Another idea for taking a stand on VRT

Dan_B

Anan1
If you feel that the motorists of this country should fund public spending that puts you in a minority. So does your sh1te taste in cars
Does you beatle had the mandatory plastic daffodil on the dash.

The irish govenrment took 4Bn in VRT last year.
Conveniently this is what the government spent on Social welfare.
I know it is an over simplification but should the motorists of Ireland be funding the welfare spend even though someone who has never owned a car is just as likely to be out of a job in the morning?
I dont think so.
Can't figure out if you are a politician or a hippie!!

Anan1

Dan B -

"...that puts you in a minority" - I've never had a problem with that.

"So does your sh1te taste in cars" - Have you ever driven an integrale?;)

"Can't figure out if you are a politician or a hippie!!" - and I hope you have lots of fun figuring...:)

Seth Brundle

Dan_B wrote:

Anan1
So does your sh1te taste in cars
Does you beatle had the mandatory plastic daffodil on the dash.

no need to get personal

Dan_B wrote:

If you feel that the motorists of this country should fund public spending that puts you in a minority.
<snip>
The irish govenrment took 4Bn in VRT last year.
Conveniently this is what the government spent on Social welfare.
I know it is an over simplification but should the motorists of Ireland be funding the welfare spend even though someone who has never owned a car is just as likely to be out of a job in the morning?
I dont think so.
Can't figure out if you are a politician or a hippie!!

I have no objection to being taxed - I just believe that the tax system could be fairer.
However, IIRC the take for all motoring taxes was about 4 billion - not just from VRT.

unkel

Dan_B wrote:

The irish govenrment took 4Bn in VRT last year

No, it's about 1 billion. Still a lot of money...

mike65

Dan_B cool it, Adam be more constuctive in your withering contempt eh?

Everyone else stop quabbling, its the government we should be attacking not each other!

We all know VRT is a tax that runs directly counter to the spirit or the Single Market and we also know that government will, one way or another, squeeze every last euro out of the motorist.

The only thing open to argument as far as I can see is how justifed the squeeze might be. ie purchase tax - no justification, usage tax - some justification.

Mike.

Dan_B

Come on, no one is getting personal.
If my best mate arrived up in a beatle he would't escape a bit of stick.
I don't think anan1 took it personally so I am bemused why other people are?

Anyway, even if my figures are off, the principle is the same.

ambro25

maidhc wrote:

Does it though?...If Irish VRT was in blatant disregard to EU law, it wouldnt be here now.

Yes, it does. I am not free to use a car (my property) which I bought legitimately in another EU country (UK) with full taxes and duties (VAT etc.) paid, in the Republic of Ireland, without submitting to an import tax amounting to 30% of the car value - value dictated by the Exchequer, btw, not what I can legitimately prove is the value at which I bought it (and unless I am mistaken, VRT on new cars is calculated on sale price , not list price - so why not so for second hand?).

I have no knowledge of how it persists (along with in a select few other EU members), other than to guess that it's probably some kind of 'UK-rebate', 'deal under the table', -type affair.

maidhc wrote:

In the absence of fiscal harmonisation throughout the eu I doubt very much it it does any more than VAT.

Well, since it's additional to VAT (with which I have no problem, since every country leverages VAT or has reciprocal arrangements), it 'does' more than VAT indeed.

maidhc wrote:

English people are free to buy cars in Ireland and not pay VRT, and we can buy cars in the UK and pay it. As a result it doesnt distort trade or force us to buy "Irish" cars (not that they exist)

See my (over-simplified) example hereinabove. It does distort trade since the GVT decides what is the value of an imported second-hand car.

maidhc wrote:

Money goes to the exchequer. Thats how tax systems work, end of story. Not all money from stamp duty goes to imporving the building industry nor does all VAT on mobile phones go to improving telecommuications.

No quibbles with that. Merely my opinion that, given the state of transport in Ireland (well, I know of Dublin mostly, but what little I have seen of the rest leads me to generalise merrily), that's where a goodly portion of motoring taxation should be spent on transport (not only private transport, e.g. better roads, note - again see my earlier posts).

maidhc wrote:

It makes cars more expensive sure, but apart from that I dont see what else it does.

Well, that's precisely the point

maidhc wrote:

I have no idea what originally caused it to be introduced, but there are a million more useful ways to deal with a surplus tax take than give it back to the people who need it least (those who buy new cars), and I say this as someone who is going to visit a Ford garage this evening to have a look at the new focus...

Again, no quibble with that - the point by anti-VRT advocates has always been (to the best of my knowledge) that taxation should be levied elsewhere, not that it be abolished (whoever ever heard of a GVT that actually reduced taxation, eh?). See mike's post - fairer motorist taxation, not absence thereof (i.e. scrap VRT and lose revenue - because we all know that will never happen).

If taxation was levied on usage, e.g.
petrol,
tolls,
add-on on 'transparent' (:rolleyes:) insurance premiums (meaning you drive more p.a. = you pay more p.a.)... generally PAYG motoring, then all people (including importers and those 'bloody' (:rolleyes:) foreigners) would contribute. But dealers would be taking a slap of a reality check, for sure