Just heard - new increases in VRT??

nialler

JohnBoy wrote:

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

Hang on JohnBoy, I'm far from rich but I drive a 00 Merc S320 here's what I could have got for the same money:

http://www.cbg.ie/NewCars/Ford/Focus/Hatch_5_dr/Freedom_1.4.aspx

Now obviously my car tax is CONSIDERABLY higher road tax and my fuel consumption but I love the safety aspects and the comfort.

The same thing could be said about yourself in your Range Rover of which you see many driving around the city's streets.

Abolish car tax or have a fixed rate for cars of all CC (like the UK) drop this ridiculous notion of increasing bands of VRT on larger engine sizes, I've seen MPG figures on 2 litre EVOs here this morning that quite honestly I get about 5-10mpg more than, but because my thing is 3.2l I'll pay a higher tax rate.

Everybody worldwide agrees with Polluter Pays principles so if I do 20k miles a year then yes I should pay more (tax on fuel). It's a very very simple and sensible thing to do.

As for diesel, the price difference that I worked out on an S320 between petrol and diesel of the same year at my current mileage would take me 3-4 years use at Urban MPG not motorway which is double or treble to see any benefit so diesel isn't an option.

ninty9er

sneakyST wrote:

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

It was run at an FF event, but the speakers were academics from UCD, UL, Keele and an IBEC spokesman

sneakyST

ninty9er wrote:

It was run at an FF event, but the speakers were academics from UCD, UL, Keele and an IBEC spokesman

Was Al Gore there too? He's a smashing scientist too

alias no.9

ninty9er wrote:

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

What's your take on the smoke and mirrors method of disguising how much they really take in sales and registration taxes? Assuming the tax rates are kept the same with a simple reallignment into three bands based on emissions, would you agree that telling a person straight up that they're paying almost 73% tax on top of the pre tax price of a high emissions car as opposed to 53% tax on top of the pre tax cost of a low emissions car is much more likely to dissuade the purchase of high emissions cars rather than bull****ing the citizens of this country with so called 22.5% and 30% green tax rates which are to replace VRT? The reality is that this government have no interest in dissuading prople from purchasing high emissions vehicles so they'll continue with Berties slight of hand accounting techniques. That's why this not a green tax but simply a cheap trick to continue the existance of an unjust and increasingly unpopular tax.

Placing the majority of the tax burden on fuel is a far more equitable environmental tax...
- You pay more if you drive more
- You pay more if you have an inefficient car
- You pay more if you drive in an inefficient manner
- You pay more if you take your car into a congested, stop start city center rather than taking public transport
- You pay more if you chose to live away from public services in an unsustainable manner
- You pay more if you speed
- You pay more if you make unnecessary journeys
- You pay more if you make journeys at peak times, adding to congestion, that could be made at off peak times

sneakyST

alias no.9 wrote:

What's your take on the smoke and mirrors method of disguising how much they really take in sales and registration taxes? Assuming the tax rates are kept the same with a simple reallignment into three bands based on emissions, would you agree that telling a person straight up that they're paying almost 73% tax on top of the pre tax price of a high emissions car as opposed to 53% tax on top of the pre tax cost of a low emissions car is much more likely to dissuade the purchase of high emissions cars rather than bull****ing the citizens of this country with so called 22.5% and 30% green tax rates which are to replace VRT? The reality is that this government have no interest in dissuading prople from purchasing high emissions vehicles so they'll continue with Berties slight of hand accounting techniques. That's why this not a green tax but simply a cheap trick to continue the existance of an unjust and increasingly unpopular tax.

Placing the majority of the tax burden on fuel is a far more equitable environmental tax...
- You pay more if you drive more
- You pay more if you have an inefficient car
- You pay more if you drive in an inefficient manner
- You pay more if you take your car into a congested, stop start city center rather than taking public transport
- You pay more if you chose to live away from public services in an unsustainable manner
- You pay more if you speed
- You pay more if you make unnecessary journeys
- You pay more if you make journeys at peak times, adding to congestion, that could be made at off peak times

Think I will just buy a horse...no wait will i be taxed on the CO2 gas from its buttox....probably....how much VRT for a 14 hands horsie

nialler

alias no.9 wrote:

What's your take on the smoke and mirrors method of disguising how much they really take in sales and registration taxes? Assuming the tax rates are kept the same with a simple reallignment into three bands based on emissions, would you agree that telling a person straight up that they're paying almost 73% tax on top of the pre tax price of a high emissions car as opposed to 53% tax on top of the pre tax cost of a low emissions car is much more likely to dissuade the purchase of high emissions cars rather than bull****ing the citizens of this country with so called 22.5% and 30% green tax rates which are to replace VRT? The reality is that this government have no interest in dissuading prople from purchasing high emissions vehicles so they'll continue with Berties slight of hand accounting techniques. That's why this not a green tax but simply a cheap trick to continue the existance of an unjust and increasingly unpopular tax.

Placing the majority of the tax burden on fuel is a far more equitable environmental tax...
- You pay more if you drive more
- You pay more if you have an inefficient car
- You pay more if you drive in an inefficient manner
- You pay more if you take your car into a congested, stop start city center rather than taking public transport
- You pay more if you chose to live away from public services in an unsustainable manner
- You pay more if you speed
- You pay more if you make unnecessary journeys
- You pay more if you make journeys at peak times, adding to congestion, that could be made at off peak times

well said!

neacy69

works out 100 per hand plus a wee bit extra for bertie so about €1500

Tipsy Mac

alias no.9 wrote:

Placing the majority of the tax burden on fuel is a far more equitable environmental tax...
- You pay more if you drive more
- You pay more if you have an inefficient car
- You pay more if you drive in an inefficient manner
- You pay more if you take your car into a congested, stop start city center rather than taking public transport
- You pay more if you chose to live away from public services in an unsustainable manner
- You pay more if you speed
- You pay more if you make unnecessary journeys
- You pay more if you make journeys at peak times, adding to congestion, that could be made at off peak times

Well said, this is how a government with it's own independent thoughts would function instead of one that bends over for vested interests.

astraboy

grahamo wrote:

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.

100% agree.
You prove what I said earlier, alot of familes need or have use for SUV's. I mean its equivalent to you buying a 2.0L car, but more versatile, however because you sit higher on the road you are branded a planet destroying bastard by the ignorant masses that read the sindo on a daily basis. Its jealousy IMO.

People should pay tax on a combination of the car they drive and how they drive it. A small tax on petrol would achieve this, and road tax should be abolished. FOr instance, I walk to college each day and only drive my car weekends really, yet I pay the same tax as if I drove the car every day. By paying at the pump people pay for less efficient cars in an easy way.

galwaytt

ah yes, but the flaw in that argument is......... it's simple, and obvious. It is, therefore, doomed to failure...........

smcgiff

Will have three letters for the FF and PDs when they call to my door over the next month or so - VRT

Votes ‘R Transferring!

ninty9er

ooh...transfer votes......

In fairness...the views of 50 people on a board like this is in NO WAY indicative of the views of 2 million people who drive in this country.

Go to every doorstep on my street and you'll likely be recieved well at 1....he votes Green. Everyone else would castrate you and hang you from the electricity lines at the thought of increased petrol and income tax....I'm not in favour of increasing petrol prices myself...if you want to do pay by use have a falt rate road tax for local roads and toll national roads!!

McSandwich

ninty9er wrote:

ooh...transfer votes......

In fairness...the views of 50 people on a board like this is in NO WAY indicative of the views of 2 million people who drive in this country.

Go to every doorstep on my street and you'll likely be recieved well at 1....he votes Green. Everyone else would castrate you and hang you from the electricity lines at the thought of increased petrol and income tax....I'm not in favour of increasing petrol prices myself...if you want to do pay by use have a falt rate road tax for local roads and toll national roads!!

Extra fuel tax would no doubt be acceptable if it (at least partially) replaced motor tax, vrt, and possibly tolls/ congestion charges (additional saving as the crazy proposed barrier free tolling system would no longer be required). It just takes a little bit of imagination, something our government seems to be lacking..

[edit]
What are the chances of this happening? As far as tax revenue goes, it could bring in just as much as the current system, possibly more as the administrative expense would also be reduced.

[edit] fixed typos

overdriver

ninty9er wrote:

ooh...transfer votes......

In fairness...the views of 50 people on a board like this is in NO WAY indicative of the views of 2 million people who drive in this country.

Let's see what happens at the elections, shall we? I hope the electorate will wipe that cheesy grin of Bertie's face. Whoever told him those new posters were a good idea ought to be sacked.

cantdecide

not even the stig would switch votes over motoring issues alone cos that would be irresponsible.



so how do we effectively raise the profile of this issue to the huddled masses? the government is relying on apathy it bloody well has it in spades. This tax hike is designed specifically to punish the few but keep Mrs Murphy happy. i was very surprised at the way the news was delivered yesterday. it was so vague and nonchalant. was anyone else a little suspicious- are they not allowed to talk about the elephant in the room.

to most, it's not even a problem because no one has told them it's a problem, and there is something very sheepish about the irish motorist out there. that's the worst thing of all. all the backroom whinging is going to achieve nothing.


let's revolt

ambro25

Hey, there's 50 of us, all with cars, yeah? That's more than enough for semi-flowing impromptu barrages on major arteries, à la French lorry drivers. 2/3 care abreast on all of M50/M1/N11/etc. at once, just before rush hour, 20 mph - garanteed media coverage to state the case.

Coordinate using boards pm and mobiles over a few random days of random action and voilà... That will work quick around Dublin, dunno about rest of Ireland though.

We'll be lynched, then we'll be heroes

ninty9er

cantdecide wrote:

it was so vague and nonchalant. was anyone else a little suspicious- are they not allowed to talk about the elephant in the room.

personal interest....what's the elephant....I know wasted money on carbon fines is an elephant when carbon pollution can be cut using biofuels, biomass etc, but what's the elephant here??

McSandwich

ninty9er wrote:

personal interest....what's the elephant....I know wasted money on carbon fines is an elephant when carbon pollution can be cut using biofuels, biomass etc, but what's the elephant here??

Illegal VRT dressed up to look like a carbon tax which benefits the environment.

Of course there is a huge cut in VRT for biofuel vehicles, despite the reality that the production of biofuel can be costly in terms of CO2, because it makes the government look green.

professore

is_that_so wrote:

Eh how does that work? Surely if a vehicle is known to have certain emissions isn't it reasonable to apply a tax to that? If someone claims otherwise let them go and get it tested.
I personally welcome it , evil things - SUVs .

Not if you never drive the SUV - a yaris is more polluting if you drive it more ...

junkyard

SUV's are no more unfriendly than most cars, in fact high performance cars are more unfriendly than SUV's and I'm the proud owner of many of each. The bottom line is tax collection, be it VRT or environmental issues, whenever politicians are involved you can be sure its down to money. All the environmental taxes are used as a lever to get more money from the taxpayer and if you argue your regarded as a social outcast and anti the common good......never ever trust politicians.

cantdecide

McSandwich wrote:

Illegal VRT dressed up to look like a carbon tax which benefits the environment.

Of course there is a huge cut in VRT for biofuel vehicles, despite the reality that the production of biofuel can be costly in terms of CO2, because it makes the government look green.

thank you....

Hootie

I have a Kia Sedona, a big car I agree but with 5 young kids and everyday luggage its needed. We pay the highest tax but do quite low mileage, kids to/from school, shopping etc. Its only a year old car and the gov are telling me that i use more co2 emissions than somebody in a lesser size car that is probably doing triple if not more miles per year than me. I'm sorry but it doesn't make sense. People with big families are just being screwed as if we're not paying enough for just living costs. Infact family cars are quite limiting in selection depending on the amount of kids you have. Surely there should be some kind of tax relief for a minimum mileage family car.

ninty9er

McSandwich wrote:

Illegal VRT dressed up to look like a carbon tax which benefits the environment.

sorry to burst the bubble....free movement of goods applied to excise duty on products imported...but it's not an import duty; hence not illegal...as recently as last month the European Commission took a case against Finland in which the court's judgment case 54/05 was in favour of the commission and the Republic of Finland was ordered to reforem it's registration tax to exempt vehicles registered outside the state which were not to remain permanently from the tax. No mention was made of removing the tax on vehicles to be permanently registered for use in Finland...e.g my above example of the €27k Yaris

The last case I can find taken against Ireland in relation to tax was case C-358/97 in 2000 and was something to do with non charging of VAT on toll roads if I deciphered it correctly...Judgment was in favour of the Republic of Ireland and the Commission was ordered to pay costs.


Tax not Illegal

cantdecide

that's fine so- we're not being ripped off then- i'll get my coat- sorry for all the trouble....

astraboy

The fact is VRT remains against the principle of the treaty of Rome. The fact the tax is applied only when you register your car is a loophole, however it is illegal for a garage to sell a car in this country that does not have VRT paid. On average Irish car prices are 30% above the rest of the EU. Finland is a high tax economy anyway, however they get benefit as their public services are some of the best in the world.

ninty9er

I'm not saying VRT is hunky dory and we should all be happy about it, but people spouting the odds that it's illegal don't help the case for people who actually want to reform it

astraboy

As far as I know the EU has asked the Gov several time to reform it, and the Gov pays a fine each year to the EU because of VRT. If this is the case how is it legal? Its legal only because our Gov says so as far as I can see.

McSandwich

ninty9er wrote:

I'm not saying VRT is hunky dory and we should all be happy about it, but people spouting the odds that it's illegal don't help the case for people who actually want to reform it

I agree, it should be reformed [edit] or abolished [/edit] asap whatever the legal issues, but not under the pretense of being an environmental tax or for political points scoring.

As has been mentioned here, taxing carbon pollution would be more effective and administratively more efficient than taxing based on vehicle cost and engine capacity (which makes zero sense for modern engines, esp. diesel) .

If bio-fuels produce less CO2 then reduce the tax on the fuel - not the vehicles. That way, drivers are offered an incentive to adapt their engines to use cheaper and less polluting (depending on how and where it's produced) bio-fuel. Changing a car for a bio-fuel or hybrid model may save some vrt and produce less pollutants but the extra CO2 produced during the manufacture should also be accounted for.

Another VRT annoyance is that it's applied to the full cost of a vehicle, including safety features. It is for this reason that features such as traction control and extra airbags are still offered as extras in Ireland (model depending) while they are standard in most other countries. Given our road safety statistics, this is a disgrace

[edited]: typo

ninty9er

McSandwich wrote:

Another VRT annoyance is that it's applied to the full cost of a vehicle, including safety features. It is for this reason that features such as traction control and extra airbags are still offered as extras in Ireland (model depending) while they are standard in most other countries. Given our road safety record, this is a disgrace.

Colm and some of the other guys here might be able to back this up but a car is VRTd at 92%* of OMSP not 100%. I can't say why, but it may be for safety gadgets

*edit: sorry...I believe this to be true, not sure

McSandwich

ninty9er wrote:

Colm and some of the other guys here might be able to back this up but a car is VRTd at 92%* of OMSP not 100%. I can't say why, but it may be for safety gadgets

*edit: sorry...I believe this to be true, not sure

Here's the Revenue VRT page: http://www.revenue.ie/index.htm?/services/bus_cust5.htm