The Budget

an extra 1.3 billion for scientists to sit about navel gazing too.

Bah, we need far more than that.

Harvard medical school's annual endowment is worth more per year than the entire UK higher education spending

according to the beebs calculator I will be £250 a year better off. I expect it will be coming from Brids massive tax contributions. good on yer fella, keep up the good work.

I'm £157 up... cheers brid

the tax on the big engined cars is rediculous, if he really wants to encourage people to travel less, abolish Road Tax and place the whole of the duty onto Fuel - then at least those who make extreme amounts of journeys would really have to reconsider their lifestyles.

EXACTLY - sticking it on road tax is stupid - put it on petrol, thats why the people who USE IT and therefore USE THE ROADS MOST - pay for it - doesn't that make sense?

i have a big engined car, that i can't afford to change at the moment, yet i only use it at weekends for shopping and going places - yet i'm getting FUCKED for using it ?!?!?!?!? it's complete bollocks.

thats ok for you townies but us country mice need to travel farther and we're not all rich 4x4 drivers

so you use roads more? good, you can pay more

you pollute more though? if the tax is one which is supposed to encourage non-pollution - then those who drive more should pay more.

it is just not logical.

there could be population arguement, in areas where there is less traffic pollution concerntrations aren't a problem

big cities = big taxes

then tax via postcode?

i don't have a problem with a tax as long as it is logical as to its aim. this tax is aimed at reducing emissions. i accept some big engined cars produce higher than normal emissions, however ultimately emissions are dependant on use, and despite the social stigma attached to the mother who uses her 4x4 / MPV to pick up 5 kids from school and do the weekend shopping, it is likely that a sales rep who is doing 20,000+ miles a year is releasing much higher emissions.

I would just like the tax to reflect its aim, not much to ask.

the aim of the 4x4 tax is to make those of us who can't afford one become less jealous thus increasing the sum of human happiness

if Brown were to state that as the reasoning behind it, it would make me a happy man. all i am asking is that the tax is proportionate as to its aim. otherwise, why not simply increase income tax?

The blanket condemnation of 4x4s really pisses me off. I have a tiny one, shorter than my old Golf lengthwise and only marginally taller. It has a reasonable fuel consumption. As with MoS, I can't afford to change it at the moment.

Most sports cars use significantly more fuel, yet people seem to forget about them!

If you've bought a big 4x4 you should be expected to pay higher tax on it. Go and buy a smaller car you moany owld bastards. These people don't even need a 4x4, they live in a city!!!!

I bought a small engined car because;
A) it uses less fuel
B) the tax is cheaper
C) the insurance group is lower

99% of people with 4x4's don't need to have such a big engine or 4 wheel drive. It is a luxury, they should be expected to pay more. Otherwise go out and by something different like a 1.4ltr people carrier.

I agree with the petrol tax thing though.

is it a panda? I wondered what would happen with 4wd pandas. It seems unfair to tax them more