green car tax

stratos

Something I don't get here is the new green strategy seems to make it cheaper to own a diesel car over a petrol one. Granted diesel cars spew out less co2 than its petrol partner however it spews out far more particulate matter nox and other air qaulity destroying nasties.

There will also be a rush as people buy new cars to avail of the new tax so car manufacturers will have to make more. So more co2 in the air from the factories.

How are electric cars green ? they have a huge exhaust pipe at the generating plant where most fuel used is coal or turf, more co2.

I don't under stand any green tax. Rich people can afford these taxes it has no effect on them, only the working people. Rich people in Dublin can already beat the traffic by using the tunnel soon air flight will be taxed so again only rich people will only be able to fly.

None of these green taxes achieve anything except put qaulity goods and services out of the reach of normal working people. If you have saved up your money and worked hard and can afford a large car, you won't be able to, only wealthy people will.

If these taxes effected rich and normal people equally I wouldn't mind so much. Whats 2000 pounds a year to run a range rover if you earn 300,00 Euros a year. its different if you earn 30,000 euros a year.

Irelands co2 emmisions by cars is insignificant on a global scale so all this is ridiculous anyway. Sorry this is just a rant but i don't understand how penalising the less well off and not affecting the more wealthy is fair, I know this is a bit of a simplistic argument.

There is a feeling I get when I feel someone is taking me for a fool, I feel it when green taxes are mentioned.

littlejukka

stratos wrote: »

If these taxes effected rich and normal people equally I wouldn't mind so much. Whats 2000 pounds a year to run a range rover if you earn 300,00 Euros a year. its different if you earn 30,000 euros a year.

bigger and better things have always been more accessible to people with more money. such is life. the problem is that things become more and more accessible to more and more people. we can all afford to fly and travel to some degree. if this was restricted to people with massive salaries we'd probably all be better off, environmentally speaking.

if you're trying to live on 30k a year and aspire to owning and running a rangerover, i'd suggest that your priorities are way out of whack. it's not the fault of the government or the world in general.

leeroybrown

It's not designed to prevent people from owning a big car and it's certainly not perfect but what it does do is shift the balance of VRT and Motor Tax downwards towards more efficient cars. It in turn shifts the tax burden slightly away from those who chose to buy at the lower end of the scale.

I think your argument is pointless. The wealthy will always be able to afford more. I think that the majority of Irish motorists will have an option available to reduce the taxation of their car by making certain choices.

Also, aren't there EU regulations in the pipeline that will mandate proper DPFs for all new diesel cars soon?

stratos

Just for the record the range rover thing was just an example. I know the rich will always get better treatment, I did say it was a simplistic argument. But most people here love cars, and I think more than a few of like to drive old big cars we could never afford new, and by working on and servicing them ourselves we can just about run them. I know as it stands the changes won't affect us too much, yet.

Anan1

stratos wrote: »

Irelands co2 emmisions by cars is insignificant on a global scale so all this is ridiculous anyway.

I'm intrigued, please continue!

Del2005

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm intrigued, please continue!

You think a country of ~4millon people with ~1millon cars is going to make a big difference as a country of ~1billon people and millons of cars. 1 Chinese power station properly causes as much pollution as our whole country.

On TopGear of some other BBC show last year they said that if England stopped producing CO2 tomorrow, China would have exceeded the reduction in 2 days. So all our turning off lights and buying green cars isn't going to make the slightiest difference if the big polluters don't change.

Anan1

Del2005 wrote: »

You think a country of ~4millon people with ~1millon cars is going to make a big difference as a country of ~1billon people and millons of cars. 1 Chinese power station properly causes as much pollution as our whole country.

On TopGear of some other BBC show last year they said that if England stopped producing CO2 tomorrow, China would have exceeded the reduction in 2 days. So all our turning off lights and buying green cars isn't going to make the slightiest difference if the big polluters don't change.

And if everybody follows this reasoning?

ninty9er

Anan1 wrote: »

And if everybody follows this reasoning?

Beat me to it....if we don't produce as much CO2, the government doesn't have to buy carbon credits for us, therefore our (your) tax yoyos can be spent on stuff that actually benefits people in THIS country

Del2005

Anan1 wrote: »

And if everybody follows this reasoning?

I was just answering your intrigue.

ninty9er wrote: »

Beat me to it....if we don't produce as much CO2, the government doesn't have to buy carbon credits for us, therefore our (your) tax yoyos can be spent on stuff that actually benefits people in THIS country

And you think that the goverment actually give a damn about this. If they did they would have forced the Energy rating of homes through years ago instead of waiting for the builders to say when it was OK. They could install scrubbers on all our power stations. Why not get the cows to wear nappies, they produce methane which is much a more powerful greenhouse gas then CO2. The goverment could have made laws years ago to reduce our greenhouse gas emmissions but didn't. And if we do reduce our greenhouse gas emmissions do you actually believe that the goverment would spend it on benefiting the country, hell they've thrown billons at health and it's worst now then ever.

stratos

I couldn't have put it better myself. I still don't under stand why these taxes affect the less well off more. wealthy people create far more co2 then the average joe.

Also this will just increase the snob value of the 4 litre petrol suv bought after June next year. Next years must have. can't have the plumber driving around in an s class Mercedes.

Esel thank you for improving the quality of my posts .

cancan

I think everyone is missing the point - these taxes, as with all taxes are about revenue generation.

You think they really give one ****e about co2 levels?

They don't care what you drive as long as you are paying your taxes.

Otherwise there would have been a tax on use, not on parking a car in your
drive.

Think about it - they have vrt'd, nct'd road taxed, policed and tolled for all their worth and the motorist has not even said boo.
They provided a crap road network in return, for all those lovely taxes.

Easy money!

Someone has to pay for an overpaid and inept civil service.

Robbo

stratos wrote: »

If these taxes effected rich and normal people equally I wouldn't mind so much. Whats 2000 pounds a year to run a range rover if you earn 300,00 Euros a year. its different if you earn 30,000 euros a year.

I can't imagine it being to different, barring the odd misplaced comma...

randomer

My issue with the new tax regime is that it moves away from the polluter pays principle.

I personally drive a "fuel efficient" car which is on the lower scale of the CO2 bands.

The taxes are based on the emissions that a car is capable of emitting, rather than the actual amount of CO2 that a car produces.

Many people drive fuel efficient cars during the week as their daily car, but have a second car as a fun car, or have a high performance car and have a low annual mileage.

If someone drives 50,000 miles in a fuel efficient diesel or petrol car they will emit a lot more CO2 into the air, than someone who drives a high performance car at the weekends, but only drives about 5,000 miles per year.

But the weekend car will cost €2,000 to tax, and the car emitting the most CO2 could cost €200 per year? This goes against the green party’s principle of the polluter pays.

The person with the two cars then needs to make a choice. If they like their "weekend" car and are going to have to pay €2,000 in road tax, does this become the daily driver? If so, then they will be producing a lot more CO2, but paying the same amount of tax?

If you stick with the Green Parties published principles, the only "fair" solution is to eliminate road tax altogether and add a new tax to fuel. After all, your car can't produce CO2 without fuel, can it?

Owen

ninty9er wrote: »

Beat me to it....if we don't produce as much CO2, the government doesn't have to buy carbon credits for us, therefore our (your) tax yoyos can be spent on stuff that actually benefits people in THIS country

Like Bertie's makeup, or Biffo's collagen? Don't even get me started on Harney's KFC tab ...

unkel

Could not agree more with randomer's post...

stratos

yes I agree totally with randomer too.
though what a joy it would be to drive something with a bit of go all week, however apart from drainning me of cash on a weekly basis, the potholed roads out my way would soon pulverise it.
apologies for the misplaced commer( joke for the oldies ), er I meant comma.:)

HJL

randomer wrote: »

Many people drive fuel efficient cars during the week as their daily car, but have a second car as a fun car, or have a high performance car and have a low annual mileage.

I agree with randomer too, i just highlighted a portion of it though.
I had plans of buying a VW Corrado which more than likely would come from NI/UK to get a clean one or have more choice etc. But this new system really kills my plans. Im not rich and i can only really look at cars like Corrado's and simular motors now that they are older and are at a purchase price that i can justify spending. But if in two years i have already spend in and around what i paid for the car on road tax, well thats just a bit crazy.

And another point that i heard on the radio lately, cars in Ireland only produce 1% or 2% [im open to correction here, but it is a low figure] of CO2 here. Where as the biggest coal burning electricty station here pumps out 40% of Irelands CO2 alone, now of all the windmills around [there are a good few around donegal anyway] they only put in like less than 1% to the national grid, so to me the all round solution is to follow France's footsteps and go nuclear. Clean and effictive. Lower emissions and leave the motorists alone. IMO

stratos

most of my original questions here have not been addressed.

Diesels spew out particulate matter.

Soot to you and me our insignificant co2 emissions will be down but our lungs will be choked and our buildings blackened.

I think a lot people don't realise what these new co2 taxes mean there may be a backlash yet.

I wonder if like Betie we may get a "dig out"

stratos

anyone for asthma ?

E92

Irelands emissions amount to 7 seconds on a 24 hour clock, according to Brian Cowen(who then goes and brags about this years budget being so green). I think the word for that is called hippocracy(sorry my spelling is rubbish).

stratos

Well I think its a really cynical tax allowed to give the greens some credibility.

I have already begun to think about the loopholes, can you convert your x5 to lpg and claim its green.

I bet there will be loads of loopholes and schemes dreamt up by our brightest. like O leary and his taxi. I can't wait.

This time next year I could be driving an 6 litre mustang for 27 cents tax a year through some loophole.

I'll add a toy electric motor a pp3 battery and claim its dual fuel !!!!

mick.fr

Well anyway it has been proven and calculated that all combined human CO2 emissions in the world represents 3% of the total CO2 produced.

Seas, animal, vegetal activities are making all the rest.
For sure human activities are adding extra CO2 into the atmosphere and it does affects the Ozone thing etc.

But should not we look at other alternatives instead of focusing on just those 3% ? That might be less painful for the tax payers. But as we know, taxes on CO2 is also another stream of revenue for taxes offices.