Gormley tax plans in Sunday Times

JHMEG

apple_danish wrote: »

I must say that I am not at all convinced about the accuracy of the article published in today's Sunday Times

Which is about Road Tax. The Irish Times one is about VRT.

apple_danish

JHMEG wrote: »

Which is about Road Tax. The Irish Times one is about VRT.

Nope. Read the second last paragraph of the Sunday Times article again my friend....

JHMEG

apple_danish wrote: »

Nope. Read the second last paragraph of the Sunday Times article again my friend....

I stand corrected, sort of. The 1st part is about motor tax, and motor tax increases have always been at budget time. Correct if I'm wrong, but this is the bit people on this thread are most annoyed about.. ie that the existing road tax system (based on cc) is staying, but everything is being shoved up.

The 2nd part, VRT, well there's little difference between 01/08 and 06/08 in real terms.

caesar

Getting rid of road tax seems like a good idea and putting the tax on petrol and diesels at the pumps seems like a better alternative. The idea of taxing on cc is crazy.

The idea of tax on fuel only:
1. The person with the car thats heavy on fuel will get punished if they do high mileage in it and if they only use it at the weekend they wont get hit as bad.

2. Also rules out lost revenue from people who simply don't pay road tax, they'd be forced to through higher fuel tax.

3. There are other benefits of this type of system which I leave others to discuss.

The problem is that this system would hit businesses and in turn hit the consumer but there isn't much you can do about that.

Tax based on emissions:
Now going down the route of taxing based on emissions is better than the old system, but then the question is why should someone who has a 3 litre petrol car that they only use at the weekend pay more tax than the company rep who does 40k miles in 2 litre diesel.

Three things need before I finish:

1. Whatever road taxing system is implemented it needs to coincide with VRT which lets face it isn't going anywhere soon.

2. There may need to be a 2 tier system if its going to be based on emissions.
They cant really go punishing people with older cars that don't have the technology of the new ones and as a result have higher emissions. Although taking into account of the results of the NCT might be a good idea and introducing a charge to scrap cars. AFAIK the UK have separate tax bracket for older cars. The second tier would obviously be for newer cars.

3. No motor taxing system will be perfect.

bbability

apple_danish wrote: »

I must say that I am not at all convinced about the accuracy of the article published in today's Sunday Times (See first post in this thread).

I agree. I think Bertie learnt his lesson with the Mad Mulla Mc Dowell the last time out. What Gormley wants to do and Bertie and Co allow are two totally different things. Surely we must be the most expensive country in the EU to tax a motor vehicle? I'm all for the changes but doubling taxes is certainly not the answer considering the public perception of the government wages increases in the last few weeks. It won't encourage people to leave their cars at home but rather not tax the motor!

jimmycrackcorm

jimbo78 wrote: »

Once again the argument centres around the Dublin commuters. What about the people living and working in the country? How are you supposed to travel from one town to the next, where there is no public transport. Rural people are alot more dependant on cars than anyone else and that will never change

Let them spend a week doing an average daily dublin commute and they'll be grateful

Jimbo

At least they're providing alternatives for commuters. Its either walk, cycle or drive for us country folk.

Oilrig

I think this could be a watershed issue for the Greens.

Their mantra has always been that the "polluter pays". Fair enough.

The issue of road tax is complicated because it is the main income of local authorities non NRA road budget - ie whatever changes are made they cannot result in less income.

If the Greens remain faithful to the Polluter Pays principle then the only logical way ahead is to tax fuel, ie the more you use the more you pay... not rocket science... and, it also deals with the issue of older cars (like mine) that don't have published CO2 figures.

The established argument against taxing fuel is that it hurts business - reps do huge mileage. Now, this is where the Minister et al must decide what to do: do they establish a claw back mechanism for reps, or do they wear balls and decide that as the reps are actually polluting due to their high mileage then they must pay the cost?

Seems that the Greens are getting a taste of real life

Taxing vehicles on engine size is a 1950's approach that should have no place in this country today.

Also, taxing fuel would blow the whole hybrid fairytale out of the water. The sight of O' Donohue in a hybrid Lexus was nauseating in the least.

nialler

Ok my view is to tax petrol at the pumps aiding the "polluter pays" principle.

Now the previous poster had a few vaild points. All cars after 2 years are required to go through an NCT, let's say from Jan 1 2008 all emission results are recorded and mileage is also recorded, you return 2 years later, emissions and mileage recorded again and your tax bill based on the mileage and a mean value of emissions, complicated but fair and we have computers to do all the math, plus to get your NCT/Tax disc (less clutter in your window) you pay your bill. New cars can be based on manufacturers figures. Now I know this doesn't account for those who drive 10k motorway a year vs 10k a year stuck on ringsend road twice a day but the emissions are measured on a stationary car.

It also removes the need of having to queue at the tax office when you've lost your login details for online tax.

peasant

nialler wrote: »

Ok my view is to tax petrol at the pumps aiding the "polluter pays" principle.

Now the previous poster had a few vaild points. All cars after 2 years are required to go through an NCT, let's say from Jan 1 2008 all emission results are recorded and mileage is also recorded, you return 2 years later, emissions and mileage recorded again and your tax bill based on the mileage and a mean value of emissions, complicated but fair and we have computers to do all the math, plus to get your NCT/Tax disc (less clutter in your window) you pay your bill. New cars can be based on manufacturers figures. Now I know this doesn't account for those who drive 10k motorway a year vs 10k a year stuck on ringsend road twice a day but the emissions are measured on a stationary car.

It also removes the need of having to queue at the tax office when you've lost your login details for online tax.

Nice idea, but unfortunately unworkable.

What about all those people that change cars between NCTs ?

JHMEG

peasant wrote: »

Nice idea, but unfortunately unworkable.

What about all those people that change cars between NCTs ?

And a whole cottage industry would emerge in clocking cars. Do 500km between NCTs and pay virtually no tax.

I've said it before: the tax will not be shifted onto fuel. Strange as it sounds, taxing fuel more punishes those who have already been punished by high property prices.

littlejukka

JHMEG wrote: »

Strange as it sounds, taxing fuel more punishes those who have already been punished by high property prices.

People who have long commutes should not be the deciding factor in taxing fuel. if you live in ashbourne, gorey or some other godforesaken commuter town (longford, even?) get a job somewhere closer to your gaff than dublin.

galwaytt

littlejukka wrote: »

People who have long commutes should not be the deciding factor in taxing fuel. if you live in ashbourne, gorey or some other godforesaken commuter town (longford, even?) get a job somewhere closer to your gaff than dublin.

what planet are you on? The MAJORITY of people commute, not the minority, so why should the majority not have their way ? - last time I checked, this was a democracy.

And you work where you can get it, and live where you can afford. It's a lot easier to buy a car than sell your house/change your kids schools etc.

Actually, who am I kidding.... your comment is bull, pure & simple.

McSandwich

JHMEG wrote: »

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!

Our petro-diesel is a lot cleaner (lower sulphur) than the stuff used in the US. Particle filters also help overcome this problem

abs.ti.bfh.ch/uploads/media/Feinstaub_NP_E_v1.pdf

www.gencat.co.uk/documents/Diesel%20Exhaust%20Soot.pdf

Benzene in petrol is also a carcinogen

As for the tax, like others have said, adding it to the fuel makes most sense - probably why it will never happen that way.. I know this could be a problem for commuters but surely the greens can come up with a workable 'park and ride' system (or encourage more businesses to move closer to the available workforce)??

littlejukka

galwaytt wrote: »

what planet are you on? The MAJORITY of people commute, not the minority, so why should the majority not have their way ? - last time I checked, this was a democracy.

And you work where you can get it, and live where you can afford. It's a lot easier to buy a car than sell your house/change your kids schools etc.

Actually, who am I kidding.... your comment is bull, pure & simple.

the majority of people are morons. anyone who is content to commute 30-40 miles in 2 hours isn't worthy of consideration when formulating policy and legislation when it comes to taxation.

i work where i could get it and bought what i could afford and i cycle to work in 15 minutes, using the car on weekends for leisure. if i had kids they'd have a 5 minute walk to primary and secondary school, and i'd still get to work on time.

if people get hurt financially because they bought expensive piles of bricks a long commute away from where they work and need a tank of petrol a day to get there and back, that is THEIR problem. sensible people should not suffer.

unkel

kdevitt wrote: »

Why a 1.4 car doing 20k a year should have to pay less than a 3 litre car doing 2k a year is beyond me.

Indeed! There are no excuses for not implementing a polluter pays policy. So no fixed taxes, only pay for the fuel used / (environmental) damage caused.

milltown

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

1. "The polluter pays". For what? I try to keep an ear to the news but I have yet to hear any government plans to erect giant air purifiers at known traffic bottlenecks. Very little of what the polluter pays for will find it's way into Harney's health "service" to help the heart, lung and cancer patients either.

2. PAY AT THE PUMP is the single most simple way to make the polluter pay. Boo hoo for the poor folk who live beyond the pale and have to have a car. If you have to commute to work, figure out how to go by public transport or buy a car you can afford to do it in. I decided to stay in Dublin (and paid handsomely to do so) so I wouldn't have a long commute to work, among other things. If our country cousins have to have a car because the shop is three miles away and the post office six miles away they should be welcoming paying at the pump, 'cos that ain't a lot of mileage.

3. Mr.Gormley really needs to weigh carbon footprints against emissions if he wants to be truly green. If the proposals mentioned do actually come to fruition then SIMI will be laughing with all the new eco-friendly cars being sold out the front door, while the older cars are quietly being scrapped out the back door. It is a lot more environmentally friendly to keep an older car going than to invest the energy and raw materials in a new vehicle with, in the scheme of things, slightly lower emissions.

4. If you want to flex your ministerial muscles, Gormley, and make a name for yourself, get the traffic moving. The difference in emissions between a car crawling into town from inside the M50 ring at ~5mph and a car travelling 70mph out of town on a motorway is not that much. I don't expect anyone to get Dublin traffic moving at 70mph but, by the same token, I have regularly travelled less than 5 miles in an hour in Dublin traffic.

dcGT

jimbo78 wrote: »

I reckon if people kick up it could force a Dempsey-esque u-turn. Gormleys email - minister@environ.ie

Email sent. Tax on fuel, not on engine.

DC.

pburns

I don't really mind a tax based on emissions - for example I'm willing to bet a 2000cc Honda will be more efficent than...O I don't know...a similar displacement engine from the VAG stable(?). It rewards efficency and technological advancement.

But this blanket penalty based on a designated engine size gets my goat. I thought with the change to a emissions-based VRT system that some sanity might prevail for road tax as well.

Load of cock!

cianclarke

This is really crazy, they want to start hitting gas guzzlers and large SUV's, and they start the increase at 1.6l cars?? I can't buy a decent german 4 door saloon under 1.6 litres, and my passat is hardly a gas guzzler.
If he wants to hit the gas guzzlers, surely 2.5l and upward would make sense? Or make it a combined scale of cc, fuel consumption and emmissions and tax according to this?
I'll never vote greens again, this is a disgrace...

is_that_so

Suggestion in the Irish Times that the DOE are working on an emissions based system and that this tax hike will be short term.
Designed to get us to think by the looks of it.

The Department of the Environment is working on a more complex emissions-based tax system but in the short term increased car tax rates are expected to be imposed on all vehicles with engine size of 1.6 litres and over.

Full Story

JHMEG

McSandwich wrote: »

Our petro-diesel is a lot cleaner (lower sulphur) than the stuff used in the US. Particle filters also help overcome this problem

We're currently operating under Euro 4 emissions directive:
Emissions of the highly noxious pollutants known as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) from diesel vehicles are currently four to five times higher than for petrol vehicles. The Euro 5 Directive aims to make diesel cars "catch up" - although not completely.
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/euro-5-emissions-standards-cars/article-133325

littlejukka wrote:

if people get hurt financially because they bought expensive piles of bricks a long commute away from where they work and need a tank of petrol a day to get there and back, that is THEIR problem. sensible people should not suffer.

It's nothing to do sense. galwaytt put it very succinctly: you work where you can get it, you buy where you can afford. Tell someone who is in the IT industry (and was encouraged by the govt), to get a job in Longford, or tell someone in the pharma industry to get a job Gorey, and you'd get a slap.

Story also reported on RTE website here

galwaytt

cianclarke wrote: »

This is really crazy, they want to start hitting gas guzzlers and large SUV's, and they start the increase at 1.6l cars?? I can't buy a decent german 4 door saloon under 1.6 litres, and my passat is hardly a gas guzzler.
If he wants to hit the gas guzzlers, surely 2.5l and upward would make sense? Or make it a combined scale of cc, fuel consumption and emmissions and tax according to this?
I'll never vote greens again, this is a disgrace...

you're missing the whole point - there is really NO engine size that qualifies it as a gas-guzzler.

What makes anything a gas guzzler is entirely dependant upon how much use it gets. 5.0 car doing 1000 kms a year (show car) vs 1.6 doing 22000 kms a year (commuting). It's the 1.6 that's the guzzler there....

I did 2k kms in my last 3.2 engined car in a year, so I emitted one quarter of the emissions of (say) my wifes 1.4 Scenic (3500kg CO2). Her tax = 400, mine was 1343.

Polluter pays? Don't make me laugh - we should rename it Pillock Pays !

And all this from 2 Greens who don't even have cars - apart from the con job that is the Prius, that is...........

Hold on -don' they have Ministerial cars as well??

Cionád

RTE are reporting increases of 10%, which to be fair is not too bad. It was 2004 that it was last increased, so 10% over three/four years is probably in line with, if not less than inflation.

I've got a 2 litre diesel which has decent enough fuel economy (for a 9 year old!), an extra 50 quid is not going to break the bank. Moving the tax to petrol/diesel prices does seem reasonable though! - get those lousy tourists!!!

And littlejukka, you are deluded to think that everyone could get a job where they live, or live where they work, especially if you factor in more than one worker in the family, children going to school/college, local amenities etc.

JHMEG

galwaytt wrote: »

I did 2k kms in my last 3.2 engined car in a year, so I emitted one quarter of the emissions of (say) my wifes 1.4 Scenic (3500kg CO2). Her tax = 400, mine was 1343.

we should rename it Pillock Pays !

Why did you buy a 3.2? You knew before you bought it that the tax was going to be very high?

is_that_so

galwaytt wrote: »

I did 2k kms in my last 3.2 engined car in a year, so I emitted one quarter of the emissions of (say) my wifes 1.4 Scenic (3500kg CO2). Her tax = 400, mine was 1343.

Eh wasn't this obvious when you bought it? That's the way the system works and complaining about the inequity of it will not change it. It is exactly what it says, a tax.
I don't doubt that you probably you did 2K last year but the type of system you are suggesting based on total emissions would be completely unworkable IMO and would be open to wide scale fraud.
Emissions based I believe is the way to go and it has to be up front.

mike65

Maybe galwaytt was so cheeky as to buy a car he liked rather than be "herded" towards purchasing a tinbox he had no wish to own.

Shocking thought I know

Mike.

JHMEG

mike65 wrote: »

Maybe galwaytt was so cheeky as to buy a car he liked rather than be "herded" towards purchasing a tinbox he had no wish to own.

Is it an old Porsche (or am I thinking of someone else?)?

JoeA3

JHMEG wrote: »

Is it an old Porsche (or am I thinking of someone else?)?

Taking a wild stab in the dark, I'd say it was an Audi TT 3.2.

ambro25

To the people who criticise posters who have big-engined cars with little use and bemoan the latest tax developments, I'd say that the point isn't so much that such people knew how high the tax was going to be when they bought their car (they knew and presumably pay their tax regardless), the point is that under the pretense of 'going greener' / implementing 'Polluter Pays' taxation, they are still being shafted (like anyone else, really) when the shafting should reduce/stop (since they don't pollute, through lack of use).

I can't see why the GVT can't calculate a normalised fuel levy, which would have a neutral effect on revenue, and permit a smooth transition between bureaucratese- and systems-heavy multiple instances of taxation (VRT, road tax, etc.) and the simplest alternative which -

(i) is fairest: you drive, you pay + the less fuel you use, the less you pay = car buyers will automatically increasingly look to economy as major criteria (no need to adverise or chest-beat 'ecology/economy).

(ii) is most revenue-efficient: everyone who drives here pays (no issue of unlicensed/untaxed/uninsured/foreign/etc, etc. - I reckon the GVT's take home pay would actually increase, andwithout any admins/systems investment!) - think of it, even tourists whilever they're visiting would contribute!!!

(iii) encourages greener businesses alternatives/practices: reps don't need to do a million miles a year, when they could do half and the remainder through net video conferencing from home or work... and the like.

Sounds too obvious, doesn't it? Which makes me think (as always): to whom does the crime profit here? :cool: