Gormley tax plans in Sunday Times

mike65

Ireland Ed is not online so for those who don't buy it.



Mods could you tidy up Gormleys name

Mike.

mikemac

"Clearly it makes sense to have a motor tax that works on the principle that the polluter pays"

I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Of course some will post that they own a 2.0l car and resent high tax as they rarely use it, maybe only at weekends.
In fairness, you knew about motor tax when you bought it.

dudara

I have a question regarding taxation in proportion to emissions.

Will they record the emissions at the NCT and charge you accordingly, or will it be a set standard with no regard to the condition you maintain your car. For instance, I just changed part of the exhaust and the lambda sensor in my car and it passed the NCT. The emissions part of the report was excellent (as you might expect). I think that I should pay lower tax in return for keeping my car well maintained.

NBar

So is he going to base it on emissions then and not cc (which is the easy option) and as for the comment you bought it and should know I to have a weekend car and don't always use it so I will be penalised for having it on my drive way, just put it on petrol cause as they say the more you use your car the bigger the carbon footprint and all that crap

Tipsy Mac

"Clearly it makes sense to have a motor tax that works on the principle that the polluter pays"

The lad is a fool, if he wants to have polluter pays principal then tax petrol. A 4 litre car sitting on a driveway causes zero pollution but if same vehicle fills up with petrol and drives until said petrol is all used it causes pollution.

There should be zero VRT and zero VAT on all hybrid cars, you would see a huge jump in their sales if this was introduced.

Also he might want to tell his ministerial mates that having their drivers sitting for half an hour outside the Dail every day with the engine running is hardly good for the environment.

JHMEG

1.6 Litres and over. I wonder is that 1600cc or "1.6 Litres", ie mine is 1595cc. Altho herself will hopefully see a reduction on the IMA.

Guy:Incognito

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

"

There should be zero VRT and zero VAT on all hybrid cars, you would see a huge jump in their sales if this was introduced.
.

Why , hybrids are not the cleanest cars available. Even discountinmg very small cars, there are plenty of larger diesel cars that come close to matching the hybrids.

turbocabrio

micmclo wrote: »

"Clearly it makes sense to have a motor tax that works on the principle that the polluter pays"

I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Of course some will post that they own a 2.0l car and resent high tax as they rarely use it, maybe only at weekends.
In fairness, you knew about motor tax when you bought it.

I see the greens are going back on there word. not suprised are we,quote from green party 2007 manifesto-WE WILL REPLACE MOTOR TAX WITH AN ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY ON FUEL. Instead the hard pressed motorist of this country is going to get more motor tax and the environmental levy on top of it pluss extra tolls etc.We must be the most tolerant people in the whole world.

JHMEG

Stekelly wrote: »

Why , hybrids are not the cleanest cars available. Even discountinmg very small cars, there are plenty of larger diesel cars that come close to matching the hybrids.

Diesel fumes are very bad for human health, and promoting diesel right now would not be good. When it's as clean as petrol yes.

Leaving out the fumes issue, I'm not aware of any "larger diesel cars" that can do 70mpg.

JHMEG

turbocabrio wrote: »

We must be the most tolerant people in the whole world.

We are the fools that put those fools back in government. We have no-one to blame but ourselves for continually voting them in.

Tanabe

It's all a scam.

If they REALLY DID CARE about the environment, the answer is simple - pay @ the pump!

Instead, (and as usual I might add) our hungry, robbing government wants to put a tax on top of an existing tax, rake in a sh1t load of money for nothing from it, "greens are great" & all that for the first year, whilst they're still "working out the details of a more complex emissions based taxation system".

Also, what's the point in changing the current system before the end of the year? Hit the people at the worst possible time of year - Christmas. Well "Happy f***ing Christmas to you too John Gormley"!

Why is it that most issues in this country have to be introduced with absolute sensationalism? Trying to sneak something like this in before the end of the year is all this is going to do! (Remember the provisional licensed driver's issue a few weeks back)?

Duckjob

JHMEG wrote: »

1.6 Litres and over. I wonder is that 1600cc or "1.6 Litres", ie mine is 1595cc. Altho herself will hopefully see a reduction on the IMA.

A cc figure such as 1595cc is rounded up, so your engine is referred to as a 1.6 litre. Unfortunately for yourself, I expect they will go by litreage since they can get more people in the net by including 1.6 and over than by including 1600cc and over.

Edit: the whole idea stinks. If the reason is to help the environment, where's the low taxes on hybrids ? Why not -SHOCK HORROR - reduce the tax on 1 litres a bit, or abolish road tax completlely and load it into petrol? All stick and no carrot as usual.

is_that_so

I think there is a lot of politics at work here.

1. The Greens want to be seen.
Seeing as they will unquestionably be tainted by association with FF the Greens are hell-bent on getting as many "initiatives" into effect as they can. They have "committed " themselves to at least two years.

2. The proposal is fairly obvious and only seems unfair to any anyone who has a larger car engine. I am assuming here that the Greens see large engines = higher emissions. Maybe someone can provide some data on this.

3. Car tax is applied annually. As posted above there is no simple way to work out a system based on emissions and car tax is a simple albeit very crude way of calculating the potential effects.

4. Price of oil and oil dependency. Considering where the price of oil is going there is also a further "green factor". By attempting to discourage the use of "larger" cars we reduce the amount of fuel we use.

As for the Greens well what did people expect. They have always had a range of policies that are probably a bit too leftfield for the rest of us. FF as always will benefit here. FF=Green if it is a good thing , Green's fault if it's not.

In the absence of a straightforward, transparent, easily-administered alternative I feel myself agreeing with them.

is_that_so

Duckjob wrote: »

Edit: the whole idea stinks. If the reason is to help the environment, where's the low taxes on hybrids ? Why not -SHOCK HORROR - reduce the tax on 1 litres a bit, or abolish road tax completlely and load it into petrol? All stick and no carrot as usual.

Business costs -leading to even more reduced competitiveness.

Max_Damage

JHMEG wrote: »

Leaving out the fumes issue, I'm not aware of any "larger diesel cars" that can do 70mpg.

Well, going by whatever definition of what 'larger' is, the Ford Escort 1.6L non-turbo diesel from the 80's used to be able to hit 70mpg, at very much the expense of speed and acceleration.

JHMEG

As I stated on another thread, they're not going to shift the tax onto fuel. While it would seem to make sense, it would mean tens or hundreds of thousands of people would get shafted again because the govt did nothing to control the property market, and now all these people have huge commutes from places like Longford, because they were not able to afford to buy closer to work.

If the govt were serious about protecting the environment, there are many things that would have an instant effect. Reduce the national speed limit on all roads, including motorways, to 90km/h. Even ban all cars with 2.0 Litre engines or bigger.

But no, this is Fianna Fail, The Property Developers Party, feeling they're looking better than ever now that they've a splash of green.

But the reality is the economy is slowing going down the S bend, and they need to grab taxes from where ever thay can get them, which is what this is all about.

Guy:Incognito

JHMEG wrote: »

If the govt were serious about protecting the environment, there are many things that would have an instant effect. Reduce the national speed limit on all roads, including motorways, to 90km/h. Even ban all cars with 2.0 Litre engines or bigger.

But no, this is Fianna Fail, The Property Developers Party, feeling they're looking better than ever now that they've a splash of green.

But the reality is the economy is slowing going down the S bend, and they need to grab taxes from where ever thay can get them, which is what this is all about.

I realise you like a good anti-ff rant but how many other governments have done the things you listed above? WHo has 90km speed limits on motorways, who bans cars iver 2.0ltr. That last part alone is an idication of you spouting crap. Larger cars are not nessicarily worse. How much worse for the environment is a 2098 cc car over a 1998cc one?

The culture of buying houses over renting them goes alot further back than Bertie Aherns government. People in this country like to buy their houses over renting apartments like the do a lot of the time on the continent, this create sland and cost issues, regardless of whos in government.

Tanabe

JHMEG wrote: »

As I stated on another thread, they're not going to shift the tax onto fuel. While it would seem to make sense, it would mean tens or hundreds of thousands of people would get shafted again because the govt did nothing to control the property market, and now all these people have huge commutes from places like Longford, because they were not able to afford to buy closer to work.

If the govt were serious about protecting the environment, there are many things that would have an instant effect. Reduce the national speed limit on all roads, including motorways, to 90km/h. Even ban all cars with 2.0 Litre engines or bigger.

But no, this is Fianna Fail, The Property Developers Party, feeling they're looking better than ever now that they've a splash of green.

But the reality is the economy is slowing going down the S bend, and they need to grab taxes from where ever thay can get them, which is what this is all about.

Two of the worst suggestions I've ever heard of!

1) 90km/h goes against the whole principle of a motorway.

2) Just because a car has a 2 Litre engine doesn't automatically warrant it a polluter! What about freedom of choice?

Tanabe

Stekelly wrote: »

I realise you like a good anti-ff rant but how many other governments have done the things you listed above? WHo has 90km speed limits on motorways, who bans cars iver 2.0ltr. That last part alone is an idication of you spouting crap. Larger cars are not nessicarily worse. How much worse for the environment is a 2098 cc car over a 1998cc one?

The culture of buying houses over renting them goes alot further back than Bertie Aherns government. People in this country like to buy their houses over renting apartments like the do a lot of the time on the continent, this create sland and cost issues, regardless of whos in government.

Well said.

Tanabe

mike65 wrote: »

Mods could you tidy up Gormleys name
Mike.

No, no, no, no, no, don't......leave it as it is......after all his is a TOTAL GOM!:D:D:D

JHMEG

Stekelly wrote: »

I realise you like a good anti-ff rant

Yes, I do, as much as the next man.:D

Stekelly wrote: »

but how many other governments have done the things you listed above?

That's called sheep mentality. You'll never be a leader with that attitude.

Both of those were suggestions that would actually make a difference. I wouldn't have a problem with them either.

Stekelly wrote: »

The culture of buying houses

It's well documented how disposed to property developers FF are. Both thru policies and thru what the tribunals are investigating.

Guy:Incognito

JHMEG wrote: »

That's called sheep mentality. You'll never be a leader with that attitude.



It's well documented how disposed to property developers FF are. Both thru policies and thru what the tribunals are investigating.

Sheep mentality?Every 2nd thread on boards about some "problem" with this country points to how other countries do things. Is that aeguement only allowed to be used when bitching about how bad we have it?

FF and property developers is irrelevant to the thaught processes of Irish people, As a nation we prefer to buy a house with a garden (I prefer it too for the record) the simple fact is all these houses cannot be built in Dublin, so they have to spread to so called "commuter towns" . A good chunk of which are on rail links so cars are not the only option for people.

E92

Tanabe wrote: »

Two of the worst suggestions I've ever heard of!

1) 90km/h goes against the whole principle of a motorway.

2) Just because a car has a 2 Litre engine doesn't automatically warrant it a polluter! What about freedom of choice?

High speed driving is far from inefficient. See here.

It tells us that"Merkel correctly pointed out that traffic jams produce at least as much CO2 as vehicles travelling at high speeds. Indeed, a vehicle travelling in congested traffic at 5mph produces about double the CO2 emissions of a vehicle travelling at 80mph."

So the notion that we should be allowed to go even slower than we already are would be propostorous.

The only solution that makes enviornmental sense is a tax on petrol, and a tax for disposing of old cars. It is surprisingly good for the enviornment to be running old cars, because there is a significant enviornmental impact when it comes to scrapping a car(even when recycling the car, there has to be energy used to do the recycling).

A tax on petrol would work for so many reasons. It doesn't distinguish between engine size, whether one car is a hybrid or not, it simply penalises you for every mile you drive. To allow for the fact that diesels are 10% more polluting than petrols when they botrh do the same mpg, naturally diesel should be 10% more expensive. It would still benefit diesels enormously, because diesels are usually 30% more efficient than a petrol, so this 10% levy wouldn't be too much of a propbllem, but what it would do is encourage people to buy a highly efficient petrol model in lieu of a diesel(like a BMW 318i petrol which pollutes 142 g/km of CO2 as opposed to an Audi 2.0 TDI which pollutes 148 g/km). It would benefit hybrid owners if they use hybrids around town as well, since they can often go around at those low speeds producing little or no CO2. And it would especially benefit owners of bio-ethanol powered cars since these cut CO2 by up to 85%(when the ethanol is got by cullostic ethanol, so they could tax non culluostic ethanol higher then obviously, because ethanol from fermentation isn't terribly enviornmentally friendly).
If it was done instantly, it would force people to change their habits.

Of course, I know none of this will ever happen, and with all the people commuting,(who all voted for Fianna Fail so we're told), it would really punish them. But they are doing a lot more travelling than the rest of us are, and isn't that why we have the 'polluter pays' principle?

Of course, when we have all the greenies trying to stop the M3 Motorway being built which would no doubt give those commuters in Meath enormous relief because they could get there an awful lot faster and therefore be driving much more efficiently, its hard not to feel sorry for those people commuting in like that, and therefore I would accept that my grand plan couldn't be done until such time as we give this country succh vital infrastructure.

As for engine sizes thing, a BMW 325i does more mpg than a 1.6 Avensis, yet it has a 3 litre engine(39.8 vs 39.2). Hardly fair to ban cars/tax cars cause of a certain engine size, is it?

And as for having low speed limits on Motorways, look at all the roads that are Motorways without Motorway restrictions we have in this country. Most of our Dual Carriageways are built to Motorway standard. And the Minister has the power to reclassify these roads to Motorway(under the Roads Act, 2007, about the only good thing Martin Cullen ever did), but he(Noel Dempsy) hasn't bothered to so yet, but will be doing so eventually.

And all those Motorways in all but name are slapped with a limit of only 100 km/h.

The only EU countrys with a lower limit on Motorways are Holland where the limit can be as low as 80 km/h(maximum is 120) and Latvia where the limit is 90 km/h.

JHMEG said earlier

JHMEG wrote:

We are the fools that put those fools back in government. We have no-one to blame but ourselves for continually voting them in.

and its so true.

jimmycrackcorm

micmclo wrote: »

"Clearly it makes sense to have a motor tax that works on the principle that the polluter pays"

I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Of course some will post that they own a 2.0l car and resent high tax as they rarely use it, maybe only at weekends.
In fairness, you knew about motor tax when you bought it.

I'm one of those as I use public transport during the week. I read the article and I'd be really pissed off at having to pay a much higher road tax on the basis of "Polluter Pays" when this is not the case.

As other posters point out, the correct thing is to tax the petrol; there are a lot of people who could commute but the car even in heavy traffic is more convenient.

Jimbo

What are the existing drivers of large-engine cars supposed to do? Increasing tax on existing cars is not going to solve anything. Do they suggest we scrap them or what?
Wouldn't it make more sense to increase the tax on new cars only?

Owen

You know when you hear them blab about Hybrids that they just haven't a clue, and are doing what they think is environmentally friendly. The solution is tax fuel, not cars. As many previous posters have said, a 4 litre car sitting on a driveway for weekend use only is not a poluting car. Those who drive more with a fuel tax pay more.

Jimbo

I agree, but considering the huge rise in the price of fuel in the last few years, is there really a need to increase it more. People are going to look to more fuel efficient cars regardless. Looks like just another ploy to increase revenue.

Matt Simis

Stekelly wrote: »

Why , hybrids are not the cleanest cars available. Even discountinmg very small cars, there are plenty of larger diesel cars that come close to matching the hybrids.

Yeah, there is a lot of truth to this but the real win is from BioDiesel. Even a 5.0l V10 Diesel engine produces lower net CO2 emissions than a Prius when run on BioDiesel. However its likely this stupid plan will only count the "paper" value of X car and its C02 level running petro-Diesel.

Comparison of a more standard diesel engine (1.9TDI):

From: http://www.coopamerica.org/pubs/realmoney/articles/biodiesel.cfm

Any government body intending to help the environment would not be backing Hyrids at all and would force immediate transistion to BioDiesel (B20) from renewable, preferably local, sources. Bear in mind unlike ethanol this isnt rainforest chopping stuff, it can be made from even used Oil.

E92

ned78 wrote: »

You know when you hear them blab about Hybrids that they just haven't a clue, and are doing what they think is environmentally friendly.

Especially when the same Minister has the highest mileage of any Minister in the Cabinet driven by car. A case of "do as I say but not as I do", if ever there was.

The Minister has obviously "forgotten" that theMINI Cooper D is greener than the Priusin every circumstance, not to mention the Ford Focus FFV which when running on Cellulosic Ethanol is the grennest car you can have a by a million miles. Cellulosic Ethanol cuts CO2 emissions by 85%, so that means a Ford Focus FFV running on the stuff has an average CO2 emission rating of wait for it... 23.5 g/km(169 X 0.15). Thats around 5 times less than the supposedly super green Prius.

JHMEG

Stekelly wrote: »

A good chunk of which are on rail links so cars are not the only option for people.

Me smells a FF voter. Next I suppose you'll be telling me we actually have a good rail network, despite the fact that virtually every industrial estate (where these commuters work) in the country has no train station next or near it.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

MINI Cooper D is greener than the Prius

Let us not forget that the D, like all diesels, spits out highly carcinogenic material from it's exhaust. California rules tobacco fumes as toxic as diesel exhaust. They banned smoking cos it's as bad as diesel!

E92 wrote: »

Cellulosic Ethanol

Which can't be gotten in Ireland. It'll be great when it can, and it'll be even better when Priuses and Civic Hybrids can use it. Will make Focus FFV will look archaic.