General Election..whats in it for the motorist?

astraboy

I though all homes over 350,000 euro or a similar amout payed stamp duty? I'm not sure on that one?

Anyway back on topic:

I get your point, but why is there not a tax on other goods produced? Production of anything involving an industrial process will emitt CO2. The fact is VRT was never designed as a consumption or environmental tax. It was a way of simply making money. Look at the tax bands. The small minded Gov though that the larger the engine the cars people were driving were, the more tax they should pay. It has nothing to do with emissions, either from the cars use or production.

As regards safety features, yes the importers do need to take some responsiablity, however, I believe they have been pushed into this position by the current car tax situation. Safety features should be omitted from VAT and VRT. Though a person that chooses air conditioning or a sunroof over ESP should'nt be on the road!:D

Anan1

astraboy wrote:

I get your point, but why is there not a tax on other goods produced? Production of anything involving an industrial process will emitt CO2. The fact is VRT was never designed as a consumption or environmental tax. It was a way of simply making money. Look at the tax bands. The small minded Gov though that the larger the engine the cars people were driving were, the more tax they should pay. It has nothing to do with emissions.

I agree that VRT was never intended to be a tax on emissions. My reasons for supporting it have nothing to do with the original reasons for its introduction. The way I see it is that sometimes bad people, albeit unwittingly, do good things.;)

astraboy wrote:

As regards safety features, yes the importers do need to take some responsiablity, however, I believe they have been pushed into this position by the current car tax situation. Safety features should be omitted from VAT and VRT. Though a person that chooses air conditioning or a sunroof over ESP should'nt be on the road!:D

Importers are in the business of making money, they'll bring in what sells and can't really be blamed. Personally, i'd make ESP a legal requirement on all new cars across the EU. At the end of the day, though, the reason we have so many cars without it is that people just don't want to pay for it. Have a look at any "What car should I buy" thread on here, most of them want bigger wheels, metallic and maybe leather on their new Golf or whatever. In any case, it's not really practical to VRT-exempt safety features - would ESP on an Impreza WRX qualify?

ambro25

Anan1 wrote:

Sorry, but what is the relevance of UK taxation policy to the issue of whether VRT is a tax on pollution?

Your logic made it relevant

You factored in the CO2 cost of production of a car into that whole VRT thing.

Now, say car X produced in Japan and shipped to Ireland costs 500 CO2 units. The same car X produced in Japan and shipped to UK likewise costs 500 CO2 units. So, 2 cars were produced in Japan and shipped to Europe for 1000 CO2 units.

Noone else in Europe drives RHD, the Irish motorist buys one of the cars, pays car price + 21% VAT + 25% VRT. The UK motorist buys the other cars, pays car price + 17% VAT and... that's it.

By your logic therefore, the VRT being an environmental tax, that makes the Irish motorist paying for the 1000 CO2 units.

...just extending your point to its logical conclusion, is all.

Anan1 wrote:

We levy VRT on the registration of new cars, the production of which entails lots of pollution. VRT can therefore be called a tax on pollution. Neither UK taxation policy, nor indeed our taxation policy on commercials, changes this simple fact.

I disagree entirely, sorry. I would say that since car manufacturers pretty much the world over are now held accountable for their 'carbon footprint' in their respective jurisdictions, this "cost of pollution per car produced" is already included in the pre-tax price of the car.

....unless of course you support the idea of doubling yet again (by paying for the carbon footprint twice) the already doubled taxation which the VRT constitutes (putting aside the matter of rates, the fact of paying VRT on a VAT-inclusive price).

Look, whether taxation is all road tax plus VRT, or all petrol levy, or any combination, one thing you can be sure is that the pound of taxed flesh will never dimish - I sincerely believe all opponents to the VRT system are already well aware of that (has anyone ever seen overall taxation going down, I ask?). So your health depts, education depts and whatever else the € bilions in motorists taxes are alredy being used for, will still benefit just the same - if not more if taxation becomes based on use alone.

Anan1

ambro25 wrote:

Your logic made it relevant

You factored in the CO2 cost of production of a car into that whole VRT thing.

Now, say car X produced in Japan and shipped to Ireland costs 500 CO2 units. The same car X produced in Japan and shipped to UK likewise costs 500 CO2 units. So, 2 cars were produced in Japan and shipped to Europe for 1000 CO2 units.

Noone else in Europe drives RHD, the Irish motorist buys one of the cars, pays car price + 21% VAT + 25% VRT. The UK motorist buys the other cars, pays car price + 17% VAT and... that's it.

By your logic therefore, the VRT being an environmental tax, that makes the Irish motorist paying for the 1000 CO2 units.

...just extending your point to its logical conclusion, is all.

This makes absolutely no sense! One car is subject to an environmental tax that the other isn't, that's all. It doesn't matter where the car is being produced, we are paying a tax on a car the production of which releases large quantities of CO2 into our atmosphere.

ambro25 wrote:

I disagree entirely, sorry. I would say that since car manufacturers pretty much the world over are now held accountable for their 'carbon footprint' in their respective jurisdictions, this "cost of pollution per car produced" is already included in the pre-tax price of the car.

The idea of an environmental tax is not just to pay for the damage done, it's to discourage the purchase being taxed.

colm_mcm

if that were the case, then the lowest polluting cars would be exempt.

The only way to avoid VRT is to not buy a car (or become disabled)

Anan1

colm_mcm wrote:

if that were the case, then the lowest polluting cars would be exempt.

Only if they were zero-pollution, both to build and to run. Although, as Astraboy says, even if they were we'd probably still have VRT on them.

ambro25

Anan1 wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense! One car is subject to an environmental tax that the other isn't, that's all.

But both cars were produced with the same environmental impact each.

So, what is the point of your environmental tax in Ireland, exactly?

It's not 'repairing' the environment or 'preventing' pollution in Japan during the manufacture, is it?

Resting my case, tbh: VRT likened to an environmental tax is stretching it a tad

colm_mcm

Anan1 wrote:

Only if they were zero-pollution, both to build and to run. Although, as Astraboy says, even if they were we'd probably still have VRT on them.

How about Land Rover offsetting the CO2 emissions of production and emissions of new Land Rovers by investing in renewable energy. should this be taken into account.

ALSO, unless an environmental tax is actualy used to help the environment, instead of paying for hospital consultants, then the whole thing is a big joke.

Hotblack Desiato

The tax man wrote:

Well then how come I can buy anything(apart from a car) from the likes of the UK or Germany and not get taxed on my purchase.

We have a single market but it doesn't cover everything.

Excisable goods - Alcohol and tobacco - are liable to duty unless you import them in person. Even then, if above a certain limit you can be asked to prove they are for personal use.

You can import any vehicle you like and not pay a cent in VRT. So long as it never touches a public road... All vehicles used in a public place by an Irish resident must be registered in Ireland and to do this VRT must be paid.

There's nothing illegal about VRT as such and EU rulings have confirmed this.

The only really doubtful aspect about our system is that it's not possible to get a partial credit for VRT previously paid when re-exporting a vehicle, the Finns were pulled up on this.

We're by no means the only country in the EU operating a significant level of vehicle registration taxes, and they're generally not slow to get on our government's case when we do breach EU rules.

The alternative to VRT is (a) large fuel duty increases (b) large increases in other taxes such as income tax.

I really don't see why my income tax or VAT should go up in order that a luxury car buyer can save a load of money.

Fuel duty would be a good option on the 'polluter pays' principle, but that would go down like a lead balloon in rural constituencies...

peasant

If it REALLY was about the environment, the governement could simply specify that all cars imported into this country must be powered by alternative / carbon neutral fuels only.

Those cars are out there.

We could then grow our own fuel (ethanol / veg oil) and bring the carbon emissions from road traffic to pretty much near neutral.

They could start by giving proper incentives for conversions and support an independent alternative fuel network ...indepent from the oil industry, that is.

But all that would involve pissing of some of the big world-wide players.

So the governement (in its wisdom) will rather continue pissing (and ripping) off individual motorists and continue charging VRT (under whatever fake heading) ...so much easier and so much more profitable.

Anan1

colm_mcm wrote:

ALSO, unless an environmental tax is actualy used to help the environment, instead of paying for hospital consultants, then the whole thing is a big joke.

peasant wrote:

If it REALLY was about the environment, the governement could simply specify that all cars imported into this country must be powered by alternative / carbon neutral fuels only.

For the umpteenth time, we are all agreed that our government did not introduce VRT to protect the environment. If VRT has the effect of reducing new car sales, however, then it is helping the environment.

peasant wrote:

We could then grow our own fuel (ethanol / veg oil) and bring the carbon emissions from road traffic to pretty much near neutral.

I don't think we have enough land to produce the biofuels we'd require to completely replace fossil fuels.