Just heard - new increases in VRT??

alias no.9

ninty9er wrote:

remember that FG introduced it in the first place!!

I'm not politically alligned but I can't let you get away with that, especially when you've got an ogra FF sig.

VRT was introduced by your brave leader Bertie Ahern when he was minister for finance. He was the man responsible for implementing it as a tax on the final selling price rather than a tax marked up on the pre-tax price, which means that you pay VRT on the money paid for VRT, not forgetting you've already paid VAT and have VRT compounded on that too. This was no doubt a scam to fool the electorate into thinking the tax was lower than it really is, the VRT tax bands are called 22.5%, 25% and 30%, but the effective rates of tax are 29%, 33.3% and 43%.

overdriver

G'wan the Alias!!!

Ice_Box

Honda Accord diesel ... 52Mpg ... 30% VRT ... €755 annual road tax
Mercedes Benz E200... 30Mpg ... 25% VRT ... €484 annual road tax

sneakyST

Stark wrote:

:rolleyes:

I could get started but really, we're talking about a whole other thread.

C'mon then im intrigued! I would be interested to hear what everyone thinks on it.

layke

slickmcvic wrote:

...and the greens have promised in INCREASE petrol by 20c a litre & a hike in road tax if they get in so it looks like We're F*ucked either way

Greens, pfft. Hippies. Saying things like the above cements my decision that they will never have my vote. I'm already getting rode sideways by Bertie, why would I go and lube up for more?

I love my car, there is no way in hell I will get an engine smaller then a 1.6L.

If they want to do something about the environment then pour some cash into biofuel R&D. I think as always this is nothing to do with saving the environment but another way to squeeze the homeowner and motorist for more money.

ninty9er if the gov didn't squander millions yearly that 1.3bl loss would be a lot lower.

alias no.9

Just to back up the previous point, here are some basic numbers illustrating the tax take on a <1400cc car costing €20k, a <1900cc car costing €30k and a >1901cc car costing €40k.

edit: If the government really wanted to discourage the purchase of large engine cars, telling the public that they pay almost 73% of the pre tax price of a car >1900cc as tax would probably help. Instead they use smoke and mirrors to disguise how much they actually take. This tells me they're interested in revenue not the environment.

Saruman

layke wrote:

Greens, pfft. Hippies. Saying things like the above cements my decision that they will never have my vote. I'm already getting rode sideways by Bertie, why would I go and lube up for more?

I love my car, there is no way in hell I will get an engine smaller then a 1.6L.

If they want to do something about the environment then pour some cash into biofuel R&D. I think as always this is nothing to do with saving the environment but another way to squeeze the homeowner and motorist for more money.

ninty9er if the gov didn't squander millions yearly that 1.3bl loss would be a lot lower.

Actually the greens plan on increasing the fuel over 10 or 20 years or something like that.. as for tax etc they plan on reducing it for green cars and increasing for gas guzzlers. Also scrapping VRT i think the guy on the last word said. He also said that if you have an SUV thats green to run then it might be cheaper than a saloon car because its greener to run.

When will we start seeing hybrids using bio ethanol/diesel instead of petrol?

JohnBoy

ninty9er wrote:

The idea is to keep revenue the same but reduce the burden on the average punter with up to 2.0l cars especially if they pollute less...in fairness....you can never keep everyone happy...last time I looked most people were complaining about big 3.0l and 4.0l gas guzzlers (and there are a lot of those V8s in Suburbia what car). Now it's "poor rich people with their big cars getting taxed" FFS

Reduce the burden on the average punter?????? why should someone who's needs deviate away from the suburban average in this country be punished for owning a big evil suv that they may legitimately have a need for?

i'm not a rich person but i think its unfair that i have to remove the back seats from my range rover to make it remotely affordable to own (by the way its a 1992 range rover not some shiny 07 model) I have need for such a large, strong vehicle, i do make use of its towing capacity, and its carrying capacity, and i don't drive it every day, in fact its normally only driven when i need its special capabilities.

however if i need its capabilities plus need more than one person to come with me then we have to run 2 vehicles on a trip.

if tax was on fuel and fuel only i'd have all the flexibility i need and i can guarantee you i'd only be driving the RR when i needed it and those poor rich people with their big cars might be a lot more likely to change their habits if they were being hit in the ass pocket every week as opposed to getting the hubby to pay the tax bill once a year.

increase tax on fuel and abolish vrt and road tax, then the polluter (myself included) really would pay
oh and i'm all for increasing income tax too by the way

Tipsy Mac

I thought as a motorist I would never say this and can't believe I am but at the moment the Greens have my vote, their system is by far the farest, the polluter pays.

Saruman

Now that environmentally friendly cars are available and alterative fuel is starting to appear the greens system is workable and welcome.
I do have an SUV, a santa fe but thats a commercial so i do not lay for it
My own car is a 1.6 automatic scenic, not the most fuel efficiant car but its possible to get 39 mpg out of it if you drive it right. I think you can get more out of it.. cant remember as i only drive it the odd weekend.

ambro25

The "greenest" possible solution has to be a combination of optimised transport infrastructure + personal incentives based on tax ("gentle coercion", if you prefer).

On the one hand, that means using some foresight when planning, and spending the money in a much more efficient manner than it currently has (I've never known budget ovespend to the extent it regularly does in Ireland for any infrastructural project).

Taxes wouldn't need to rise at all to 'take care of environmental problems', if that was being done with even a modicum of capability. All this 'green talk' has been done and redone and re-redone for ever and more over the past 30 years, yet nothing has been done (save for CFCs, I suppose) and this latest bout of "environment-friendly policies" is nothing more than salvation for the politians trying to solve the problem of raising taxes at this moment in time.

On the other hand, that means devising ways and means to incentivise people to use less gas, whether through choice (but people who do want to make a difference are already doing so, and have for a very long time already), or through coercion with taxes. But the GVT is not IMHO serving 'the people' by taxing fairly, because a 'fair tax' (again IMHO) by defintion is... has to be... proportional to what it relates.

All I see at the moment, is a lot of coercion, certainly no fairness, and still less planning with foresight or spending with caution.

I mean... a tax on "old-tech lightbulbs"? Whatever-the-f*ck-next! Why not bring back the tax on windows while they're at it? After all, a house loses a hell of internal heat energy via the heat exchange on window panes... Oh wait, why not tax 'big people' more than 'little people'? After all, they breathe more air since they're bigger, so they exhale more CO2... :rolleyes:

grahamo

Anan1 wrote:

I think the plan is to base it on CO2 emissions, which seems fair enough to me. Personally, i'd like to see penal rates on SUVs.

The 'Anti-SUV brigade' are getting on my nerves. I have a 2.0L SUV to ferry my wife and 4 kids around. I've been forced to live 20 miles from my home town (Dublin) as I can't afford a house there so I now NEED a car. A 2.0 litre engine is hardly a 'big gas guzzling engine' especially as its used to drive a whole family around. I've been penalised enough. Whoever raises road tax will not get my vote. What a cheek to blame families with a medium sized car for emission problems when there is no alternative (ie decent public transport) to having to drive.

cantdecide

Ford dealers recent disgrace also proved that the government isn't the only one taking the p*ss. getting a car in the UK saves a lot of money in most cases so where is the extra hike coming from in ireland. will no one save us?

what is Dick Roches stated problem with 'polluter pays'? it is so fantastically easy- abolish the illegal tax and get polluters to pay by taxing fuel. i am also in favour of income tax subsidising the environment, high cc cars are subsidising it now quite wrongly. surely this is the most harmonious way. what is the major malfunction here? it has become even more convoluted and inequitable.

ps what can we now do?

Stark

ambro25 wrote:

I mean... a tax on "old-tech lightbulbs"? Whatever-the-f*ck-next!

It's a great idea. The energy savings will really add up. And the new bulbs save money in the long term so noone's losing out. It's just most people don't think long term, they just think "shell out 60c for a light bulb and that's it".

Why not bring back the tax on windows while they're at it? After all, a house loses a hell of internal heat energy via the heat exchange on window panes...

I think there are penalties for building poorly insulated houses these days.

Oh wait, why not tax 'big people' more than 'little people'? After all, they breathe more air since they're bigger, so they exhale more CO2... :rolleyes:

The carbon exhaled from human beings goes through the cycle of atmosphere->plant->(possibly animal)->human->atmosphere, so the "net CO2 emissions" are zero. The CO2 emitted from cars burning your standard petrol/diesel comes from carbon that has been buried for millions of years and is now being released into the atmosphere. The carbon emitted by bio-fuels will come from carbon extracted by plants from the atmosphere so again the "net CO2 emissions" will be zero

Altreab

Tipsy Mac wrote:

I thought as a motorist I would never say this and can't believe I am but at the moment the Greens have my vote, their system is by far the farest, the polluter pays.

But like so many policies with so many parties expect "slippage" in the implementation....fuel tax goes on ....VRT Tax will stay and in line with their belief system it will more than likely rise on larger engined cars. So we end up with the worst of all worlds. :mad:

TheBazman

I disagree with a lot of the Greens policy but on this point they do make sense. Surely anyone with half a brain can see that getting rid of VRT on a phased basis with the loss being made up by an extra tax on fuel makes complete sense. I would be happy to pay more on fuel if they canned VRT (and I do around 100kms per day so I would prob be hit more). At least its equitable and would actually encourage the use of public transport where possible.

And I know the point has been made but are they completely thick to think there is a one for one relationship between the engine size and CO2 emissions. Age is one thing that could be taken into account. I have seen older small engined motors puffing around the place polluting more in a few minutes that a new bigger engined motor would pollute in a day

It really guiles me that they think that they are somehow saving the planet with these idiotic ideas. As if charging a few pence more on light bulbs will do anything for the environment

Grrr

is_that_so

kbannon wrote:

Should a high polluting vehicle that covers 1000 kilometres per year be taxed more than a less polluting vehicle that covers 40000km per year? The latter will pollute more!
Where is the fairness / sense / environmental responsibility in that?

Well it is organ donor week!

That comes back to the nub of my question . How do you actually go about that? When a vehicle is bought it has known emissions. No-one can say if it is going to do 1000km or 40000km. It can't just be based on "trust". We're not very good at that in this country. An initial taxation system is transparent. You can make your choice at the time of purchase.

Mitch Connor

yop wrote:

Aye, remember Y2K bug!!

Just in summary these are the proposed changes

Cars VRT Rate
Up to 1,200ccs 15%
1,201 to 1,400ccs 20%
1,401 to 1,900ccs 25%
1901 to 2,400ccs 30%
2,401ccs and over 35%

sorry if this is a dumb question.

Are those percentages indicative of a percentage increase on the VRT rate, or what the VRT rate will be.

Ie. Will VRT on a 2L car be 30%, or 30% higher then it was?

Stark

Your question was already answered: Tax on fuel. Where does the carbon in vehicle emissions come from? Answer: the fuel you put into it. The more fuel you put in, the more CO2 you get out. Simple.

unkel

is_that_so wrote:

When a vehicle is bought it has known emissions

Not quite. Same as fuel consumption, it will have been benchmarked, so it will have some figure for emissions under certain circumstances. In practice it depends on how the vehicle is being used. E.g. my car returns about 30MPG on long trips when I take it easy-ish with the overtaking. Drive it real hard and / or have a bad commute and we're talking single figures. And to state the obvious, the more the vehicle is actually being used, the more emissions it puts into the atmosphere

There's an ok correlation between emissions and fuel consumption. All tax should be based on the latter imho. The polluter pays.

ninty9er

sneakyST wrote:

Im amazed that nobody has even mentioned the fact that man made global warming has not be proven scientifically, yet we still have to pay for it- yes the sheep will follow

Was at a seminar last week.....yes they have...without the human population, the planet would be cooling instead of heating exponentially....I think 2025 is the point beyond which there is no comeback, could be 2040 though....can't quite recall.

ninty9er

alias no.9 wrote:

I'm not politically alligned but I can't let you get away with that, especially when you've got an ogra FF sig.

VRT was introduced by your brave leader Bertie Ahern when he was minister for finance. He was the man responsible for implementing it as a tax on the final selling price rather than a tax marked up on the pre-tax price, which means that you pay VRT on the money paid for VRT, not forgetting you've already paid VAT and have VRT compounded on that too. This was no doubt a scam to fool the electorate into thinking the tax was lower than it really is, the VRT tax bands are called 22.5%, 25% and 30%, but the effective rates of tax are 29%, 33.3% and 43%.

Apologies...I saw a journalist state otherwise a few years back.... and it's Ógra not ogra:p

Again...I'm not in favour of VRT but I don't see any political party claiming to rid the country of it

Stark

ninty9er wrote:

Was at a seminar last week.....yes they have...without the human population, the planet would be cooling instead of heating exponentially....I think 2025 is the point beyond which there is no comeback, could be 2040 though....can't quite recall.

The planet's half ****ed already. We were told for years that the **** would hit the fan when the polar icecaps started melting and that process has begun. Even if we completely stop pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere right now, the planet is going to continue heating up for years to come. Hundreds of species are already extinct due directly to global warming with millions more to become extinct over the next 50 years.

I dunno, maybe Al Gore will come along in his super-house and save us.

Mitch Connor

ninty9er wrote:

Apologies...I saw a journalist state otherwise a few years back.... and it's Ógra not ogra:p

Again...I'm not in favour of VRT but I don't see any political party claiming to rid the country of it

so? Why would they? Any political party in power will benifit from VRT to the tune of billions - why would they want rid of it? And regardless of that, it is the brainchild of the current bunch of muppets, who are now going to make it worse. Things don't stop being unfair just because politicians like it.

Tipsy Mac

Our system of taxing all cars of the same cc is insane, it doesn't reward manufacturers for fuel efficiency or people for choosing a fuel efficient car, it's purely a money generating exercise. We should be following a system of energy labels, eg A, B , C, D , E depending on how good they are, road tax can then be calculated on this.

ninty9er

Tauren wrote:

sorry if this is a dumb question.

Are those percentages indicative of a percentage increase on the VRT rate, or what the VRT rate will be.

Ie. Will VRT on a 2L car be 30%, or 30% higher then it was?

That's what the rate WOULD BE IF that option is taken, there are 4 of which that was one the other 3 are available on the linky

overdriver

Stark wrote:

I think there are penalties for building poorly insulated houses these days.

Sadly, no. My brother went to quote for a job, building two 3-bed semi's and four townhouses in Old Bawn, Tallaght yesterday. the guy has planning to build them out of 9 inch hollow blocks. The worst u-values imagineable, and we're the only country in Europe to still allow their use. When he suggested they consider something more nergy efficient, he was told it would be "too dear".

So some family will buy what they consider a modern home, only to find it may as well have been built in 1975, energy-wise.

@ninety9er, the problem with being a member of a group like the one in your sig, is that you stop being able to assess the performance of the party objectively once you support them blindly, the way a person supports Liverpool or Man Utd. This government have turned motorists into a cash-cow, providing €1 in every €8 collected for the exchequer. This proposal is an excercise in the same, but disguising it as a "green" tax, in much the way they have done with other stealth taxes, in order to give it some credence.

The overwhelming feeling in this thread so far is that we are not fooled. Not one bit. Any party coming into power after these crooks have been ousted would do well to remove VRT before the EU makes them do so anyway.

ambro25

Stark wrote:

It's a great idea. The energy savings will really add up. And the new bulbs save money in the long term so noone's losing out. It's just most people don't think long term, they just think "shell out 60c for a light bulb and that's it".

I think there are penalties for building poorly insulated houses these days.

The carbon exhaled from human beings goes through the cycle of atmosphere->plant->(possibly animal)->human->atmosphere, so the "net CO2 emissions" are zero. The CO2 emitted from cars burning your standard petrol/diesel comes from carbon that has been buried for millions of years and is now being released into the atmosphere. The carbon emitted by bio-fuels will come from carbon extracted by plants from the atmosphere so again the "net CO2 emissions" will be zero

Stark, I was having a rethoric rant (spot it!), I don't dispute that energy saving lightbulbs are grand / houses are better-&-better insulated / etc.

But coercing the public to buy energy saving lightbulbs by taxing conventional lightbulbs is a step / one nanny-state measure too far (IMHO): I'm fairly confident the buying public hasn't waited on the GVT to replace blown bulbs with energy-saving ones to cut down their electricity bills in the first place!

Stark

A nanny state protects people from themselves. Forcing people to be more energy efficient is about the good of everyone and everything who lives on the planet.

sneakyST

ninty9er wrote:

Was at a seminar last week.....yes they have...without the human population, the planet would be cooling instead of heating exponentially....I think 2025 is the point beyond which there is no comeback, could be 2040 though....can't quite recall.

Seminar run by who - what about the facts that really say temperatures increase before CO2 does??