OV9

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:47 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:42 pm The motability changes seem like a bit of a fuck you to people who can’t really afford it too.

I just don't get these changes at all. My understanding is that the cost to the taxpayer is no different depending on the cost of the car? So this becomes purely about the optics of someone knocking about in an Audi A4 rather than a Skoda Octavia. It's daft. And who decides what's "premium"?

It's just another measure to add to their "politics of envy" tag.

I think the point is if you can afford to top up you don't need a grant from the government. Perfectly legitimate in my view to set a price cap of vehicles that can fall within the regime. Same as not being able to buy carbon race bikes on the cycle to work scheme (was that adjusted? I didn't hear it mentioned).

That's said, BMWs and Mercs are not really the prestige items they once were and I'm sure their basic models are not much more than a well spec'd VW equivalent. Ford and French stuff likely less I'd guess.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:45 pm

duncs500 wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:39 pm

Jobbo wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:35 pm

Fiscal drag seems to be the policy now - Dan Neidle calculates that it's the biggest overall tax raiser from a single policy since WWII.

If they are able to get value out of it, and it makes a difference to the country, then that's alright. I fear they won't, but then it's not like I'd have any confidence in any other party doing any better.

The trouble is, and this is just my simplistic view, is that to me it seems to be part of the problem of wage stagnation. It's a nice earner for successive Gov'ts as it allows them to state that they're not putting taxes up. To account for inflation wages need to rise notably to cover off the losses through fiscal drag to taxes as well as meaning that after general living costs, people have more money in their pockets. And that's just not happening.

And the 60% trap doesn't help as to me that further adds to this kettling of wages between the 40% and 45% thresholds.

The threshold freezes are deeply insidious as obviously (or maybe not) its a real terms decrease in the threshold on average by the rate of annual wage growth, ultimately eroding the ability of an employee to offset inflation by salary increase making everyone worse off over time. The thresholds are effectively something like 25% lower since 2020 as a result.

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:54 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:47 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:42 pm The motability changes seem like a bit of a fuck you to people who can’t really afford it too.

I just don't get these changes at all. My understanding is that the cost to the taxpayer is no different depending on the cost of the car? So this becomes purely about the optics of someone knocking about in an Audi A4 rather than a Skoda Octavia. It's daft. And who decides what's "premium"?

It's just another measure to add to their "politics of envy" tag.

I think the point is if you can afford to top up you don't need a grant from the government. Perfectly legitimate in my view to set a price cap of vehicles that can fall within the regime. Same as not being able to buy carbon race bikes on the cycle to work scheme (was that adjusted? I didn't hear it mentioned).

That's said, BMWs and Mercs are not really the prestige items they once were and I'm sure their basic models are not much more than a well spec'd VW equivalent. Ford and French stuff likely less I'd guess.

But it's not that at all - it simply seems to be that you won't be able to get some cars on the scheme anymore because they're deemed prestige. Hence my example - you'll still be able to top up to get a Skoda model if that's over threshold but not the Audi equivalent. All because some muppet decided that some marques are prestige brands. I just looked out of curiosity and Volvo are still available, so they're obviously not prestige

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:54 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:47 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:42 pm The motability changes seem like a bit of a fuck you to people who can’t really afford it too.

I just don't get these changes at all. My understanding is that the cost to the taxpayer is no different depending on the cost of the car? So this becomes purely about the optics of someone knocking about in an Audi A4 rather than a Skoda Octavia. It's daft. And who decides what's "premium"?

It's just another measure to add to their "politics of envy" tag.

I think the point is if you can afford to top up you don't need a grant from the government. Perfectly legitimate in my view to set a price cap of vehicles that can fall within the regime. Same as not being able to buy carbon race bikes on the cycle to work scheme (was that adjusted? I didn't hear it mentioned).

That's said, BMWs and Mercs are not really the prestige items they once were and I'm sure their basic models are not much more than a well spec'd VW equivalent. Ford and French stuff likely less I'd guess.

I thought the changes were about making buyers buy cars made in the UK. Which is convenient and they sell so many Motability cars that it’s sufficient to stop Vauxhall and Nissan leaving here. I can kind of see that point in that regard otherwise you just end up wit British steel all over again.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 5:07 pm

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:54 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:47 pm

I just don't get these changes at all. My understanding is that the cost to the taxpayer is no different depending on the cost of the car? So this becomes purely about the optics of someone knocking about in an Audi A4 rather than a Skoda Octavia. It's daft. And who decides what's "premium"?

It's just another measure to add to their "politics of envy" tag.

I think the point is if you can afford to top up you don't need a grant from the government. Perfectly legitimate in my view to set a price cap of vehicles that can fall within the regime. Same as not being able to buy carbon race bikes on the cycle to work scheme (was that adjusted? I didn't hear it mentioned).

That's said, BMWs and Mercs are not really the prestige items they once were and I'm sure their basic models are not much more than a well spec'd VW equivalent. Ford and French stuff likely less I'd guess.

But it's not that at all - it simply seems to be that you won't be able to get some cars on the scheme anymore because they're deemed prestige. Hence my example - you'll still be able to top up to get a Skoda model if that's over threshold but not the Audi equivalent. All because some muppet decided that some marques are prestige brands. I just looked out of curiosity and Volvo are still available, so they're obviously not prestige

Got it I see - I hadn't see that was how they'd implemented it. Obviously government and logic are not bedfellows.

The “buying british” thing was an after the fact justification because people were asking why they were taking policy cues from the telegraph.

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:59 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:45 pm

duncs500 wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:39 pm

If they are able to get value out of it, and it makes a difference to the country, then that's alright. I fear they won't, but then it's not like I'd have any confidence in any other party doing any better.

The trouble is, and this is just my simplistic view, is that to me it seems to be part of the problem of wage stagnation. It's a nice earner for successive Gov'ts as it allows them to state that they're not putting taxes up. To account for inflation wages need to rise notably to cover off the losses through fiscal drag to taxes as well as meaning that after general living costs, people have more money in their pockets. And that's just not happening.

And the 60% trap doesn't help as to me that further adds to this kettling of wages between the 40% and 45% thresholds.

The threshold freezes are deeply insidious as obviously (or maybe not) its a real terms decrease in the threshold on average by the rate of annual wage growth, ultimately eroding the ability of an employee to offset inflation by salary increase making everyone worse off over time. The thresholds are effectively something like 25% lower since 2020 as a result.

This is it. Duncs said 'if they can get value out of it' - oh, they can and do - more people each year in the 40% tax bracket for instance. The amount raised from freezing thresholds is quantified quite precisely in the documents.

What I can see happening is with minimum wage increasing annually and the thresholds freezing, you will potentially get people on minimum wage doing some overtime falling into the higher income tax bracket by 2031. That illustrates the point pretty well that freezing thresholds seems invisible until it really hits hard.

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:54 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:47 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:42 pm The motability changes seem like a bit of a fuck you to people who can’t really afford it too.

I just don't get these changes at all. My understanding is that the cost to the taxpayer is no different depending on the cost of the car? So this becomes purely about the optics of someone knocking about in an Audi A4 rather than a Skoda Octavia. It's daft. And who decides what's "premium"?

It's just another measure to add to their "politics of envy" tag.

I think the point is if you can afford to top up you don't need a grant from the government.

Absolutely this. It does seem a little off to subsidise those who have enough to top it up, it should just be a cost cap for what can go through the scheme rather than any manufacturer restrictions.

Jobbo wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 5:25 pm

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:59 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:45 pm

The trouble is, and this is just my simplistic view, is that to me it seems to be part of the problem of wage stagnation. It's a nice earner for successive Gov'ts as it allows them to state that they're not putting taxes up. To account for inflation wages need to rise notably to cover off the losses through fiscal drag to taxes as well as meaning that after general living costs, people have more money in their pockets. And that's just not happening.

And the 60% trap doesn't help as to me that further adds to this kettling of wages between the 40% and 45% thresholds.

The threshold freezes are deeply insidious as obviously (or maybe not) its a real terms decrease in the threshold on average by the rate of annual wage growth, ultimately eroding the ability of an employee to offset inflation by salary increase making everyone worse off over time. The thresholds are effectively something like 25% lower since 2020 as a result.

This is it. Duncs said 'if they can get value out of it' - oh, they can and do - more people each year in the 40% tax bracket for instance. The amount raised from freezing thresholds is quantified quite precisely in the documents.

What I can see happening is with minimum wage increasing annually and the thresholds freezing, you will potentially get people on minimum wage doing some overtime falling into the higher income tax bracket by 2031. That illustrates the point pretty well that freezing thresholds seems invisible until it really hits hard.

What I meant (and perhaps wasn't clear enough about) is that if they are in real terms significantly raising tax revenue, I find that acceptable if they make it go a long way and we start seeing genuine improvements in our services (and/or borrowing position).

I do agree - this is apparently the largest tax take as a percentage of GDP ever. Spending it correctly is a duty they have to us, since we pay it.

Jobbo wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 10:08 pm I do agree - this is apparently the largest tax take as a percentage of GDP ever. Spending it correctly is a duty they have to us, since we pay it.

Yeahhh. We all know what's really going to happen to that extra cash though don't we?

It's called a black hole for a reason

Rich B wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 7:24 pm

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:54 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:47 pm

I just don't get these changes at all. My understanding is that the cost to the taxpayer is no different depending on the cost of the car? So this becomes purely about the optics of someone knocking about in an Audi A4 rather than a Skoda Octavia. It's daft. And who decides what's "premium"?

It's just another measure to add to their "politics of envy" tag.

I think the point is if you can afford to top up you don't need a grant from the government.

Absolutely this. It does seem a little off to subsidise those who have enough to top it up, it should just be a cost cap for what can go through the scheme rather than any manufacturer restrictions.

If the issue is some disabled people being too rich and not needing the benefit, then means-test PIP. As things stand, those who would previously of got a BMW through Mobility by topping up themselves can simply take their cash PIP payment instead. So it hasn't stopped people who don't need the benefit from receiving it, they're just getting it in a less visible way.

But two moral questions.

No.1 - what is a disability payment actually for? I would argue that a disability payment is different from, say, unemployment benefit or the winter fuel payment, in that it's not a payment of last resort to stop you sinking into destitution. It's a statement that we want to live in an equitable society, and collectively think it's right to make at least a small effort at leveling the playing field for those dealt a slightly shittier hand of cards.

No.2 - do we really want to be going down the road of policing what benefit recipients spend their money on? Should they be forced to only buy their food from the supermaket value range? Because, ya know, if you can afford a Tesco Finest pizza, maybe you didn't need benefits in the first place. Or what if the family at no.42 is taking child benefit, but has a slightly newer telly than you? If they're spending on anything more than basic subsistence, they clearly don't need benefits.

It all sounds alarmingly like the old story of a dozen poor people sitting around a freshly baked pie, when a rich bloke walks in, eats 7/8 of the pie and then nudges the first poor bloke and says "'ere, I think they're eyeing up your bit of pie".

I don’t know why I didn’t spot it yesterday but the OBR report says welfare spending will increase by £73bn to £406bn over the next 5 years. Which is almost all down to the triple lock on pensions.

That’s the thing which needs to be tackled. Can’t see Reform or Tories doing so though. Nor Labour or Lib Dems. Fuck.

Nefarious wrote: Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:30 am

Rich B wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 7:24 pm

GG. wrote: Wed Nov 26, 2025 4:54 pm

I think the point is if you can afford to top up you don't need a grant from the government.

Absolutely this. It does seem a little off to subsidise those who have enough to top it up, it should just be a cost cap for what can go through the scheme rather than any manufacturer restrictions.

If the issue is some disabled people being too rich and not needing the benefit, then means-test PIP.

i don’t see any issue with that. Society isn’t equal, we don’t top up everyone who doesn’t earn millions as a model because they’re not pretty enough. Some people will have it easier than others.

i think PiP is a good idea though, as it makes it possible for a lot of people to work, but there’s a fine line between that and topping up people’s salaries that arguably don’t need topping up.

The benefit system should stop people from being pushed below what is deemed an unacceptable level. Maybe if we means tested things like pip and state pensions we’d be able to rise that minimum level for all.

There’s some fundamental misunderstanding l of what disability benefits are for. They’re not just to keep people from falling into abject poverty but to mitigate the extra costs that come with travelling, working etc with a disability.

It’s that equity thing again. The benefits help level the playing field so disabled people can live better lives.

Means testing PIP against household income would undermine it’s primary purpose as it’s not independence if your ability to get around is tied to your partner’s income.

Bluesky thread on why the motability changes are bad and poorly thought through, you’ll need to be logged in to see it though.

https://bsky.app/profile/bazoid.bsky.so ... k3afjqn22m

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:14 am There’s some fundamental misunderstanding l of what disability benefits are for. They’re not just to keep people from falling into abject poverty but to mitigate the extra costs that come with travelling, working etc with a disability.

It’s that equity thing again. The benefits help level the playing field so disabled people can live better lives.

Means testing PIP against household income would undermine it’s primary purpose as it’s not independence if your ability to get around is tied to your partner’s income.

Bluesky thread on why the motability changes are bad and poorly thought through, you’ll need to be logged in to see it though.

https://bsky.app/profile/bazoid.bsky.so ... k3afjqn22m

The world has frozen somewhere and being watched down upon by a flying pig as I agree with Zedleg, if I'm reading it right.

If Bob and his twin brother live in neighbouring houses but Bob slipped and is in a wheelchair.

If they both earn 100k a year in good jobs then wheelie Bob is at a disadvantage as he now needs kitchen cupboards lowering, ramps, different bathroom etc. I'm happy for disability money to make it so wheelie Bob has no extra expense due to his disability no matter what their salary. It must be to a set standard though, not paying for lower granite worktops and crustal taps.

What constitutes a disability though and needs assistance will open a can of worms though.

Dave!

On pay per mile.... I called it all:

Consultation

Including driving abroad and the MOT check.

On mobility, part of the problem is that yes, the car payments come from the person's PIP, but the car is offered VAT free (so subsidised by general taxation), plus servicing, tax and VED are all part of the package too. So whilst the monthly payments come from the PIP there is still significant tax payer subsidies for the rest of it. Frankly, if you can afford a surcharge for a 'premium' vehicle under the scheme then you can afford just to keep the regular PIP payment and source the car through regular commercial channels like everyone else.

To cut through 27 pages of bollocks

5. What should the government consider when designing the
system for managing under and over payments of eVED?
Mileage checks:
4.28 Mileage data from cars is currently collected at annual MOTs and
is available to see for a car on GOV.UK. The government intends to use
this data to ensure that user-supplied mileage is consistent and up to
date, so if a car is already subject to an MOT, there will typically be no
additional steps for checks.
4.29 Cars under three years old are not currently required to have an
annual MOT. The government currently intends for these cars to attend
an additional mileage check at an accredited provider around their first
and second anniversary, but welcomes views on whether these
additional checks should be required. For many motorists, this will be
able to be combined with other routine servicing and safety checks
that their vehicle will typically require in this period.
4.30 The government considers MOT test centres to be well placed to
be these accredited providers.15 They already have facility to record
mileages and are trusted partners of government. There will be no
motorist charge for these additional checks, which will be funded by
the government. The government will engage with the industry on
these arrangements.
4.31 The government will consider options to strengthen the
approach to capturing mileages at MOT (and for the period prior to the
first MOT). This will include considering methods accredited providers
could use to more efficiently and reliably extract data from cars,

V8Granite wrote: Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:25 am

ZedLeg wrote: Thu Nov 27, 2025 8:14 am There’s some fundamental misunderstanding l of what disability benefits are for. They’re not just to keep people from falling into abject poverty but to mitigate the extra costs that come with travelling, working etc with a disability.

It’s that equity thing again. The benefits help level the playing field so disabled people can live better lives.

Means testing PIP against household income would undermine it’s primary purpose as it’s not independence if your ability to get around is tied to your partner’s income.

Bluesky thread on why the motability changes are bad and poorly thought through, you’ll need to be logged in to see it though.

https://bsky.app/profile/bazoid.bsky.so ... k3afjqn22m

The world has frozen somewhere and being watched down upon by a flying pig as I agree with Zedleg, if I'm reading it right.

If Bob and his twin brother live in neighbouring houses but Bob slipped and is in a wheelchair.

If they both earn 100k a year in good jobs then wheelie Bob is at a disadvantage as he now needs kitchen cupboards lowering, ramps, different bathroom etc. I'm happy for disability money to make it so wheelie Bob has no extra expense due to his disability no matter what their salary. It must be to a set standard though, not paying for lower granite worktops and crustal taps.

What constitutes a disability though and needs assistance will open a can of worms though.

Dave!

And I agree with both Dave and Zed. If there is alignment across the three of us, I can't imagine where support for this policy is coming from.