Budget 2008 as it happens

Marcus.Aurelius

At least there is widespread agreement among boardsies that the tax paid on cars should be linked to petrol so that the polluters will actually pay.

The system as is, does not benefit the environment. All it means is people with bigger engines who do sweet f/a mileage will be paying for all the 1.6s out there who do 50k miles a year, emitting 30 times the amount of CO2

Well done Cowen, you moron.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

How much damage did your's do?

Óisín Coughlan of Friends of the Earth said buying a new car was the equivalent of creating 2 years worth of pollution for someone doing an average mileage in an average car. So its fair to say that buying a new car is not exactly very good for the planet.

if people are prepared to switch to diesel, the new system is very good for the motorist overall, of course in the ideal world VRT should go but that ain't gonna happen because Feel and Fail and more specifically the Greens don't have the political balls to do it. Still the new system if far better for most people. The BMW 325i with its filthy and dirty 3.0 litre engine goes down to 24% VRT, the 520d, 318d, 320d, 123d with more power than a Sierra Cossie all attract 16% VRT. other winners include the Avensis 2.0 Diesel(20%) and countless others that I'm too lazy to bother mentioning.

TJJP

Forgive the on topic post, but Gormley will be on Pat Kenny this morning at 10.00 (that is about now) to discuss the post July '08 proposals.

Henry Ford III

E92 wrote: »

...the 520d, 318d, 320d...with more power than a Sierra Cossie..........

These Beemers have over 200bhp?

yop

Biffo is on now.

MY Audi is 154 CO, not too bad

E92

Henry Ford III wrote: »

These Beemers have over 200bhp?

My apologies...just the 123d(204 bhp) and 325i(218 bhp).
Sierra Cossie was 201 bhp IIRC.Read the post again, it says "the 123d with more power than a Sierra Cossie"

mike65

Did anyone hear the vox-pox of Morning Ireland? Two taxi drivers were among the great unwashed and both were clueless about what the chnages meant, and gave a stock responce about "oh prices going up moan moan moan etc."

Mike.

Ice_Box

the bmw 123d twin turbo goes from 0-100 in 7 seconds.
drops from 30% VRT to 16% VRT.
that could be a 7 to 10 grand reduction...

pburns

maoleary wrote: »

At least there is widespread agreement among boardsies that the tax paid on cars should be linked to petrol so that the polluters will actually pay.

The system as is, does not benefit the environment. All it means is people with bigger engines who do sweet f/a mileage will be paying for all the 1.6s out there who do 50k miles a year, emitting 30 times the amount of CO2

Well done Cowen, you moron.

Not that old chestnut again!! :rolleyes:
I can see the point you're making but anyone who seriously proposes this is living in their own little bubble.

Have you actually looked at how planning decisions have effected society this past decade (urban sprawl), where the majority of people have to travel large distances to work (or for work). In many cases, public transport is not available, or can be used for only part of the journey. We can complain all we like about bad planning but this is the de-facto situation of many, many people.

So you're saying these people should be penalised so a few city-centre-dwelling 'car enthusiasts' can feel smug about walking to work every day and therefore have the divine right to waft around in the 'gas guzzler' (sorry, hate that term) of their choosing at the weekend?

I'm sorry but if you look at the big picture that's just downright pig-ignorant selfish. It is also TOTALLY untenable politically. Anyway, I think many boardsters have pointed out that some very tasty cars - 3.0 diesels, even some very efficent petrol engines such as 330i will either benefit or will not be hugely effected. If manufacturers take strides to make their cars more efficent, and if customers go out and buy these cars, it should be rewarded and incentivised.

When will some people on here realise that the world does NOT begin-and-end in D2/D4 !?!? :mad:

E92

@pburns the agrument in favour of a tax on fuel is a really simple one - tax the polluter. Someone who has a high polluting car but only drives a few thousand miles a year is far kinder to the planet than someone who has a low polluting car that does tens of thousands of miles a year. If we're serious about pollution and taclking it, then this is the way to go. Taxing fuel would have other benefits too, such as encouraging people to use public transport, which would in turn increase the averasge urban speed, cut journey times, reduce congestion etc which would increase the effectiveness of it. Thats why a tax on fuel would work and a tax on cars doesn't.

mike65

Biffo ruled out a fuel tax on inflationary grounds.

Mike.

Nelly23

Ok, I'm a bit confused with the VRT issue. If I were to buy a secondhand car with 140g emissions (1.9tdi) now, I would pay 25% VRT. But if I were to buy the same car second hand in July the VRT would drop to 16%? Is this correct or does this change only apply to new cars?

Cheers.

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

@pburns the agrument in favour of a tax on fuel is a really simple one - tax the polluter. Someone who has a high polluting car but only drives a few thousand miles a year is far kinder to the planet than someone who has a low polluting car that does tens of thousands of miles a year. If we're serious about pollution and taclking it, then this is the way to go. Taxing fuel would have other benefits too, such as encouraging people to use public transport, which would in turn increase the averasge urban speed, cut journey times, reduce congestion etc which would increase the effectiveness of it. Thats why a tax on fuel would work and a tax on cars doesn't.

a) There is an argument that everone should pay a minimum level of motor tax. I think that is a fair proposition, it is like paying line rental for a phone really. The bigger your car, the more roadspace it takes up, and the less desirable it is to the general public then the higher that fixed rate of tax. Currently this is measured using CCs, and imperfect as it may be, it is reasonable.

d) There is tax on fuel.

c) Making a car prohibitively expensive to RUN as against OWN would be far worse for far more people, most of all the vast majority of the population who do not have a bus every 10 mins outside their door. We live in a democracy, and the majority see little wrong with taxing people with large cars to the hilt, me included... If the car is new then you can afford it, and if it is old, then you got the car so cheap it shouldnt matter!

Vegeta

maidhc wrote: »

a) There is an argument that everone should pay a minimum level of motor tax. I think that is a fair proposition, it is like paying line rental for a phone really. The bigger your car, the more roadspace it takes up, and the less desirable it is to the general public then the higher that fixed rate of tax. Currently this is measured using CCs, and imperfect as it may be, it is reasonable.

d) There is tax on fuel.

c) Making a car prohibitively expensive to RUN as against OWN would be far worse for far more people, most of all the vast majority of the population who do not have a bus every 10 mins outside their door. We live in a democracy, and the majority see little wrong with taxing people with large cars to the hilt, me included... If the car is new then you can afford it, and if it is old, then you got the car so cheap it shouldnt matter!

Sighhhhhhh

While what you say is true it is a bit naive. The government are hailing this as a "green" tax increase.

How is just taxing all cars under 2.5L at the same rate even remotely "green"

Fuel Tax is much a "greener" way of promoting more fuel efficient transport

Riskymove

pburns wrote: »

Not that old chestnut again!! :rolleyes:
I can see the point you're making but anyone who seriously proposes this is living in their own little bubble.

Have you actually looked at how planning decisions have effected society this past decade (urban sprawl), where the majority of people have to travel large distances to work (or for work). In many cases, public transport is not available, or can be used for only part of the journey. We can complain all we like about bad planning but this is the de-facto situation of many, many people.

So you're saying these people should be penalised so a few city-centre-dwelling 'car enthusiasts' can feel smug about walking to work every day and therefore have the divine right to waft around in the 'gas guzzler' (sorry, hate that term) of their choosing at the weekend?

I'm sorry but if you look at the big picture that's just downright pig-ignorant selfish. It is also TOTALLY untenable politically. Anyway, I think many boardsters have pointed out that some very tasty cars - 3.0 diesels, even some very efficent petrol engines such as 330i will either benefit or will not be hugely effected. If manufacturers take strides to make their cars more efficent, and if customers go out and buy these cars, it should be rewarded and incentivised.

When will some people on here realise that the world does NOT begin-and-end in D2/D4 !?!? :mad:

What has D2/D4 got to do with it. I live in kildare but think the fuel tax is a good idea.

Even if you have a more fuel-efficient car if you are driving it hundreds of Kilometres a day you are doing far more harm than a less fuel efficient car rarely used

thus the fuel tax is fairer..as mentioned it does not neccessarily have to be more than a few cent per litre extra

astraboy

Vegeta wrote: »

Sighhhhhhh

While what you say is true it is a bit naive. The government are hailing this as a "green" tax increase.

How is just taxing all cars under 2.5L at the same rate even remotely "green"

Fuel Tax is much a "greener" way of promoting more fuel efficient transport

Exactly. And as regards public transport and people living miles from work, thats a fair point, people were forced to live in County Meath and commute to work in Dublin due to house prices. A tax on fuel and removing road tax altogether, and therefore rewarding efficient cars is the way forward. Also, a hugely imporveed public transport network allowing people to get the train to work from outside the cities would allow people to reduce their car usage. This of course is living in a perfect Ireland run by competent people.

As for getting a few people out of larger cars, its NOT going to reduce global warming when China builds a new coal fired power station a WEEK. Gormely is a clown of the highest order, and I hate the majority of the greens policies, they are based on fluffly ideals instead of reality.

maidhc

Vegeta wrote: »

Fuel Tax is much a "greener" way of promoting more fuel efficient transport

And there is fuel tax! But there is nothing wrong with having a set minimum people pay too!

Ireland will NEVER have a public transport infrastructure that will cater for anything other than those who live in the larger towns and cities. Our housing patterns dictate this.

astraboy

maidhc wrote: »

And there is fuel tax! But there is nothing wrong with having a set minimum people pay too!

Ireland will NEVER have a public transport infrastructure that will cater for anything other than those who live in the larger towns and cities. Our housing patterns dictate this.

Why have a set minimum? If you place a small additional tax on fuel, people pay as they use. It also removes all the admin in road tax and EVERYONE that fills up their fuel tanks pays the tax. The more you use, the more you pay. The current system of "shar base it on engine size and tax for year" only rewards those that do huge mileage while those of us that try and reduce our car use still pay the same, regardless of weather we do 10 miles or 25,000 miles a year.

maidhc

astraboy wrote: »

Why have a set minimum? If you place a small additional tax on fuel, people pay as they use. It also removes all the admin in road tax and EVERYONE that fills up their fuel tanks pays the tax. The more you use, the more you pay. The current system of "shar base it on engine size and tax for year" only rewards those that do huge mileage while those of us that try and reduce our car use still pay the same, regardless of weather we do 10 miles or 25,000 miles a year.

a) Most people who do 25k a year don't do so out of choice.
b) Roads cost a lot to build, only reasonable there is a certain standing charge before people be allowed to use them... in a similar manner to your ESB or Phone

Vegeta

maidhc you are completely missing the point

They raised car tax to help the environment (or so they say). Can you please explain why you think just raising tax on all vehicles will help the environment?

maidhc

Vegeta wrote: »

maidhc you are completely missing the point

They raised car tax to help the environment (or so they say). Can you please explain why you think just raising tax on all vehicles will help the environment?

My point is that motor tax is TAX. The have rejigged it to be a bit more environmentally friendly, but it still a tax.

TheBigLebowski

maidhc, you're not getting it. For example, I live 25 miles from Dublin and across the road is a train station. Most people I know who work in Dublin, drive rather than take the train. These people need a bit more encouragement to take public transport. Actually some of these people say "sure I pay road tax, I may as well use the road"...

My father pays road tax on a 1.6 litre engine and does about 4000 miles a year. How is it fair that he pays the same road tax as someone doing 50000 miles a year.

Higher fuel tax and lower road tax is the only way to go...

astraboy

^^^^^^^^What he said^^^^^^^

Why is it fair for everyone to pay the same regardless of usage? If you rearly driver your car you pay for usage. If you use it a lot, you pay for your choice of vehicle, weather it is efficient or not. With this there is no need for a second road tax, what would be the point? I am of course basing this on improved public transport etc. This is Ireland and its doubtful it'll ever be up to standard.

Vegeta

maidhc wrote: »

My point is that motor tax is TAX. The have rejigged it to be a bit more environmentally friendly, but it still a tax.

Are you talking about Gormley's announcement or the budget yesterday?

because from the budget yesterday I fail to see how raising tax on all cars is environmentally friendly?

maidhc

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

maidhc, you're not getting it. For example, I live 25 miles from Dublin and across the road is a train station. Most people I know who work in Dublin, drive rather than take the train. These people need a bit more encouragement to take public transport. Actually some of these people say "sure I pay road tax, I may as well use the road"...

He pays less on fuel duty!!!!

Btw I do 15k miles year... i commute to work, and I have no realistic alternative (and never will unless I move to a large town!). Is there a good reason why I should be penalised when I have no alternative?

I am talking about the budget/gormley both are the same thing ultimately.

Marcus.Aurelius

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

maidhc, you're not getting it. For example, I live 25 miles from Dublin and across the road is a train station. Most people I know who work in Dublin, drive rather than take the train. These people need a bit more encouragement to take public transport. Actually some of these people say "sure I pay road tax, I may as well use the road"...

My father pays road tax on a 1.6 litre engine and does about 4000 miles a year. How is it fair that he pays the same road tax as someone doing 50000 miles a year.

Higher fuel tax and lower road tax is the only way to go...

makes perfect sense

if someone can't see that, they obviously don't have the intellect to realise it. Or perhaps they stand to lose out if the tax were put onto petrol.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong

maidhc

maoleary wrote: »

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong

Exactly. Everyone has their own interests to look after, including myself. If I lived in D4 I would agree with the views of other posters! Thats life.

astraboy

Thats fair enough maidhc, I'm in favour of it as I only do 5-7K a year. I just don't like subsadising other road users. Irrelevant to me anyway really, I'm off to the UK for a few years after the summer. I know they have speed cameras but no VRT and lower road tax is a bouns! Also, road tax is here to stay, the Gov will never implement the tax on fuel thing, we were only discussing it as an idea.

Vegeta

maidhc wrote: »

He pays less on fuel duty!!!!

Btw I do 15k miles year... i commute to work, and I have no realistic alternative (and never will unless I move to a large town!). Is there a good reason why I should be penalised when I have no alternative?

I am talking about the budget/gormley both are the same thing ultimately.

Well I do 30K a year and have no alternative yet realise that a "usage" tax is better for the environment

The budget and the gormley thing are not the same.

The budget is just a blanket tax increase on all cars, how is that good for the environment? It does not reward people for choosing an efficient/less polluting car. So you drive 15k a year, if you drive that 15k in a really really fuel efficient car you should be rewarded by having to pay less tax. The government just hiked up taxes and pretend its good for the environment which pisses me right off

The Gormley thing makes a little more sense, basing road tax on emissions. This is at least aimed at making it cheaper to drive a car that is more efficient. It rewards people for choosing a car with better mpg and CO2 emissions.

Listen, no one likes tax increases but if they are going to raise taxes in the name of protecting the environment at least let them actually protect the environment rather than give Biffo more money to waste.

ninty9er

While Road tax is a pain in the arse...it's a tax...it's purpose is to create revenue...that's good because without revenue we'd have no/worse public services.

At the level people currently complain about public services, reducing ANY tax is a bad idea.

Plain and simple...while plain simple fuel tax is all nice and fluffy for the motorheads with 3.5l S-Classes doing 4,000 KM p.a the person who will pay the exact same €1491 as you in tax next year and will drive 30,000KM in same car DOES pay more F***ing tax than you do!! We have tax on fuel....It's not excessive and neither encourages nor discourages road usage, at best people would have to have a few less pints of a weekend, at worst you're putting people on the margins of finincial disaster over that line.

motorists KNOW the cost of motor tax...so either GET USED TO IT or SELL THE CAR. At most it costs €4.10 per day to tax a car if you have any sense and get 12 months tax at a time. Now if that agrieves you, then I suggest you BUY A CAR WITH A LOWER TAX BURDEN