Another idea for taking a stand on VRT

Mayshine

Hmmm.

Imagine if all dealers were to include a small tax brakdown (base + tax + final price) on all published prices, either in a sales list, on the price place on the car or elsewhere.

Cannot think of a more eloquent way of making everyone aware of how much tax is being taken from them as they hand over their cash for their new car....

Seth Brundle

I think most people know, especially since Mr. E. Hobbes told them, but are happy paying it as they want this shiny new car to impress their neighbours.


I actually emailed this idea to the SIMI years ago and never recieved a response.

ubu

Good idea, i dont think alot of people realise how much VRT they are actually paying on a new car, although the only reason i can think of as to why they wouldnt do it would be that the dealers might fear a demand for a further break down of the price.

ambro25

Sounds good - until you realise that you'd need some form of legal instrument (Law or Decree or Amendment to Sale of Goods Act or...) to get that going, and who do you need to do this? Erm... the very people who decide what to do with the huge sums VRT racks in.

Am I getting too cynical yet?

If they scrapped VRT they'd probably just throw it on Fuel.

so meh..

CorporalCarrot

Just for information, BMW already do this in their price lists, breaking down the pre tax price, vrt then VAT.

C

unkel

I'd sure be in favour of that. I don't think most people are fully aware how bad the figures would look

ambro25 wrote:

you'd need some form of legal instrument (Law or Decree or Amendment to Sale of Goods Act or...)

Can't see why. Even McDonalds can print out a VAT receipt these days

Anan1

I don't mean to be rude, but what is it with everyone always whining on for the abolition of VRT? Where do you all expect the lost revenue to come from? Higher PAYE? Cuts in health? Education? Structural investment? The money paid in VRT doesn't just disappear, you know.

Seth Brundle

@ Anan1 - maybe a start would be to close many of the tax loopholes and dodges designed to favour the wealthy.

Anan1

That may well be a good point in its own right, but it has nothing to do with VRT.

Seth Brundle

Anan1 wrote:

That may well be a good point in its own right, but it has nothing to do with VRT.

You asked a question and I answered it!

Anan1

The point I'm making is that any tax cut requires either for the lost revenue to be regained somewhere else or for expenditure to be reduced. I get the feeling that this hasn't occurred to those shouting loudest about "rip-off VRT". Even if we do raise money by implementing your idea, I'd prefer to see it back in the form of reduced PAYE or increased services, rather than the abolition of VRT. Put simply, abolishing VRT benefits people buying new cars at the expense of the rest of the population.

Seth Brundle

Im lost. What is wrong with making these tax dodging millionaires pay some tax. Wasn't it said recently that 21 millionaires paid absolutely no tax in the 2004 tax year?

Anan1

I never said there was anything wrong with it. I'm just talking about VRT here!

junkyard

The whole tax system in this country is a rip-off any way, just look at the price of a house, I remember reading somewhere that our government gets 52% of the price of a new house in taxes and hidden charges so VAT and VRT is no big deal to them. The price of petrol and diesel is another con job and what about roads? we already pay scandalous road tax and now we're seeing the introduction of toll roads, they just don't know where to stop. But my real gripe is the way the government squander our money on f**k-ups like the Dublin port tunnel and their simple solution was to ban super-trucks. The guy who designed that tunnel should be made to rectify the problem at his companies cost not the taxpayers. It just amazes me how we as a nation just take all of this s***e and shrug our shoulders and keep on working like ants paying scandalous taxes. I think the trick in this country is to sit back and let the state provide your house and everything else because we'll achieve very little by working our butts off by the time the tax man is finished with us. :mad:

Litcagral

junkyard wrote:

But my real gripe is the way the government squander our money on f**k-ups like the Dublin port tunnel and their simple solution was to ban super-trucks. The guy who designed that tunnel should be made to rectify the problem at his companies cost not the taxpayers. QUOTE]

junkyard in fairness to it's designers, the Dublin port tunnel has the same standard height as all other such tunnels in most of Europe including all the Alpine tunnels. It was probably planned before the lifting of the ban on maximum volume trucks. These trucks comprised of a small percentage of all trucks anyway and are unable to fit under many of our existing bridges anyway. (I was behind one when it struck a railway bridge in Gorey last Friday). Otherwise I agree with your other sentiments.

junkyard

Maybe so but I know if I was building tunnels for a living I'd be checking out the future plans to see what was on the cards. They seem to be having build quality problems too. What about the Luas? look at the extra cost there. I know if someone brought their car into my garage to get it repainted, I quoted them 1500 euro and said I'll have it ready in a week, they come in to collect their car a week later and I say to them that its going to cost 15000 euro now and I need to keep the car for three months, can you imagine the reply I'd get? This is what our government do with our money but they just say "Carry on there lads yer doing a great job send us the bill when ever yer ready" Its no wonder there are so many Bentley's and Aston Martin's flying around the place, I know a few of these guys have made their money from robbing us with their incompetence and letting us taxpayers foot the bill.

alias no.9

Anan1 wrote:

I don't mean to be rude, but what is it with everyone always whining on for the abolition of VRT? Where do you all expect the lost revenue to come from? Higher PAYE? Cuts in health? Education? Structural investment? The money paid in VRT doesn't just disappear, you know.

Have you considered the fact that the reduced retail price would stimulate demand for new cars? Taking a smaller percentage from more people can result in a bigger overall sum. Add to this the fact that people will feel that thier spending power has been increased and may decide to buy bigger more expensive (pre tax) cars, resulting in an increased take on VAT, road tax and both excise duty and VAT on petrol. When capital gains tax was cut from 40% to 20% the take from capital gains actually increased.

Maybe these things alone would not fully compensate for the loss of VRT revenue. I for one would be in favour of a carbon tax on fuel to make up the difference.

ciarsd

A friend of mine has recently ordered an 06 Skoda Octavia vRS - €33K ish and of that €33K, €12.5K is tax - it's disgusting.

We need to take the french approach to the government with stuff like this

ambro25

Anan1 wrote:

The point I'm making is that any tax cut requires either for the lost revenue to be regained somewhere else or for expenditure to be reduced. I get the feeling that this hasn't occurred to those shouting loudest about "rip-off VRT". Even if we do raise money by implementing your idea, I'd prefer to see it back in the form of reduced PAYE or increased services, rather than the abolition of VRT. Put simply, abolishing VRT benefits people buying new cars at the expense of the rest of the population.

Can I take it, from your posts, that you do not own a car and this therefore is the reason why you consider the potential abolition of VRT so negatively?

As alluded to before in the thread, how about reducing the waste of revenue (not only VRT-generated, but across the board) - I'd bet a cent to a tenner that if the GVT's various departments were using (and held accountable in respect of-) benchmarks for any kind of public spending (services/infrastructures/capital/etc.), that the €s save would quickly outstrip VRT revenue... and that's to begin with

... and a nice post on the topic by alias no.9, btw.

dahamsta

Anan1 wrote:

I never said there was anything wrong with it. I'm just talking about VRT here!

You asked a question, namely:

Anan1 wrote:

Where do you all expect the lost revenue to come from?

kbannon answered it. Twice. What are you having difficulty with exactly?

Anan1

Ambro25 - "Can I take it, from your posts, that you do not own a car and this therefore is the reason why you consider the potential abolition of VRT so negatively?"

No, you can't. I drive a Mercedes C280 and a Beetle 1.8T, and I have a Delta integrale in the garage. Not that it makes any difference to my point, but there you go.

Kbannon & kenshabby - "Where do you expect the lost revenue to come from?" was a rhetorical question, not a literal one. The point I was trying to make was that any reduction in VRT would have to be accompanied by either a raise in other taxes or a reduction in services. I see no reason why those who elect to buy new cars should be given tax breaks at the expense of those who do not.

alias no.9

Anan1, I'd hardly call the moderation of punative taxation 'tax breaks'. If people were being allowed to write off money spent on new cars against income tax, then yes that would be a tax break. Have you any response to my earlier post about how the revenue might be replaced?

fatboypee

Anan1 wrote:

The point I was trying to make was that any reduction in VRT would have to be accompanied by either a raise in other taxes or a reduction in services. I see no reason why those who elect to buy new cars should be given tax breaks at the expense of those who do not.

I'd like to make a wee comment here. It's a moral one and not pointed at anyone in particular. The point is simply that we are 'supposed' to be in the EU. The VRT was introduced by the government in pre-European days to support the irish motor traders in times of crisis. Those times are long gone and this tax really has no justification for its existence any longer as we pay VAT and other related charges on new and second hand cars anyway. Why do we pay VRT on seconhand cars imported ? Duties have already been paid in another EU country, so what the fk is VRT all about then ?? (cue naieve smile..)

To the point "Where will the tax come from if we scrap VRT", more to the point, tell me, where's it spent ?? Why should we pay this tax simply because we NEED to be taxed this amount ? err, should'nt the government get its effing act together on tax policy and tax fairly and appropriately ??

Points of order:


1. Road Tax - still crap roads
2. General taxation inordinate amounts spent on hospitals but most people pay thru bupa, VHI etc. (with a population less than that of London, why the billions spent ? (and therefore Taxed)....

I could rant on... but my point is simply, monies raised under illegal/immoral taxation should not be allowed and more to the point, perhaps our taxes raised from certain sources should primarilly used for support of those things...



FBP.

ambro25

Anan1 wrote:

No, you can't. I drive (etc.)

Crap choice of motors, aside from (obviously) the Lancia , but fair enough.

Anan1 wrote:

The point I was trying to make was that any reduction in VRT would have to be accompanied by either a raise in other taxes or a reduction in services.

Goes without saying. I very much doubt that anyone who has posted herein about the VRT issue doesn't know that the principle of communicating vases applies to public finances.

Anan1 wrote:

I see no reason why those who elect to buy new cars should be given tax breaks at the expense of those who do not.

You are overlooking the fact that whilst those who elect to buy new cars may indeed be paying VRT full-on (as in: calculated on list price with delivery miles or thereabouts), such high taxation maintains 2nd-hand prices artificially high as the VRT follows the car value throughout its life (which is why you'd be asked to pay VRT pro-rata when importing a 2nd-hand car), until the car eventually reaches the utilitarian value threshold (but you'd still pay base rate/amount VRT for that if imported).

In that respect, everyone pays VRT, not just the buyers of new cars. To the risk of offending (not calling anyone a moron or whatnot, but to be clear-), let's make it simple:

Ireland:
A buys new car €10k + €2k VRT
car gets used and depreciates €2k
B buys car from A value €10k (€12k - €2k)

UK:
A buys new car €10k
car gets used same and depreciates same €2k
B buys car from A value €8k

and alternative:
A (Brit) buys new car €10k in UK
car gets used same and depreciates same €2k
B (Irish) buys car from A value €8k in UK
B imports car back to Ireland, asked to pay €1.5k VRT = €9.5k

(and please let's not be anal about VAT, it's applied in both cases so not relevant to as large an extent as VRT, so not put in)

BTW, VRT is illegal under any acceptable interpretation of EU Statutes. Any other EU Member countries still using such artifical taxation notwithstanding.

Anan1

Hi Ambro,

"Goes without saying. I very much doubt that anyone who has posted herein about the VRT issue doesn't know that the principle of communicating vases applies to public finances."

That's all I'm saying, really. Sure, we could save money by overhauling our taxation system in general, reducing wasteful spending etc. All good ideas. The fact remains, however, that even if we did all this, reducing VRT would still cut into the funds available to the exchequer, ie us. This is the point that I feel a lot of people don't get, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If someone were to say "I'd rather see it on petrol" or PAYE, or children's clothes, or whatever, then that's fair enough. But "We could save money elsewhere..." is a spurious argument. We should be doing that anyway.

Oh and by the way, a C280 is just the thing for when integrale drivers grow up.;)

dahamsta

Anan1 wrote:

Kbannon & kenshabby - "Where do you expect the lost revenue to come from?" was a rhetorical question, not a literal one.

Took you a while to come up with that. Is that your final answer?

Anan1 wrote:

Oh and by the way, a C280 is just the thing for when integrale drivers grow up.

Your debating skills suggest that you don't speak from experience.

Carb

Anan1 wrote:

This is the point that I feel a lot of people don't get, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If someone were to say "I'd rather see it on petrol" or PAYE, or children's clothes, or whatever, then that's fair enough..;)

To me VRT seems to imply that owning a car is a luxury. If I could jump on a bus in the morning to go to work that would great, but I can't. I have to have a car, so I don't appreciate having to pay more tax than the person who can jump on a bus everday, which is something all tax payers subsidise anyway.

On your point regarding putting tax on something else, if the revenue has to be generated from motorists, well then it should be on petrol. At least that way your getting taxed for using something rather than just owning it.

alias no.9

Anan1 wrote:

That's all I'm saying, really. Sure, we could save money by overhauling our taxation system in general, reducing wasteful spending etc. All good ideas. The fact remains, however, that even if we did all this, reducing VRT would still cut into the funds available to the exchequer, ie us. This is the point that I feel a lot of people don't get, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If someone were to say "I'd rather see it on petrol" or PAYE, or children's clothes, or whatever, then that's fair enough. But "We could save money elsewhere..." is a spurious argument. We should be doing that anyway.

I'll try one last time, maybe it will be third time lucky. Your assertion that a reduction in VRT will require changes to other taxation is based on the presumption that the number of new cars sold will not change. However, there are knock on effects of the reduction or abolishion of VRT...

1. Lower prices will stimulate demand for new cars with greater numbers of people deciding to buy new, resulting in an increased VAT take without making any changes to tax rates.

2. Lower prices will result in those people who buy new anyway, deciding to buy bigger / more powerful / better specified cars resulting in increased VAT returns (more expensive pre tax price), increased road tax take (bigger engines) and increased VAT and Excise on fuel (more powerful cars).

Even if you were to say that there would be no change in the numbers of new cars sold, if new car buyers were to continue buying at the same price point, post VRT rip off, 21% of the losses are immediately made up in VAT alone.

Back to the previous earlier point I made, do you remember what happened when capital gains tax was slashed from 40% to 20%? That's right, the overall tax take from capital gains went up. Proof if you need it, that when a tax cut stimulates economic activity, revenue can increase instead of decreasing.

michaelanthony

BMW do.

ambro25

Anan1 wrote:

Oh and by the way, a C280 is just the thing for when integrale drivers grow up.;)

Erm...no: a Scoob STi is just the thing for when integrale drivers grow up, and a Legacy (TTurbs) is just the thing for when integrale drivers grow old with kids

On all other points...well on the point of VRT...we'll have to agree to disagree: I accept your last (and earlier) comment(s), namely to the effect that scuppering VRT will have to be offset elsewhere, but I stand by the argument that this "offsetting elsewhere" will be of greater benefit (generally) than maintaining the status quo, prevalent VRT situation.

As alluded to earlier, offsetting on usage factors (miles driven/petrol consumed/road surface 'used') rather ownership factors (car price) appears a viable and fair solution: if I only drive 5,000 k/year but in the process can thusly afford a nice family saloon with all the security gubbins for my family, 'tis better than same (or more likely less, i.e. not so 'nice') minus all the security gubbins because VRT out-stretches my budget, and it's fair compared to the exec travelling 50,000 k/year in a company-paid-for-and-expensed 'luxury' car.