Just heard - new increases in VRT??

ninty9er

The main thing to be taken from this is that we all know that VRT ain't the best way of taxing motorists, but whatever may replace it in the future; regardless of government, will still want the same amount of revenue from the motorist, so it makes very little difference in the end.

On the circumstances :- there's plenty of people propping up the economy #in circumstances similar to mine. Disposable income is what keeps economies the world over ticking so a fuel tax *could* have a proportionately significant negative effect on the economy as a whole...e.g cost of electricity etc!!!!

now nobody thought of that did they!

#edit: Such factors as the multiplier effect of disposable income, VAT, PAYE and PRSI revenues lost due to increases in the cost base of doing business here are simply not worth it. If a polluter (fuel) tax was levied...It would encourage greener energy...but that costs more than fossil to run cost effectively....we could have 100% green electricity, but because people cause uproar at the thought of more expensive energy, we have inefficient energy, which causes fines from the EU equatng to the same thing anyway. Except you don't see that as the government pays them from your taxes rather than you paying them in your bill!!

VRT is not perfect and no tax ever will be. We'd all love no taxes at all, but the simple fact is, it;'s never going to happen in a republic. If you have a severe aversion to taxes then I suggest such places as Saudi or Monaco

McSandwich

ninty9er wrote:

If small cars aren't taxed less in the first place, why bother buying one???

Removing VRT will only have the effect of taking people out of 1.4 Corollas and Foci and buying 2.5l Mondeos and Mercs because they now cost the same.

You're assuming that VRT would simply be removed and not be replaced with something fairer such as a pollution tax. In that case, yes, people would go for the bigger car assuming they could afford it and the insurance. However, big cars would still be relativley expensive compared to smaller alternatives.

I don't think anyone here is under the illusion that VRT and motor tax will ever be removed without a replacement. The problems are that VRT is unfair and most likely illegal. The government (and other parties I'm sure..) is proposing to dress it up as a carbon tax to hide these problems. If they were serious about taxing pollution and protecting the environment they would replace VRT with a tax applied directly to fuel.

At this point we're going around and around in circles with this and at this stage it seems that politics will yet again get in the way of sensible action on this matter

[edit] typo

alias no.9

One last time for the hard of hearing and a yes or no answer will suffice...

By telling a potential purchaser of an environment sabotaging BMW X5 4.0 V8 that the effective VRT rate is 43% rather than the 30% the government would currently like them to assume it to be, are you likely to influence their purchasing decision making them less likely to buy?

McSandwich

ninty9er wrote:

The main thing to be taken from this is that we all know that VRT ain't the best way of taxing motorists, but whatever may replace it in the future; regardless of government, will still want the same amount of revenue from the motorist, so it makes very little difference in the end.

A pollution tax would generate the same revenue, but in a fairer way, i.e. drive more pay more. Also I would not be taxed for buying a safer car

ninty9er wrote:

On the circumstances :- there's plenty of people propping up the economy #in circumstances similar to mine. Disposable income is what keeps economies the world over ticking so a fuel tax *could* have a proportionately significant negative effect on the economy as a whole...e.g cost of electricity etc!!!!

now nobody thought of that did they!

#edit: Such factors as the multiplier effect of disposable income, VAT, PAYE and PRSI revenues lost due to increases in the cost base of doing business here are simply not worth it. If a polluter (fuel) tax was levied...It would encourage greener energy...but that costs more than fossil to run cost effectively....we could have 100% green electricity, but because people cause uproar at the thought of more expensive energy, we have inefficient energy, which causes fines from the EU equatng to the same thing anyway. Except you don't see that as the government pays them from your taxes rather than you paying them in your bill!!

Assuming that a pollution tax is introduced then hopefully it would replace VRT, offsetting increased fuel cost during the lifetime of the vehicle.

Green electricity is expensive as it is based on new and emerging technologies, as the uptake of these technologies increases the price drops dramatically. [edit] This would also encourage further innovation development of better, more effecient, less expensive technologies which would in turn benefit the economy[/edit] The same principle applies to consumer electronics e.g. lcd tv, computers, dvd, etc.. Of course we need politicians with vision and imagination to see this..

I can't find where I read it but eventually green electricity will cost less than power generated from fossil fuels (which won't be around forever), [edit] especially when nuclear fusion generation gets off the ground. [/edit]

ninty9er wrote:

VRT is not perfect and no tax ever will be. We'd all love no taxes at all, but the simple fact is, it;'s never going to happen in a republic. If you have a severe aversion to taxes then I suggest such places as Saudi or Monaco

No tax is perfect, but some are at least fair.

On my way to the cloakroom...

[edit] typos.. [/edit]

McSandwich

alias no.9 wrote:

One last time for the hard of hearing and a yes or no answer will suffice...

By telling a potential purchaser of an environment sabotaging BMW X5 4.0 V8 that the effective VRT rate is 43% rather than the 30% the government would currently like them to assume it to be, are you likely to influence their purchasing decision making them less likely to buy?

No, of course not - some people (lucky bastards!) will always have more money than sense.

Seth Brundle

ninty9er wrote:

wrong. revenue generation; a "fiscal rape" as you so put it, is a result of VRT, not the spirit of it.

So what then is the spirit of VRT?

ninty9er wrote:

Again to the people buying the 4.0 X5s etc which are killing the planet 5%-10% of €70k is a fair chunk of cash so these people are in effect paying more for their gas guzzler

All cars are 'killing' the planet but their manufacturing process does more harm.

ninty9er wrote:

If small cars aren't taxed less in the first place, why bother buying one???

People will still have a certain budget to spend. Also people still want small cars for various reasons (economy, compactness, insurance, etc.)

ninty9er wrote:

Removing VRT will only have the effect of taking people out of 1.4 Corollas and Foci and buying 2.5l Mondeos and Mercs because they now cost the same.

I disagree with that entirely. If there was no other changes then maybe but as you mentioned the government would apply taxation elsewhere to make up the shortfall. If the taxation was on fuel for exmple then people would still opt for smaller cars.

Furthermore, let me clarify something. My car is a 2.5L. It is reported to be more economical that the equivalent 2L car as it does not have to labour as much. What about some of the large diesels (IIRC BMW was mentioned earlier). These are as if not more economical that a Prius.
Where does that leave your theories?

Tanabe wrote:

Don't think so. Removing VRT will not make insurance any cheaper!

It might as replacement cars would be cheaper. The difference may be negligible though.

Tanabe wrote:

I think taxing the fuel (THE polluter) is THE FAIREST way of going about this & truly being 'Green' about the environment too.

Agreed 100%

ninty9er wrote:

VRT is not perfect and no tax ever will be. We'd all love no taxes at all, but the simple fact is, it;'s never going to happen in a republic. If you have a severe aversion to taxes then I suggest such places as Saudi or Monaco

Nobody is suggesting having no taxes. people are calling for a fairer system. Despite the obvious and sensible method whereby tax is based on consumption, those in chare are opting to continue with VRT - just at newer scales.

McSandwich

Tanabe wrote:

Don't think so. Removing VRT will not make insurance any cheaper!

It could as manufacturers currently leave out safety features to avoid pushing up VRT for the buyer. Safer cars should equal lower insurance.

ninty9er

Unlikely that that many safety features are left out. ABS is a legal minimum since 2004 and most cars have an array of airbags...superminis included...they're not left out where they're not standard.

Any fool who proclaims that they want safety and then put a cost on it should be shot, simply most don't put a cost on it...therefore will tick all the safety boxes on the options list. price is irrelevant.

@ the pay at the pump people...after consideration, maybe as an alternative to annual motor tax, but still a tax at point of sale is needed for revenue reasons.

The government could drop VRT, but that would be the equivalent of the annual wage bill for 50% of nurses

unkel

ninty9er wrote:

The government could drop VRT, but that would be the equivalent of the annual wage bill for 50% of nurses

The VRT intake is about €1.1 billion. There are about 40,000 nurses in Ireland iirc. Does that mean that the average nurse earns €55,000 :eek:

Sorry for O/T

overdriver

Like Chu Chulainn, ninety9er is singlehandedly holding the hordes at bay. By not answering any direct question put to him, and throwing "facts" around wildly. Nurses? Are you trying to say nurses are paid for by VRT? Note the emotional content there - everyone loves nurses, they're great people.

Suppose we were to say that the VRT paid for the e-voting machines sitting rotting away at a cost of thousands per week, or Mary harney's little soujourn down to open an off-license in a helicopter, or numerous junkets? Not as acceptable then, is it?


Kindly stick to answering the questions put to you. We have already established that safety features ARE omitted, yet you ride roughshod over that assertion without so much as an iota of evidence to back it up.


We have also agreed that taxing fuel is the fairest way to do it, but you refuse to admit that without a caveat. Taxing fuel is actually less fair to people like me who don't change their cars regularly. I drive them til they die, so am shooting myself in the foot for the greater good, as a fuel tax will hurt me more than VRT does.

astraboy

ninty9er wrote:

Unlikely that that many safety features are left out. ABS is a legal minimum since 2004 and most cars have an array of airbags...superminis included...they're not left out where they're not standard.

Any fool who proclaims that they want safety and then put a cost on it should be shot, simply most don't put a cost on it...therefore will tick all the safety boxes on the options list. price is irrelevant.

@ the pay at the pump people...after consideration, maybe as an alternative to annual motor tax, but still a tax at point of sale is needed for revenue reasons.

The government could drop VRT, but that would be the equivalent of the annual wage bill for 50% of nurses

We already have an EU sanctioned point of sale tax. I believe its called VAT?:rolleyes:

Cars are goods, and when people buy them they should be taxed as all other goods. Its a fact of life most people need a car for their everyday life, with a basic tax on Fuel we are rewarding people that adjust their lifestyles so they pollute less, either by driving a more economical car or by driving a large car but far less.

You seem determined to stand up for VRT, why should we fear having another stealth tax placed on us just because VRT is removed over a period of time? We should not have to stand for that. VRT took in nearly 2Billion euro last year, 1/3 of the total corporation tax intake! For too long Irish motorists ave been seen as a cash cow and its time it stopped, regardless of who is in Gov.

2manyturbos

I have not seen the actual government proposals yet, so it is difficult to be objective about the changes while not having a grasp of how much carrot they propose to offer to re-balance the stick of higher VRT and road tax on larger cars.

However, it is interesting to read the AnnexD document linked by Ninety9er [for which, thank you:) ] and note that NOWHERE in that analysis did they ever consider linking CO2 emission reduction to fuel tax, it was all about adjusting VRT and Road Tax.

Five months later, having taken submissions form the general public and interested parties, the Minister comes up with a system based on [surprise surprise!!:eek: ] VRT increases and Road Tax increases.

It is also edifying to note that the changes that were to be contemplated had to be revenue neutral. This is tax speak for "we are happy to take more money off you to achieve this, but we will not allow any reduction in tax take"

I can tell you why no government and no political party will go forward with changing Road Tax or VRT to a fuel based tax for CO2 reduction, although the majority here sees this as equitable, on the "Polluter Pays" principle. It is because the Department of Finance will not allow it.

As well as VRT being a stealth tax, where you add on a tax, and then tax the new tax inclusive figure, both Road Tax and VRT are paid in advance by us gob****es. So in any change in the system to a fuel based tax,the Department of Finance will instantly lose the cash flow of all the VRT paid in advance of driving the vehicle, and all the year-in-advance Road Tax we fools pay in order to be able to park on the M50.:eek:

So, folks, we are blowing smoke here, nothing will change, polluter pays will be blithely passed over in favour of the current system of getting 30% of the country's total revenue from us fools up front, in advance of any use.

Personally, I am looking forward to the doorstep visits from the political parties this election. This time around, I am voting against any present government candidate on the basis that the only message that seems to get across to them is the possible loss of a seat. It is not acceptable that what is correct is ignored for what is expedient, and I mean this in relation to the reason I stated above that Finance will not allow fuel tax, green or otherwise.

It is time for a change in government, because the reality is that all we the public can do to get the changes we want is to deny them their seat.

[Vote any other party you like, greens, shinners, whatever, just don't vote for anyone from the current ruling junta]

Meister

I have been tracking theis VRT issue for a while, an it really is one of my pet hates. On the surface it seems as, not a bad idea, VRT discounts for less C02emissions (although this mob still cling to engine size!!). But if you dig a little deeper the sinister approcah of Herr Roche becomes appart.

Euro 5 Emmissions standards to come into effect in 2009, and deals with the issue of NOx gasses (Noxious Gasses), and is designed to force carmakers to implement reductions. Great we all think....well not quite. As a direct result of this will be up to 7% increase in Co2 emissions, and LESS fuel economy.

Therefor any percieved VRT discount at the moment will be negated come 2009 pusing all cars into the "newly defined" VRT Co2 based bands.

I am not making this up, as i just bought a new Lexus 220d, and i noticed fuel consumption is ALOT higher than my last diesel, when I enquired from Lexus they told me it was Euro 5 compliant, (the first to be so), which if you look at their Co2 emissions (abot 9% higher the Audi, BMW).

So FF (or should be refered to as SS), are going to coin it, on the back of increased VRT revenue when we hit Euro 5 2009.

Have a look at;
www.acea.be/euro5_and_co2
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport...-133325?_print

GTC

Just tax the petrol, it would take account of engine size, efficiency, mileage and may work out better for revenue in the long run.

Duuuuhhhh

Well done Bertie, another wonderful idea, tax cars based on arbitrary figures and pretend to be green. Hope the FF/PD coalition get their rears kicked hard in June.

2manyturbos

Very good point. Any new system the government brings in will have a very careful eye on forthcoming regulations, and how they will affect the "average" emissions profile.

It is possible the new NOx regulations you mention will have more impact on diesel vehicles than on petrol. Although NOx is regarded as noxious gas in the operative sense of the word, in emissions parlance it refers to Nitrous Oxides.

I could be wrong in this but I think diesels on average emit more Nitrous Oxides than petrol cars, so possibly they may require the use of extra cats to reduce it, which may be where the increase in consumption is coming from.

Nice car BTW, best of luck with it.

2manyturbos

GTC wrote:

Just tax the petrol, it would take account of engine size, efficiency, mileage and may work out better for revenue in the long run.

Duuuuhhhh

Well done Bertie, another wonderful idea, tax cars based on arbitrary figures and pretend to be green. Hope the FF/PD coalition get their rears kicked hard in June.

I hope so too.;) They are getting too comfortable and are overdue a wake-up call.

If you saw my over-long post above, you will understand the only way they will agree to the tax being on petrol is if we agree to buy a year's petrol in advance!!

:rolleyes:

overdriver

Ninety9er alluded to measures being propsed if Fleece And Fail are re-elected. The fact that they won't tout these proposals before the election means they will be unpopular, and the fact they were mentioned here in this forum means they will affect motorists.

Care to elaborate,or even hint a little, ninety9er?

ninty9er

overdriver wrote:

Ninety9er alluded to measures being propsed if Fleece And Fail are re-elected. The fact that they won't tout these proposals before the election means they will be unpopular, and the fact they were mentioned here in this forum means they will affect motorists.

Care to elaborate,or even hint a little, ninety9er?

They will effect motorists, but not until about 2040 (if work begins late 2008/early 2009) and it's more research based than revenue.....so not unpopular, yes expensive, but to be taken from the science budget rather than environment or education...just not for the competition to get hold of before an election

overdriver

That sounds like waffle. If it's that good why aren't Feel & Fall saying they'll do it before the election, so we're all bowled over and vote in the clowns again?

ninty9er

no because Finne Gale don't have an environmental policy and they'll agree to do anything we outline at this stage...come back the day after election day and I'll tell you exactly what it is, win or lose

Meister

Yea you are right 2manyturbos, but Petrol cars will still have to reduce them, still pushing up Co2 figures (they are higher as is, per cc). If FF know about Euro 5, then it is really a sinister move, on the other hand if they dont, then it shows their complete lack of planning (doubt it, im sure they are aware). From 2009 the Uk will measure all emissions not just Co2 as part of motor tax base..apparently

Did you ever wonder whey they completly knock bact the petrol idea...bacause Business would revolt, as Vans, Trucks, Agriculture dont pay Vrt, so it would be of no benefit for them. we are subsidising them as the family motorist. Sick!

maidhc

Meister wrote:

Did you ever wonder whey they completly knock bact the petrol idea...bacause Business would revolt, as Vans, Trucks, Agriculture dont pay Vrt, so it would be of no benefit for them. we are subsidising them as the family motorist. Sick!

No, if business/agriculture was paying VRT this would be reflected in a) higher commodity prices or b) less jobs due to local business being unable to compete with cheaper imports.

2manyturbos

Meister wrote:

Yea you are right 2manyturbos, but Petrol cars will still have to reduce them, still pushing up Co2 figures (they are higher as is, per cc). If FF know about Euro 5, then it is really a sinister move, on the other hand if they dont, then it shows their complete lack of planning (doubt it, im sure they are aware). From 2009 the Uk will measure all emissions not just Co2 as part of motor tax base..apparently

Did you ever wonder whey they completly knock bact the petrol idea...bacause Business would revolt, as Vans, Trucks, Agriculture dont pay Vrt, so it would be of no benefit for them. we are subsidising them as the family motorist. Sick!

That's also an important point against using fuel tax to handle CO2 punishment. It would push up the fuel base cost for all deliveries, trucks, vans, everything.

However, if you think about it, this so-called "green" tax is only going to impact on the family motorist, as they are putting up VRT and road tax only for them. The commercial vehicles will be untouched.

How can this be equitable? If the REAL reason for raising these taxes is to lower CO2 emissions, then surely we have to shake the punitive stick at commercial users also?

Does the CO2 that they emit not count?

We poor eejits going to work and bringing our families from A to B are the only bad boys in this scenario?? No way Jose, I do not think so.

However Fianna Fail will dress it up to look like we are all gas guzzling demons in SUVs, and business use can't be included for Kyoto figures, because this would push up inflation, and damage businesses like Paddy the Plasterer and so on.:rolleyes: :eek:

Green tax my butt. One law for the man in the street, another law for the businesses, as it always was with Fianna Fail.

Vote ABFF
Anyone but Fianna Fail, in case you were wondering.

junkyard

overdriver wrote:

Like Chu Chulainn, ninety9er is singlehandedly holding the hordes at bay. By not answering any direct question put to him, and throwing "facts" around wildly.

You surely didn't expect a straight answer from a FF supporter overdriver, did you? If any FF member gave a straight answer they'd be sent back for retraining. Stop picking on 4.0 X5's by the way they're plenty other bigger engined SUV's out there.;)

maidhc

2manyturbos wrote:

One law for the man in the street, another law for the businesses,

Nothing wrong with that. A business is a collection of people. The profits ultimately are remitted to people. The business may not pay VRT on its van, but the boss sure does on his BMW.

The man on the street would be drawing the dole if we did not have a vibrant economy. We are not entitled to this as of right, but must create the environment for it, if this means low taxes for business, nobody should have a difficulty with it. Even the greens have come to realise this!

overdriver

junkyard wrote:

You surely didn't expect a straight answer from a FF supporter overdriver, did you? If any FF member gave a straight answer they'd be sent back for retraining.

Of course not - he's a prodigy. So well trained for one so young! The force is strong with this one...:D


While we have focussed largely on VRT issues for new cars, the system is a joke for older cars. The open market selling price appears to be written by Hans Christian Andersen or somebody equally creative. Regardless of the value of a near-vintage car, the VRT seems always to be €315. For younger models, the price varies month-by-month according to popularity.

The Army Of Idiots are really showing their hand when it comes to issues like VRT - change all you like once we don't lose any money. We will never see widespread use of, say, vegetable oil as a diesel fuel until they figure out a way to make sure people don't top up off the shelves of Lidl, and they get their cut. We won't see an end to the ludicrous situation where we go into "partnership" with private companies to build roads, who then charge us to use them ( why does the taxpayer have to contribute at all then?), because they get their cut.

Oh, and, given you have corrected the spelling of Ogra because someone forgot to capitalise the first letter, spelling Fine Gael as " finne gael" as you have just isn't on, ninety9er.

I'm still curious about these measures you spoke of. I doubt FG will get their info from this thread, so that can't be the reason you won't spill. Perhaps FF masters are reading this thread, and if that's the case, you should let them know that the closure of Crumlin Hospital is going to cost them their seats on the Southside of Dublin. Yet more cronyism and outright disregard for the public.

So I'll ask you AGAIN to outline what these mysterious measures might entail. I would ask you also to justify how the open market selling price is derived so unfairly and arbitrarily. I'd ask you to to justify how a tax that was unfairly renamed and kept after we all signed the Masstricht Treaty to see it's like gone is still here, and has shifted in the government's perspective so that if it's removed, it must still be replaced somehow.

That's like me stealing your wallet weekly, and when the Gardai demand I stop, me saying " Well, ok, but he'll have to set up a direct debit for me, I depend on that income ( to pay nurses' wages:D )".

Meister

The straight facts are...
FF (SS) say they cant get rid of VRT, "where would the revenue come from"..is the line that is always trotted out. This is coming from the party that has had budget surplus for 9 of the past 10 years in office..disproving their own argument.

They are now going to try dress it as a green tax, but if it contributes 1 billion a year dircecly funded by us, how much are we also paying in interest to the banks to fund the illegal tax?

ninty9er

Meister wrote:

The straight facts are...
FF (SS) say they cant get rid of VRT, "where would the revenue come from"..is the line that is always trotted out. This is coming from the party that has had budget surplus for 9 of the past 10 years in office..disproving their own argument.

They are now going to try dress it as a green tax, but if it contributes 1 billion a year dircecly funded by us, how much are we also paying in interest to the banks to fund the illegal tax?

1. The end is nigh for budget surplusses, they are not guaranteed, and not always welcome in economic terms, it just suits the economy to run surplus right now!
2. They are surplus to estimates, not surplus to requirements
3. if you want to complain about taxes go somewhere they charge water rates, resedential rates, wealth taxes and higher fuel tax, along with multiples of the pitifully low levels of income tax that you pay here

And since everyone else is taking liberties with Fianna Fáil's name, I feel just as much within my rights to butcher Fine Gael's name, though you'll notice I haven't made a habit of it like some:mad:

Again it is not Ogra or ogra; it's Ógra. It's even in my sig!!

and no, I won't be drawn on the other issue so ask me AGAIN after the election, when, as perviously stated, I'll be more than happy to let you in on the research prospects!!

overdriver

ninty9er wrote:

Again it is not Ogra or ogra; it's Ógra. It's even in my sig!!

Yeah, that's what I said. Ogra.

As for water charges, we know they're coming if these clowns get re-elected. Feel and Fall have insisted that every new home gets a water meter. What's that for? The council will even tell you if you ring that water charges are coming after the election, if you ring and ask. We pay a lot in stealth taxes, so you won't get away with that "low tax" economy nonsense here either.

And you STILL haven't addressed the great fictional literature that is the open market selling price.

ninty9er

overdriver wrote:

And you STILL haven't addressed the great fictional literature that is the open market selling price.

And I don't intend to either, I know nothing about it:rolleyes: