[article]Revenue monitoring VRT online checks

unkel

LikeOhMyGawd! wrote:

erm, what are you on about there??

Abolish red diesel. Why should we as tax payers subsidise millionaire farmers?

Carb

parsi wrote:

You also haven't suggested how to replace the lost revenue ? Increase PAYE ? Increase VAT ? Add a fuel tax ?

The idea of a Vehicle Registration Tax is dubious to some people. However when all is said and done it's a tax and is there to get money. If it goes it will be recouped somewhere else . Somewhere the EU won't be able to moan about. Don't be deluded that if the next budget scraps VRT it won't add 10c to petrol, 25euro to roadtax etc etc.

As VRT probably ends up in the bottomless pit that is the health service, I think it should be added to PAYE. Nobody can seriously say that motorists should contribute more to the public services that everybody uses, just because they buy a car. Next best scenario, would be that it would be put on petrol, as at least then you get taxed for using the cars, not owning them, but it still doesn't get over my first point. Roadtax itself is already at a ridiculous level, so I can't even come up with a reason why it should be added to it.

junkyard

If the motorists stood up to the government like the farmers I'd say they would have to back off taxing the motorist as much as they do. The last time I looked farmers were getting paid not the use their land ffs, it doesn't get much better than that.:rolleyes:
Farmers have it sorted when it comes to tax.

maidhc

junkyard wrote:

If the motorists stood up to the government like the farmers I'd say they would have to back off taxing the motorist as much as they do. The last time I looked farmers were getting paid not the use their land ffs, it doesn't get much better than that.:rolleyes:
Farmers have it sorted when it comes to tax.

Farmers pay the same tax as everyone else I'm afraid, and there is feck all profit to be made from it in the first place. If there was money there I would be at it full time, but I am here sitting in front of a laptop instead.

LikeOhMyGawd!

unkel wrote:

Abolish red diesel. Why should we as tax payers subsidise millionaire farmers?

The government subsidises massive companies who are worth billions, giving them incentives, tax-breaks and handouts. And they use taxpayer's money for it. What the farmers get is probably a drop in the ocean in comparison.

Also, if red diesel is for use in vehicles that are used predominantly in agriculture then why should motor tax be incorporated into this? Red diesel is used in plenty of vehicles and machinery that are used only on the land and not on roads so why should the users pay motor tax in the fuel? You might as well incorporate motor tax into home heating fuel! Farming is an industry and most industry gets breaks from the government. The only difference is that we see farmers all the time and fools think 'millionnaire ba$tard'. It's the ba$tards you don't see that you should be more concerned about.

maidhc

unkel wrote:

Abolish red diesel. Why should we as tax payers subsidise millionaire farmers?

How exactly are farmers being subsidised? Road tax is only payable if you drive on a road!

There is a legitimate issue in relation to green diesel being used in tractors used by builders to draw rubble and so forth, but most farmers use their tractors in fields and only use the road to move from A-B.

Could you explain why I should pay duty on the 200L of fuel a 6.5L diesel will burn through in a long day mowing grass... on my private property.

Carb

[QUOTE=LikeOhMyGawdAlso, if red diesel is for use in vehicles that are used predominantly in agriculture then why should motor tax be incorporated into this? Red diesel is used in plenty of vehicles and machinery that are used only on the land and not on roads so why should the users pay motor tax in the fuel[/QUOTE]

None of it is actually called motor tax, its actually fuel tax or excise duty. I pay this tax on the petrol for my lawnmower, chainsaw etc. which I never use on the road. Using the argument about the roads is waste of time, as motorists pay road tax, while farmers pay a token amount. If logic was applied, farmers would pay much more to repair the damage to roads at entrances to fields, farmyards etc. They could also tax cows for sh*tting on the road as it doesn't seem to have a great effect on the tar either. Everbody knows that only a fraction of the taxes collected from fuel, road tax, VRT goes into roads anyway, so the usage argument doesn't come into it. If the argument for tax on fuel, was purely enviromental, I don't think farmers would come of too lightly either, considering what comes out of the exhauts of some tractors. Come to think of it, I don't think the cows would to well here either:)

maidhc

Carb wrote:

None of it is actually called motor tax, its actually fuel tax or excise duty. I pay this tax on the petrol for my lawnmower, chainsaw etc. which I never use on the road. Using the argument about the roads is waste of time, as motorists pay road tax, while farmers pay a token amount. If logic was applied, farmers would pay much more to repair the damage to roads at entrances to fields, farmyards etc. They could also tax cows for sh*tting on the road as it doesn't seem to have a great effect on the tar either. Everbody knows that only a fraction of the taxes collected from fuel, road tax, VRT goes into roads anyway, so the usage argument doesn't come into it. If the argument for tax on fuel, was purely enviromental, I don't think farmers would come of too lightly either, considering what comes out of the exhauts of some tractors. Come to think of it, I don't think the cows would to well here either:)

All points well made.

But in fairness aviation fuel and home heating oil should also be taxed if we start going down that road (pardon the pun).

The reality is farming would stop if you had to feed a large tractor with road diesel. As I said 200L is a bloody expensive tank, and the margins don't justify it.

junkyard

Farmers get more tax breaks than any other "industry". They also get major breaks when it comes to planning permission. I was trying to get planning permission a few years ago to build a garage and the planning restrictions were unbelievable and I have to pay rates. My next door neighbor builds a shed you could literally park 3 jumbo jets in no planning permission needed and no rates to pay. Any other "industry" has to pay rates and seek planning permission as far as I know.

Darando

First off- you cant have all the cake and eat it. If you own a car you should pay a tax on it. but the method should be not as it is. It makes total sense to abolish VRT and put it on petrol. Therefore as someone mentioned the pollutor pays. Heads up - we are pollutors and its the way of the future.

My other theory is what will they do if the they replace VRT with extra tax on petrol if we all going hybrid!!!!! Massive loss then in tax!!!!!

junkyard

Rest assured if hybrid cars catch on they'll be taxed too, its just an incentive.
Look at the mess that they've made with twin-cab pick-up trucks, first they were commercials, then they changed the VRT catagory and now they're talking about changing the road tax catagory to private. What a f**k-up. A lot of car/commercial dealers down my way won't trade them as a result of all this. Its like playing a game of football and the other team changing the rules all the time and my team paying the cost everytime.

Carb

maidhc wrote:

All points well made.

But in fairness aviation fuel and home heating oil should also be taxed if we start going down that road (pardon the pun).

The reality is farming would stop if you had to feed a large tractor with road diesel. As I said 200L is a bloody expensive tank, and the margins don't justify it.

Which is why I wouldn't advocate higher taxes on green diesel. This same green diesel is used in construction machinery etc. Like Junkyard, I may have other issues with regards to benefits to farmers, but I don't think a VRT discussion thread is the place for it.

I think the biggest issue people have is that there is no known basis for the way taxes are levied. If fuel excise went back into roads, I think a higher excise on fuel for road going vehicles, over excise on fuel for agricultural machinery is perfectly fair. Car use the road more than tractors, so they pay more tax. But this is not the case, but its hardly the fault of farmers that excise collected from fuel doesn't go into roads.

I think road tax is equally as unjust as VRT. I currently drive a 2.2l car. My tax is 722 euro per year. If I had bought a 1.8 version, I 'd used pretty much the same amount of fuel, the car would be basically the same size and weight, so my impact on the enviroment and the roads would be the same, yet I would have save a couple of hundred euro in road tax. A person could have a 3l sports car and only drive it a couple of thousand miles per year, but somebody else could have a 1.4l car and drive 30000 miles a year, but will only have paid a fraction of the road tax.

Solution: Do away with road tax, and increase the excise on petrol/diesel, that way you get taxed for using you car or choosing a high powered car. It won't solve the problem of the taxes not going into roads, but at least there is logic behind how the tax is calculated, and people can make their choices accordingly. Also do away VRT, put it on income tax, and that way everbody is paying for the services that VRT/motorist was previously paying for. Any politician that implements something like this, might get my vote.

jhegarty

on the topic of motor tax...

what does a pertrol 2l and diesel 2l (which uses far less fuel) pay the same road tax ?

jhegarty

unkel wrote:

Abolish red diesel. Why should we as tax payers subsidise millionaire farmers?

yep they are all millionairs ... thats why most farmers i know have to take a second job just to make ends meet......:mad:

maidhc

junkyard wrote:

Farmers get more tax breaks than any other "industry". They also get major breaks when it comes to planning permission.

</topic>
<rant>
There is a few exceptions for planning in relation to sheds, but they are quite detailed as to size, distance from road, use etc. Certainly you need planning for something "big enough for 3 Jumbos".

Rates may not apply (I think the sheer amount of covered area needed in farming requires this to be so), but income tax is levied the same as any other business. There are very detailed requirments as to animal tracability, we have the tightest and most draconian requirments in europe on the medicines which can be given to animals, waste and IPPC licences are required by some larger farmers, in fact practically everything is regulated with reams of red tape. It is completely misguided and wrong to think government does not impose substantial costs on the farming industry

Even the grants "the millions" people say farmers got is misguided. The reality is that when the grants were introduced the value of produce fell by a commensurate amount. The Tescos essentially got the "the millions", not the farmers.

Dont rely on the popular press to say this though. If farming was so damn popular and profitable people would be staying at it. Instead they are taking the value of assets and moving off.

</rant>

<topic>

What carb suggests may work, although it would make life much easier for the dublin dweller who just uses a car for recreation as against those down the country who clock up 20k+ p.a. driving to and from work.

junkyard

I'd be all for the tax on petrol and diesel and do away with VRT and tax on cars too.

el tel

Carb wrote:

Solution: Do away with road tax, and increase the excise on petrol/diesel, that way you get taxed for using you car or choosing a high powered car. It won't solve the problem of the taxes not going into roads, but at least there is logic behind how the tax is calculated, and people can make their choices accordingly.

Didn't the Irish government try this already, where they combined road tax with the fuel duty for a few years but then decided to separate it again but did not reduce the fuel duty accordingly?

Carb

maidhc wrote:

What carb suggests may work, although it would make life much easier for the dublin dweller who just uses a car for recreation as against those down the country who clock up 20k+ p.a. driving to and from work.

Believe me, I not in the business of making life easier for any Dublin dweller, but we can't have it everyway. I just happen to think tax by usage is the best way. Somebody living in Dublin, that only needs a car for recreation, has probably gone to the added expense of living in an area with good public transport. You also have have a much more densely populated area, so there are far more motorists contributing to shorter stretches of of road, so they would probably say that they're paying a fair share.

Carb

el tel wrote:

Didn't the Irish government try this already, where they combined road tax with the fuel duty for a few years but then decided to separate it again but did not reduce the fuel duty accordingly?

Not in my short motoring life, but based on the current government, it nots beyond belief that it was done previously. I love to know what excuse could have been used for separating them again.

maidhc

el tel wrote:

Didn't the Irish government try this already, where they combined road tax with the fuel duty for a few years but then decided to separate it again but did not reduce the fuel duty accordingly?

Before my time also, but Jack Lynch did abolish car tax, amongst other things.

The national debt went through the roof, and car tax was reintroduced out of necessity.

unkel

maidhc wrote:

How exactly are farmers being subsidised?

They pay less for their diesel. This means the tax payer has to pay more. Indirect subsidy.

maidhc wrote:

Road tax is only payable if you drive on a road!

It is indeed only payable if you drive on a public road. I can't see many tractors never driving on a public road though. And if they ever do, they must pay tax (and as a side note, I feel that there should be no lower road tax (again a subsidy) for taxis, tractors, etc. compared to equivalent cc private cars)

maidhc wrote:

Could you explain why I should pay duty on the 200L of fuel a 6.5L diesel will burn through in a long day mowing grass... on my private property.

A vehicle driving on private property doesn't pollute less than the same vehicle driving on public roads

maidhc wrote:

But in fairness aviation fuel and home heating oil should also be taxed if we start going down that road (pardon the pun)

Absolutely

maidhc wrote:

The reality is farming would stop if you had to feed a large tractor with road diesel

Nah. But the vast majority of farmers would sell out if the EU farmers subsidy would stop. Wouldn't that be great? Sell up, retire and enjoy being a millionaire

For the rest of us, VRT and motortax could be scrapped because of it, and probably a good few other taxes as well. Budget neutral! :eek:

unkel

jhegarty wrote:

yep they are all millionairs ...

Most are. Average size farm is what - 80 acres? isn't that worth about 2 million in agriculturally zoned land alone?

jhegarty wrote:

thats why most farmers i know have to take a second job just to make ends meet......:mad:

Don't be a drama queen. Fed up with being asset rich and cash poor? Sell up and live the high-life! Surely a new Ferrari is within budget

maidhc

unkel wrote:

Most are. Average size farm is what - 80 acres? isn't that worth about 2 million in agriculturally zoned land alone?

Asset rich and cash poor is about the size of it.

The subsidies are stoppingg (big wheels grind to a halt slowly), farmers are selling, and things will be vastly different in 10 years time, for better or worse I don't know. However as I said above I would challenge anyone who argues farmers were ever better off because of subsidies; they got money into their hand, but sell their produce at a loss. In fact at present the profit, before any subsidy on your average 80ac farm is about, wait for it, €5 an acre PER YEAR.

I am not an economist and am totally unable to predict the effect of farmers on the Irish economy, however I suspect the impact is neutral, they bring in some money, cost a bit of money, keep the countryside reasonably tidy, and everyone is happy. I don't think your VRT is being used to keep us in business anyway

unkel

So no denial of the fact that most farmers in Ireland are (multi-) millionaires then?

maidhc wrote:

I am not an economist

I am

maidhc

unkel wrote:

So no denial of the fact that most farmers in Ireland are (multi-) millionaires then?

If you look at assets only, then, absolutely.

That isn't all the story though for reasons of wanting employment/food production/tidy countryside/environmentally friendly practices. If farmers couldn't make any money from their investment, then our main agricultural output would be one-off housing... something happening already for this very reason.

ambro25

How about this: if Revenue is monitoring 'popular' imports for 'upwards reclassification', is the reverse not also warranted, for equity's sake? (i.e. downward reclassification for imports next-to-never looked at).

As it is my understanding that in 'OMSP', there is an M for market and SP for Selling Price, both of which pre-suppose transactions to actually take place. If in any time period an import is checked 10,000 times but only 10 are imported, as fictional as the OMSP already is (when was the last time the VRT enforcers asked the importers evidence of how much they paid for their car?), it just becomes arbitrary in the extreme: basically, pluck a figure out of thin air :mad:

galwaytt

unkel wrote:

They pay less for their diesel. This means the tax payer has to pay more. Indirect subsidy.

it's this sort of simplistic nonsense that keeps threads like this going on and on...... They don't pay more for their diesel. The Govt charge YOU more because you're NOT a farmer. And lets not forget, Green diesel is also used in every JCB, Excavator etc in the country..........so unless you want to add all that to the price of your food and your house, I'd keep my head down.....

I feel that there should be no lower road tax (again a subsidy) for taxis, tractors, etc. compared to equivalent cc private cars)

...ah yes, spoken by someone who has no comprehension of the economy or cleanliness of EFFICIENT engine design. The fact of the matter is, cc-based tax is complete bollocks. A 1.9 diesel car is cleaner and uses less fuel, than an equivalent petrol engine. Indeed, uses less and is cleaner than many SMALLER petrol engines.... we are using a tax-based system from a hundred years ago. To wit:
Originally (early 1900's...), govt's wanted to tax cars off the road (some things never change...). Hence the Red Flag man, and then car tax. To limit car sizes and speed, and being similarly unenlightened, the came up with an engine based tax, based on the diameter of the piston. They (incorrectly) drew a connotation between piston size, and power. So big pistons = big tax, small pistons = small tax (-ish...). I forget, but there may have been a multiplication factor for the no of pistons too........ So, we ended up with cars rated by 'horsepower' for tax. Big pistons = big horspower, etc.... However, engineers quickly found a way around this.........they reduced the size of the pistons, and lengthened the stroke. So, small pistons, but still big power, but smaller tax bill.............. this led to car mfrs labelling the cars so that they could identify which power it had, and which tax class it was in- for example, a Wolsleley 15/50 was 15 TAXABLE horsepower (using the stupid rules, above...), but it had 50 ACTUAL horsepower. France had a not dissimilar scheme, which led to the 2CV (2 Horsepower. Cheveu - horse, iirc...), and the larger cars e.g. the 15CV.
With me so far? Good. All this went pear shaped, oh, 50-70 years later. UK adopted a flat tax. We didn't. That's why your grandfather (or father!) still asks you how many horsepower your Civic has. When you say 150 - it doesn't mean anything, he's thinking TAXABLE horsepower..... In the '80s or '90's we changed to cc-based, thinking that that was more accurate, and just for good measure, we penalised all cars over 1400cc as all big engines are big and dirty, right ?? Wrong. Fuel prices, oil crises (sic), all conspired to make engine mfrs make cleaner, more efficient engines - and guess what? small ones AREN'T the answer !! That's why the migration of mfrs to larger engine sizes. Look at VAG diesels. They started at 1.6, then 1.9. Now they've found the current optimum for power, environment and economy is.....2.0 - hence the end of the 1.9tdi soon in VAG products. Emissions laws are penalising traditional engine size choices. But not in good 'ol Irl. Oh no, here you can have a 1.5 Prius.........and pay the same car tax as a 1.5 Corolla - so what's the point? Likewise an RX300h uses less juice, than say, a 1.6 Kia - but annual tax on the RX is 1393 p.a..........go figure. And I'm not even going to mention emissions...........
Meanwhile, europe has cottoned on and emissions is what drives tax.

A vehicle driving on private property doesn't pollute less than the same vehicle driving on public roads

you're conventiently ignoring the context of the vehicle use. Want dearer food, houses? - lash away...

Nah. But the vast majority of farmers would sell out if the EU farmers subsidy would stop. Wouldn't that be great? Sell up, retire and enjoy being a millionaire

.....er, to whom? German tourists? Who's going to want the land - and don't even mention developers.......they're not going to pass on any savings to you....!!!