Just heard - new increases in VRT??

Victor

astraboy wrote:

but if a family wants to buy a 2.0L SUV because it might make loading and unloading the kids easier and have room for all the gear kids need then whats the problem?

Um how much gear do kids need?

I got a taxi last week that was SUV based - I had to climb up into it. How does that make loading kids easier?

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

I'm not certain, but the Green Party said they wanted to move from VRT / Motor Tax to Co2 taxes, so you are wrong.

ninty9er

take a look at this one, poor Greeks...up to 88%.kreiki:eek: :eek: :eek:

Victor

Ice_Box wrote:

So yet again the government increases the tax on safe cars making the national fleet older and more people dead.

Vehicle error is a cause in only a tiny proportion of accidents.

NBar wrote:

And they plan to spend less on roads and more on public transport

More public transport = less cars in front of you.

Tipsy Mac

Victor wrote:

Vehicle error is a cause in only a tiny proportion of accidents.

I think what ice_box was referring to was a car with one crappy airbag has alot less chance of keeping it's occupants allive than one with multiple bags and other safety gadgets which only come into play during a crash.

ninty9er

Victor wrote:

More public transport = less cars in front of you.

:D

McSandwich

Tipsy Mac wrote:

I think what ice_box was referring to was a car with one crappy airbag has alot less chance of keeping it's occupants allive than one with multiple bags and other safety gadgets which only come into play during a crash.

Too bad then that manufacturers/ distributers have to leave [edit] some of the latest [/edit] safety features out of Irish car models in order to avoid VRT...:mad:

ninty9er

Tipsy Mac wrote:

I think what ice_box was referring to was a car with one crappy airbag has alot less chance of keeping it's occupants allive than one with multiple bags and other safety gadgets which only come into play during a crash.

Airbags are secondary and I don't know of any car on the market these days that doesn't have dual airbags at least, theres 8 or 9 in my mam's Yaris, seatbelts reduce injury to a much greater extent though, as do crumple zones whice come as standard and don't vary across a range

Seth Brundle

ninty9er wrote:

Airbags are secondary and I don't know of any car on the market these days that doesn't have dual airbags at least, theres 8 or 9 in my mam's Yaris, seatbelts reduce injury to a much greater extent though, as do crumple zones whice come as standard and don't vary across a range

Are you making excuses for having less safety equipment?
The extra equipment drives retail prices up and therefore drives VRT up. The alternative to this has been to remove equipment. As prices harmonise across Europe these differences from the EU average will increase.

McSandwich

ninty9er wrote:

Airbags are secondary and I don't know of any car on the market these days that doesn't have dual airbags at least, theres 8 or 9 in my mam's Yaris, seatbelts reduce injury to a much greater extent though, as do crumple zones whice come as standard and don't vary across a range

The combination of various safety features saves lives and protects against serious injury. Features such as ABS and traction control make up for driver inexperience or inability (for good or bad). Given the number of L drivers on our roads, this should not be underestimated.

Unfortunately the drivers with least experience also tend to drive older cars with fewer safety features, I wonder how that could be fixed...

Victor

overdriver wrote:

We shouldn't accept an unfair and illegal tax because we fear it may show up elsewhere. Whatever money they make off it is illegally obtained, and therefore it should not be tolerated.

Nobody has yet proved it to be illegal.

astraboy wrote:

One post before I go to sleep. I never understood why VRT is placed on optional safety features. This is a scandal, yet rarely mentioned. Mistibushi released a new car recently and the base model does not have EBD, electronic brake distribution as it would raise the price too much with VRT. England gets the same base model with EBD. A disgrace.

Safety features are not taxed separately or else you would have 1000 euro BMWs with 49,000 euro seat belts. Hang on, why are manufacturers making profits form safety features?

ambro25 wrote:

France
(i) 2002 Citroen C5 1,9 HDi

New in 02, about 200,000 miles on it now, between €3 and €5k spent on it for various bodywork/mech.problems since (on insurance).

Tax per year: none
Insurance: €250 fully-comp (2 years NCB, and a string of metal bending near misses, total write-offs and a few drunk driving convictions (not my convictions btw))
Petrol: comparable to IE, 25% cheaper than IE over in Luxembourg 30 miles away (worth the weekly trip)

You forget wealth tax.

For February, the AA have French Unleaded at €1.18. http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/eupetrolprices/default.asp How many other inaccuracues are in your post?

E92

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

Not true. Fine Gael have mentioned that they would get rid of it and in the middle of IndaKinnys Ard Fheis speech at the weekend he said 'we will reward those who choose more fuel efficient vehicles' or words to that effect.
Fianna Fail are the only party to have proposed to increase VRT, an illegal tax which the government have consistantly refused to do anything about it. What about the time we were getting rid of VRTs predecessor(cant remember what it was called)? Then low and behold the FF led govt decided to bring in this instead, because VRT would be our and I quote 'green' tax IIRC(I believe we were under pressure from the EU to have 'green' taxes and VRT was our response).

Only a few weeks ago I would have said that I wouldn't ever vote for the greens(unless it was a choice between them and the Shinners(but I'd never vote for that outfit)), but I have to say I'm beginning to warm to them more and more(if they could get over their mental block about road building, I'd definately give them a vote), and if what they're saying is true about raising prices at the pumps in return for a significant reduction of VRT(and abolition in most cases except for very high polluting vehicles) I would find it very difficult to complain about that. That would really force people to stop using cars as much as they do.

In Germany you pay about € 1,900 more for the privilege of diesel power in an Avensis http://www.toyota.de/cars/new_cars/avensis/pricelist.asp but that includes a particulate filter, which unsurprisingly is not featured in the Irish model, yet you can be paying around €3,000 more for diesel power. http://www.toyota.ie/ (comparsions are being made with the 1,8 petrol and 2,0 diesel in both cases). How can that be? Easy, VRT is the answer. We get what I call 'Irish specials' because of VRT. The 1,6 Passat. The 1.6 Avensis. The BMW 316i, a car found nowhere else in the world I believe. We miss out on things like air con, and in particular ESP because of it. I remember when Audi introduced the curren A3, they left out ESP because they said that the VRT would have made it too expensive here. The Avensis misses out on ESP, Traction Control, and Brake Assist on the 1.6. Of course, in other markets, where they dont offer the 1.6, those 3 features are standard on every Avensis. These two(of many) examples demostrate clearly in my view that VRT is indirectly responsible the tragic amount of deaths on our roads each year. ESP is a proven life saver, yet its left out to make cars more affordable here. I think that whatever govt gets in next time, they should make ESP mandatory if its available in a car.In other words, I'm saying where ESP is left out to cut costs, that should no longer be the case. (Not all cars are available with it full stop). I think that the SIMI and indeed the car importers/distributors have a lot to answer for too.

At the risk of contradicting what I just said, this notion that 'oh we'll leave out ESP because the VRT makes the car too expensive for the Irish market' is a disgrace. I think it is appaling that they are willing to sacrafice vital safety equipment, no matter how draconian VRT is. Why not leave out things like trip computers or climate control(and just leave air con) instead?

To sum up leaving out vital safety items is both the fault of govt(because of VRT) and the importers(because they use VRT as an excuse) themselves. If we're serious about doing our bit for the enviornment, we'd scrap VRT for the vast majority of cars, and make up the difference in fuel costs instead. People would really be forced to sit up and take notice about all the driving they do. We'd change road tax so that it reflect CO2 emissions. The proposed new rates are disgraceful. How many cars are <1.2 or between 1.2 and 1.4 litres? Exactly. Not a lot to make a serious dent in government coffers. We have one of the smallest markets(if not the smallest) for cars like the VW Fox, Citroen C1 in Europe. This new 35% VRT rate is draconian in the extreme. And of course in the Auris/Avensis segment theres still no incentive for people to switch to diesel (even though drivers in this categorry do some of the highest mileages per year), because the diesels usually sit in a higher VRT band as a consequence of their usually greater capacity.

ninty9er

E92 wrote:

Not true. Fine Gael have mentioned that they would get rid of it and in the middle of IndaKinnys Ard Fheis speech at the weekend he said 'we will reward those who choose more fuel efficient vehicles' or words to that effect.

Which eminates from the VRT reform proposals as mentioed and referenced above.

As it happens I actually watched "Inda's" Ard-Fheis speech this afternoon (I'm home sick for 3 weeks with 2 left I'M BORED), and he said...I quote..."we will cut taxes...encourage their growth".

Might have been in relation to encouraging something else but that's what I heard. hesaid "we will reward people who drive lower emissioned cars with lower taxes" which is what FF have ALREADY outlined and which is what has already been slated here on these boards...he never mentioned VRT...anyhow...he's not allowed mention money Pat's in charge of that, and his wife manages it at home:D

also 1.2-1.4 would be 1151 cc to 1449 which takes in a good few cars I would imagine...open to correction though...there are more in the 1398 area though. I would imagine it would run on the current system of 1201-1400 though taking in these cars which are Ireland's best sellers such as the Focus, Corolla and Astra.

edit: to reference Enda it's on YouTube and is in the 3rd part of the speech

ambro25

Victor wrote:

You forget wealth tax.

FR wealth tax is calculated on the value of your entire estate: land, buildings, shares, cash, cars, etc, etc. - each and every asset.

What has wealth tax got to do with motoring costs?

E.g. if your estate is worth €5m and you knock around in a 1L Fabia? Your wealth tax is calculated on 5m, of which your Fabia represents about, what, €10k? So, you're going to shoehorn the 0,00x% of your wealth tax bill based on the Fabia into motoring costs?

Victor, I'm discussing Mr-everyone's typical motoring costs, not those of the less-than-1% of the population.

Victor wrote:

For February, the AA have French Unleaded at €1.18.http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/eupetrolprices/default.asp How many other inaccuracues are in your post?

Well you believe the AA's website, and I get the info every other week from my parents on-site.

1L unleaded -

Leclerc (=Tesco in FR) of Montigny-les-Metz (57) as of last night, €1.11

Statoil Rathfarnham (next to Bugler's Pub) as of last night, €1.08

Aral on Luxembourg Motorway (between Arlon and Lux, Lux border side) as of day before yesterday €0.87

There are no inaccuracies in my post, just a bit of personal, God's honest truth, foreign-based trivia as relevant to the question of the poster I was replying to.

I don't particularly care if you (or any other poster) believe me or not, or whether you want to be anal about it/sources and what not (it's a favourite pastime on Boards and quite an endearing trait of the Irish, I must say ).

I'll be happy enough, safe in the knowledge that were you to somehow find yourself in those areas shortly (or able to get your own contacts on the ground to do the police work), you would be able to verify the above for yourself and you would be -1'd on the scoreboard you've setup.

Amicably and all in good fun, TTFN

Victor

ambro25 wrote:

FR wealth tax is calculated on the value of your entire estate. What has wealth tax got to do with motoring costs?

Because you have to pay a percentage of the value of the car to the government every year, then owning a car has its costs.

McSandwich

ninty9er wrote:

hesaid "we will reward people who drive lower emissioned cars with lower taxes" which is what FF have ALREADY outlined and which is what has already been slated here on these boards

Yes, they proposed the typically unimaginative solution of increasing VRT, based on vehicle size and engine capacity. A proper solution would focus on increasing efficiency and reducing pollution as has been discussed here ad nauseam. Maybe FG or some other party will meet this challenge, we'll see...

Another thing, I think politicians would be best advised to listen to what voters want rather than blindingly toeing their party line, only speaking to score points against other parties. :mad:

ambro25

Victor wrote:

Because you have to pay a percentage of the value of the car to the government every year, then owning a car has its costs.

Not if the value of your entire estate falls below the wealth taxable value (which is detailed here): €763,500.

Owning a car in France has its standard costs (such as examples outlined earlier by moi), and extra-ordinary costs (additional to these standard costs) only if you're particularly wealthy (my earlier point, maybe not submitted in clear enough fashion).

Victor, this yearly percentage of which you speak is an exception, the reason why I have not mentioned it (and why I haven't mentioned specific FR taxation on company cars, etc.).

Naturally if an estate of some €764k and above was a representative average for the 60-odd million French residents (well, more accurately and the point at hand, the less-than-60m car French owners), I would include it. It's very far from that, so I won't.

You can drop your shovel, or agree to disagree to your heart's content

cantdecide

you know what would happen if "less polluting" cars were being rewarded- cars that have 25% more emmissions would pay 300%+ more tax regardless of which cars are doing the polluting. why should the average joe on the street only aspire to owning a sh*ting yaris. this wasn't a dictatorship last time i checked.

at the moment, the overwhelming majority are happy to potter around in tin cans anyway. we have far more than our neighbours. in other words, we are not a nation of gas guzzler owners already so why push us harder to drive smaller cars regardless of our usage. an Irish guzzler gets 30 mpg, that's not a muscle car figure. it will also last longer causing less pollution by lessening need for new cars especially if it remains low mileage because of fuel prices.

no one is proposing that 3l engines will be mandatory but how can the choice effectively be removed based on it's potential to pollute a little more thatn it's 1.3 cousin. the govt. wouldn't own those cars themselves so why shouldnt i have a lux car- i don't drive it, it doesn't pollute, yet i'm being told it'll be taxed away from me so i can't have it in the first place.

it becomes a matter of principal that we shouldn't own a nice, plush lux car even it never moves. there is no configuration of what the govt. has always done or what they would propose that makes sense, even including those with blind faith. taxing the fuel is the 100% common sense thing to do. the pumps cause the pollution, less so the car. the pumps should be taxed and not the car.


let's stop being a discussion board and become an action board

Tipsy Mac

I think the simplest way to take action to start with would be to setup a website and have a car sticker campaign with the address on it so all motorists would become quickly aware of it. Next form some kind of organisation, perhaps get the Irish Drivers Association to take it as an issue and back them, then get the policy from each party on what their VRT position is and get all members of the group to vote accordingly. Now is the most important time to take a stand at an election anything can become an issue if enough people are behind it and politicians detect the sniff of a vote.

cantdecide

well said, time is of the essence.

website could be called yourebeingrippedoff.ie
closethevrtloophole.ie

catchy eh?

alias no.9

@ ninty9er

I'm still waiting for a response on Berties dodgy accounting methods. Do you agree that being honest and up front about how much is being charged in tax is much more likely to be effective as a green tax, i.e. it is much more likely to dissuade somebody from buying an inefficient car than the current method that seeks to fool the consumer into thinking the tax is much lower than it really is.

OK VRT has never been proven in a court of law to be illegal but it certainly contravenes the spirit of EU legistaltion on free movement of goods and services. I stand by my point that this is not a green tax, it's intention is not to change the buying habits of consumers, it is simply an attempt by a washed up administration to put a veneer of acceptability on an unfair, unpopular tax, under the false pretense of being environmentally friendly.

overdriver

Give him a minute, he has to check with the PR people...:D

McSandwich

cantdecide wrote:

well said, time is of the essence.

website could be called yourebeingrippedoff.ie
closethevrtloophole.ie

catchy eh?

Good idea, if enough momemtum could be built up pre election. Another option is for all of us to email all of our local politicians and demand a response as to their standing on these issues and how they propose to fix it.. Of course both could be used together.

maidhc

Does anyone even know what is being proposed?

I know when tax was linked to emission in the UK, it meant a drop for some reasonably large engined cars, in particular diesels.

You in the grand scale of things it is probably fair enough if they knock a few more points off income tax and add it to VRT. You do at least then have the choice with how to spend your money.

blastman

Just a point to note, Ireland isn't the only country in the EU to implement VRT, as far as I know it applies in Denmark and the Netherlands too, although the Danes don't charge on classic cars (twenty years old and over).

E92

McSandwich wrote:

Good idea, if enough momemtum could be built up pre election. Another option is for all of us to email all of our local politicians and demand a response as to their standing on these issues and how they propose to fix it.. Of course both could be used together.

I would agree entirely, anything that would bring it home to all parties that it will not be tolerated by the public would be welcome. When I see the French being able to drive a 3 series (and not the specially for Ireland 316i) for a fraction more than a Mondeo, Vectra etc here, you just know that something has to change, http://www.bmw.fr/fr/fr/index_highend.html.

@ninty9er The Blueshirts have mentioned it a number of times. http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/25432
One part of this page is very interesting what their deputy finance spoksman Paul Mc Grath said here

wrote:

“I call on this Government to come in line with our European neighbours and abolish the Vehicle Registration Tax, but over a period of seven years. In this way, the gradual reduction would not wipe out the second hand car market. This would cost the exchequer €100 million per year but would lead to increased car sales because of the lower cost of a motor car to the consumer.”

That was way back in 2005. I think their tune has changed since then though, because this page tells a different story http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/27995
Labour seem not to have a policy from what I can make out on their website, and the Greens have the best policy of them all http://www.greenparty.ie/en/news/latest_news/green_party_proposes_radical_motor_tax_changes_to_favour_lower_emissions_vehicles
and I think that FG and Labour should adopt it asap. This is one green(no pun intended) policy that should definately be implemented asap. The Shinners do want toin crease VRT, at least thats the implication of they're saying here http://www.sinnfein.ie/gaelic/news/detail/17039. They say and I quote

wrote:

At first the changes in relation to VRT sound promising -- Sinn Fein has long been demanding that VRT be based on emissions output. But what is the Government doing? It is going to engage in a consultation on this. It is not actually going to do anything.
The higher rate of motor tax announced for high emitting vehicles is not going to come in for over a year and then only for vehicles registered after January 2008. Why is the government purposely giving people a year's notice of this measure? It amounts to giving people a year to purchase their SUV and face no penalty in terms of increased motor tax. This is ludicrous.

Ninty9er, your party has proposed to take off a measly(but welcome)2.5% off the standard rate of VRT for engine between 1201 and 1400cc, and a more significant 7.5% off VRT for anything under 1201cc. If we're talking about a car that costs €20k with VAT but not VRT,
VRT at 15% makes the car €23,000
VRT at 20% makes the car €24,000
VRT at 22.5% makes the car €24,500
VRT at 25% makes the car €25,000
VRT at 30% makes the car €26,000
VRT at 35% makes the car €27,000. So from these examples here, it is clear that anyone who wants to buy a 1201-1400 cc car will save very little, compared to today. Those who buy a car up to 1200 cc will save quite a bit, but as I said yesterday, how many cars are under 1200 cc? We have very little interest in cars the size of the Citroen C1, Peugeot 107 etc, cars which gain the most under the proposals. For the vast majority the status quo remains the same. I think that the increases will have very little effect on 4X4 sales. Its a culture thing at this stage. They're a status symbol. A €100k Range Rover will now cost about €104k.(100k divided by 130 then multiplyed by 135) Thats not going to bother people who are that well off especially when FF and the PDs are going to cut the top rate of income tax which will benefit these people the most:D. No wonder Fianna Fáils leader was able to have a €900 million a minute speech not that long ago, they never told us that this is how we'd have to pay for it;)

alias no.9

E92 wrote:

If we're talking about a car that costs €20k with VAT but not VRT,
VRT at 15% makes the car €23,000
VRT at 20% makes the car €24,000
VRT at 22.5% makes the car €24,500
VRT at 25% makes the car €25,000
VRT at 30% makes the car €26,000
VRT at 35% makes the car €27,000.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, any normal person would assume that VRT for the rates mentioned would be calculated as above. The fact of the matter is that it's a percentage of the selling price which makes the figures for the above example...

VRT @ 15% = €23,529.41
VRT @ 20% = €25,000.00
VRT @ 22.50% = €25,806.45
VRT @ 25% = €26,666.67
VRT @ 30% = €28,571.43
VRT @ 35% = €30,769.23

See the devious underhand way in which Bertie chose to implement this tax. Anything to say about this ninty9er or any other member of the fianna fail faithful? Swindling of the highest order. They don't even have the honesty to tell you how much they're adding on, they fudge it, but then Bertie is the grand master of fudge.

E92

alias no.9 wrote:

This is exactly what I'm talking about, any normal person would assume that VRT for the rates mentioned would be calculated as above. The fact of the matter is that it's a percentage of the selling price which makes the figures for the above example...

VRT @ 15% = €23,529.41
VRT @ 20% = €25,000.00
VRT @ 22.50% = €25,806.45
VRT @ 25% = €26,666.67
VRT @ 30% = €28,571.43
VRT @ 35% = €30,769.23

See the devious underhand way in which Bertie chose to implement this tax. Anything to say about this ninty9er or any other member of the fianna fail faithful? Swindling of the highest order. They don't even have the honesty to tell you how much they're adding on, they fudge it, but then Bertie is the grand master of fudge.

I though what happens is that the car companies work out a particular price, then that price is multiplied by 1.21(21% VAT rate), which now gives you the price including VAT. Then this price(as in the price including VAT) is multiplied by either 1.225(22.5% VRT), 1.25(25% VRT) or 1.3(30% VRT), and now you have the price including VRT. In my examples I made up the €20k as a figure which includes VAT but not VRT. I'm sure that you're right, cause when I was working out the figures I was like a 5% increase in VRT(from 30 to 35%) isnt as dramtic as I thought it would be.
Would I be right in saying that what you did is as follows: let the prices including VAT equal to x%, where x is equal to 100% -the % of VRT being charged,e.g if VRT is at 20%, the x is 100-20=80% or if VRT is 35%, then x is 100-35=65%? Then you divided the price of the car including VAT by x and multiplying you answer by 100 to get the price including VAT and VRT?
If what your saying is true, that is the biggest scam ever. I dont have words to describe it. The only thing its comparable to is the airlines with their seats for 1c, yet by the time "taxes and other charges" are taken into account, its about €40 for the seat.
EDIT: having read your post again and having used the calculator I can see that what I suggested is what you did

astraboy

@E92, I agree with what you said earlier about 1.6L saloons, Irish people seem to be stuck in these due to the way tax is applied to CC. However, a heavy car like an avensis may produce less CO2 in 2.0 format over its driving life as the engine will have more disposable power, wheres the 1.6L will be straining if it ever needs to tow a trailer etc. Basing tax on CC alone is far too outdated. If, for instance, I get the train to work each day, yet want a 3.0 M3 BMW for the weekend, then I should only have to pay for the road use I do and the CO2 I put out. Petrol tax is the simplist way, it rewards me for taking public transport yet also lets me enjoy my hobby each weekend!

ninty9er

alias no.9 wrote:

@ ninty9er

I'm still waiting for a response on Berties dodgy accounting methods. Do you agree that being honest and up front about how much is being charged in tax is much more likely to be effective as a green tax, i.e. it is much more likely to dissuade somebody from buying an inefficient car than the current method that seeks to fool the consumer into thinking the tax is much lower than it really is.

OK VRT has never been proven in a court of law to be illegal but it certainly contravenes the spirit of EU legistaltion on free movement of goods and services. I stand by my point that this is not a green tax, it's intention is not to change the buying habits of consumers, it is simply an attempt by a washed up administration to put a veneer of acceptability on an unfair, unpopular tax, under the false pretense of being environmentally friendly.

The "spirit" of VRT is actually to discourage higher capacity engines, which isn't exactly effecient in reducing emissions. By applying a Co2 method, this is what is the intention.

To discourage something you tax it, and if that doesn't work tax it more...to encourage something, tax it less...you talk of the a €500 saving as if it's not a significant chunk of money to be missing out of the average person's póca.

In reference to the accounting methods...check with the Revenue Commissioners as I'm not a qualified chartered financial auditor.

When you buy a new car...the quote will (or should if it doesn't...but I don't know where you're buying if it doesn't) give a detailed breakdown of

• pre-tax price
• VRT
• Vat

So nobody buying a new car can claim they don't know how much they're paying in VAT and VRT.

Is that significantly satisfactory??

ninty9er

E92 wrote:

I think that the increases will have very little effect on 4X4 sales. Its a culture thing at this stage. They're a status symbol. A €100k Range Rover will now cost about €104k.(100k divided by 130 then multiplyed by 135) Thats not going to bother people who are that well off especially when FF and the PDs are going to cut the top rate of income tax which will benefit these people the most:D. No wonder Fianna Fáils leader was able to have a €900 million a minute speech not that long ago, they never told us that this is how we'd have to pay for it;)

€4k is still a week or 2 wages to the people who buy these things, and cutting tax on those people is something I've had arguments with TDs about and cursed a certain B.Ahern for in an overflow room during his speech at the Ard-Fheis which attracted some scornful looks towards our table