse
To be clear, I'm not saying a Q8 eTron or Ferrari shouldn't pay the supplement. I'm not even sure a Tesla should be exempt (Although would argue that they have class leading efficiency). But the change to the system makes EV buyers less sure, and in 2025 it will actively disincentive purchasing EVs over Hybrids. There is, of course, plenty of time for this to be revised, and I think it unlikely that a conservative government is actually in power to implement this come 2025
On the VED for existing cars. The policy isn't great
- They don't tend to retrospectively change VED, so that people can make decisions to spend more low emission vehicles knowing that ongoing costs were lower. This was true for ICE last decade, and EVs this decade.
- Other cars which are considerably more polluting are low or zero VED. On one hand, these are now likely to be driven by those with less money to spare, but it feels wrong to re-evaluate EVs without re-evaluating older ICE vehicles. Plus EV owners are likely to be caught more with income tax increases (Broadest shoulders, I don't actually have an issue with this)
The expensive car supplement on VED on new cars from 2025 is considerably more problematic.
- The expensive car supplement was supposed to catch luxury vehicles, cars in general have increased in price dramatically since the pandemic
- 40k for an ICE is still a somewhat premium car. EVs are simply more expensive, and need a higher allowance
- The hard limit also makes limited sense, and reduces the inventive to buy a more efficient EV. For example skip a heatpump, and you can fit under the expensive car allowance. Not incentivising efficiency will (in the medium term) increase demand on EV chargers and the grid and increase CO2 emissions.
- Some cars have hybrid models which won't attract the luxury vehicle tax, but have an EV version which will. To me, that's utterly perverse
To be clear, I'm not saying a Q8 eTron or Ferrari shouldn't pay the supplement. I'm not even sure a Tesla should be exempt (Although would argue that they have class leading efficiency). But the change to the system makes EV buyers less sure, and in 2025 it will actively disincentive purchasing EVs over Hybrids. There is, of course, plenty of time for this to be revised, and I think it unlikely that a conservative government is actually in power to implement this come 2025