Talk:Vehicle Excise Duty

message: Could we have a section on annual tax revenue levels--Russhayley (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the outrageous, way beyond inflation increases in VED since 2005? Such a section would clearly be considered POV ;)1812ahill (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Annual tax revenue levels article?

message: I've added a link to a calculator for UK VED. I'd better declare an interest and say I wrote the calculator, so feel free to remove the link if I've broken any rules on self-promotion. Adancy (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added External Link 

message: Context... This thread was created out of an issue raised in the 'road tax' thread and was moved here from the User talk:DeFacto#Splitting hairs by DeFacto.
The discussion focuses on the following phrase and if it is compliant with Wikipedia rules. I User:PeterEastern put it on DeFacto's talk page for two reasons. a) I had reverted the challenged text to DeFacto's preferred version so there is no issue to my knowledge in this article. b) this appeared to have more about the edit's interpretation of policy than Vehicle Excise Duty, and as such was more appropriate on his talk page, especially are I wished to draw attention to edits in other articles where the same arguement had been used by the editor, normally when removing 'anti-motoring' content. This is a continuation of a long conversation!PeterEastern (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to mention that I also tagged the weasel words (see WP:Weasel) and the uncited assertion that some organisations object to the term - hence the mention of those actions in my edit comments. -- de Facto (talk). 11:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sorry. I have now removed the irrelevant part of the edit comment from the above text. PeterEastern (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Wiki has policies for a reason - to help provide good quality articles for the readers.  If you disagree with that please go to the appropriate forum to discuss it.  Please don't criticise me for trying to improve the quality of the Vehicle Excise Duty article by attempting to eliminate some of the POV-pushing original research in it. -- de Facto (talk). 21:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute that it is original research. The guidelines say 'A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source'. Is that not what I had done?  PeterEastern (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you used questionable sources, which cannot be used as primary sources. -- de Facto (talk). 21:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. CBT is a limited company of 40 years standing and are experts in their field and are frequently quoted in the press. Its boss even has an obe for 'services to transport'. To quote the guidelines: 'Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications'. Questionable sources are defined as 'those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion'. I again refer you to Association of British Drivers which I believe urgently need your attention. PeterEastern (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a source you added after several of my changes.  The ones of more concern today were: IPayRoadTax and BikeBiz, and then MKWeb, ActiveBradford and CamCycle. -- de Facto (talk). 22:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The CBT source was the one I added in response to your earlier complaint - see previous section. I have not changed it and it was that source which lead to this thread being created. PeterEastern (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The current, reduced, Churchill quote sentence is OK as the Powden reference supports that.  The Plowden reference did not support the sentence as it was when I originally challengerd it. -- de Facto (talk). 11:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. However.... my issue with you in this 'splitting hairs' section is not with the current text, it is to nail down what was wrong with the original text as shown in the quote box. You have told me that the references failed on all sorts of guidelines including not being a secondary source, being a questionable source, being original research and finally (and rather insultingly) Point of view pushing. I believe I have argued successfully that CBT is a reliable source and that a primary source is acceptable, that it is not original research and I think my contributions to this article do not constitute 'POV pushing'. I note that the POVPUSH is defined as aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe views. While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them. Do you still think that you were justified in making these allegations? If not, a if you feel that you were presenting the rules a little too strongly then possibly an apology would be appropriate ;) PeterEastern (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, you assert on my talk page that there in an outstanding issue in this topic, can you point out the particular edit or edit which you still have an issue with - I can't figure out from the tangle above where the problem lies. -- de Facto (talk). 15:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that my last comments made it abundantly clear that I don't have an issues with the current text. I am challenging you on the policies that you have used to justify your earlier edits. See this section and the previous one for details. PeterEastern (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter, I can't see the wood for the trees up there!  Can you please be more specific, and list each of the edits that you think still need further explanation or justification here - one line with the link for each will do.  Thanks. -- de Facto (talk). 15:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting hairs 

message: We are currently debating if the BBC was 'incorrect' in saying that 'road tax as such does not exist'. The word is in bold in this quote:
The claim that the BBC was 'incorrect' is currently supported by two references, one to the the BBC the other to the Guardian. These demonstrate the term 'road tax' being used in place of VED. However, I don't thing the BBC was implying that the term 'road tax' did not exist, more that there is no specific tax that pays for the roads, not since 1937 anyway. As such any number of references to VED being called 'road tax' won't swing the argument. I suggest we avoid the term altogether and that it is removed from this sentence. Whatever the outcome I suggest that the references to support the use of the word are removed as being off topic.
-- PeterEastern (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement "road tax as such does not exist" is factually incorrect.  The term "road tax" does not, and never has, meant a tax which pays for the roads - it has always meant a tax payable to use the roads.  Is alcohol tax a tax to pay for alcohol?  No, it's a tax on the use of alcohol.  Is fuel tax a tax to pay for fuel?  No, it a tax on the use of fuel.  It is the same with "road tax" - it is a tax on road use - the Oxford English Dictionary definition confirms this.  Don't confuse the Road Fund, which stopped being fed directly by road tax in 1937, with road tax itself. -- de Facto (talk). 13:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedestians, cyclists, wheelchairs users, the Queen and users of Band A cars and tractors and many others who use the roads don't pay 'road tax'. I think that is what the BBC was referring to. I suggest you send a complaint to the BBC and publish their response if you are successful, until then I suggest we rework the sentence. PeterEastern (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously suggesting that because some road users don't have to pay it, that road tax doesn't exist?  Would you apply the same logic to "council tax" - because there are many council service users who do not have to pay it?  I suggest that you first go to the council tax article and add a section to it making that point clear there, then come back here and report how well it was accepted. -- de Facto (talk). 15:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am trying to explain that the BBC might not have meant what you think they meant. Your think your Council Tax argument is spurious because it is the official name of the tax. Please can we find some neat way to resolve this rather petty disagreement so that we can get now with more useful work! Any suggestions? PeterEastern (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Substitute "council tax" with "fuel tax" then (that's officially called something like "Hydrocarbon Oil Duty").  Some users of fuel do not pay fuel tax.  If the BBC didn't mean what they literally said, then it was still incorrect.  We could accept that "road tax", as in common usage does exist and that those who try to claim otherwise are mistaken.  Try to make the POV more balanced by working in the fact that they are misrepresenting what happened in 1937, and that it was the hypothecation of the road tax to the road fund that was officially abolished (it had been unofficially ignored for years before), and not the tax itself. -- de Facto (talk). 16:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'incorrect' 

message: May I make the observation that although this article has the title 'Vehicle Excise Duty', most details provided in the content of the article (e.g. 'Charges', 'Rates since April 2005') seem to only relate to Motor-Car excise duty sub-classifications and strategy. ?  
Some of the other main vehicle classification types that aren't exempt ones would perhaps be worth a mention. AlphaMikeFoxtrot (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. PeterEastern (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Seems Motor-car centric

message: "A registered vehicle that is not being used on the road, and which has been taxed since 31 January 1998, must complete a Statutory Off Road Notification (SORN)." I didn't realize artificial intelligence had reached such a standard! 109.149.142.188 (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the disappointing progress made in AI recently I have reworked to lead and believe that it now makes more sense! PeterEastern (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather anthropomorphic... 

message: The article edit that included the info about the VED exemption change mentions (quite rightly) a "Finance 2014 Bill". Are there any other sources aside from the 2013 Budget that refer such a bill? The paragraph in the Budget document sounds more like a veiled "Vote for us and we promise to do XXXX next time" teaser to me. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's perhaps a little to early to speculate? Mongoosander (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  VED exemption date change 

message: The section titled "Other terms in common use" is still a clear and obvious case of POV-pushing. 176.249.26.217 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the section text or section title? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: We no longer have "tax discs" issued in the UK! 92.40.249.174 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a recent change, and this is an article on WIkipedia, written by volunteers. Give it chance to get up to date, or be BOLD and take a swing at it yourself. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is all out of date 

message: As a German, I've always found it a bit confusing when they talk about used car prices on TV shows like top gear "taxed & tested". Over here, when selling your car, you get a partial refund of your VED when you de-register it, and the buyer has to pay the VED for the remainder of the year. Don't you get such a refund in Britain, or didn't you use to get one say in 2004 when they did the famous 100-Pound car challenge on Top Gear? Did you really actually have to square it all with the buyer of your car? I'd be glad if somebody could clear that up.--Cancun (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been misled into thinking that Top Gear is a factual programme! The system changed a couple of years ago - now you apply to get a refund when you sell the car, but previously you sold the unused months of the tax with the car - so it did count for something on the value of an old banger --FDent (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This information should be added to the article.   Currently there is an omission.  FreeFlow99 (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax refund when selling cars? 

message: The article currently says £280 in first year then £620 for each subsequent year; I believe these figures are the wrong way around as can be seen from the table above.  The errors seems to be carried through to the 10-year totals calculated in the next sentence; the current system would result in £3,140 rather than £5,860.  And under the new system, wouldn't the normal Year-1 rate (£1,200) also be increased by the £310 to £1,510, giving a 10-yr total of £4,010? In addition, it might be worth mentioning in the example that this vehicle falls above the £40k limit in case any reader is not familiar with Range Rover prices [I didn't go ahead and make the changes myself as a) I wasn't sure about how the £40k supplement works and didn't have time to check it, and b) this is my first ever Wikipedia edit so thought I'd practice on a Talk page. Apologies if I've missed anything.] JA 1961 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the example of Car VED figures for Range Rover Autobiography?

message: Substituted at 18:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment