Why pay VAT and VRT on safety features in new cars.

JHMEG

craichoe wrote: »

Bread, Milk and Butter aren't taxed as their basic staple foods.

What!?!? Shoes for children must be optional as they are taxed.

Prescription medicines are taxed, in addition to a 100% markup levied by the pharmacist to subsidise Medical Card holders (in agreement with the then govt), so must also be very optional!

colm_mcm

As cars progress, safety equipment is increasing, there's no point in dissecting every car out there and ruling what's a safety feature and what isn't. aboloshing VAT or VRT isn't a workable option. What if a manufacturer says standard ESP is worth €5k and 9 airbags are worth €2k. how do you put a price on standard equipment?

astraboy

colm_mcm wrote: »

As cars progress, safety equipment is increasing, there's no point in dissecting every car out there and ruling what's a safety feature and what isn't. aboloshing VAT or VRT isn't a workable option. What if a manufacturer says standard ESP is worth €5k and 9 airbags are worth €2k. how do you put a price on standard equipment?

Its not that hard really. Manufacturers offer ESP as an option. Don't put vrt on the price of the option. If its a standard feature then a price comparison or basic rebate could be given. Either way, taxing people not only once(VAT) but twice(VRT) on something that may save their lives, or the lives of others, is a disgrace.

Anyway, the small amount of revenue lost would be made up by the reduction in accidents or the reduction in the severity of accidents and injuries. How much does it cost the state and the economy if someone is off work for 6 months after a crash? Never mind a long term injury. I'm not saying this is the silver bullet to reduce road deaths, but safer cars are one tool in reducing our road deaths. No doubt the Gov will still be spouting the speed kills card in years to come and not looking at basic simple ideas like this.

colm_mcm

How many lives will be saved by a few new cars registered in say the next 4 years having ESP (It'll prob be standard on pretty much everything by then) how many accidents in Ireland could be prevented by ESP. It's not gonna stop people from drink driving, overtaking into oncoming traffic, not paying attention and rear ending a line of stopped traffic, it's not gonna make people turn their lights on in bad weather, it's not gonna make people drive at an appropriate speed.
ESP only has a limited function in a small percentage of potential crashes. I'm all for safety, but this repetitive argument for not taxing safety features is ridiculous.


VRT is a tax based on the accepted value of a car. VAT is a tax that goes on sale of goods. Simple. This idea is nonsense. If we want to reduce road deaths, we need to focus on the drivers rather than the cars.

astraboy

colm_mcm wrote: »

How many lives will be saved by a few new cars registered in say the next 4 years having ESP (It'll prob be standard on pretty much everything by then) how many accidents in Ireland could be prevented by ESP. It's not gonna stop people from drink driving, overtaking into oncoming traffic, not paying attention and rear ending a line of stopped traffic, it's not gonna make people turn their lights on in bad weather, it's not gonna make people drive at an appropriate speed.
ESP only has a limited function in a small percentage of potential crashes. I'm all for safety, but this repetitive argument for not taxing safety features is ridiculous.


VRT is a tax based on the accepted value of a car. VAT is a tax that goes on sale of goods. Simple. This idea is nonsense. If we want to reduce road deaths, we need to focus on the drivers rather than the cars.

Honestly, I agree with most of what you said. Driver training is a huge issue with me and I think we need far far more of it. Of course ESP won't prevent a guy falling out of a pup and driving into a wall. It is, as I said, a tool that would help prevent, avoid or reduce the effect of a crash. Combined with other safety features it could make a genuine impact on road safety into the future. I was merely using ESP as an example. I just fail to see why we should be taxed twice on aspects that can save lives. The Gov spouts plenty about speed cameras etc.

Removing taxes on these would simply make the features, or the cars they are on, more accessible to more people. Nothing ridiculously about that really. No, it won't prevent road deaths overnight, but no one solution will, the key to reducing crashes is to use every available solution as best we can. driver training, better roads, safer cars, more cops on the roads.

colm_mcm

Isn't VRT paying for better roads and more cops on the roads? surely reducing VRT will have a negative impact on the country's tax take and ultimately the safety on the roads?

javaboy

colm_mcm wrote: »

ESP only has a limited function in a small percentage of potential crashes. I'm all for safety, but this repetitive argument for not taxing safety features is ridiculous.

Fair enough but to quote a well known supermarket/petrol station/mortgage lender/phone company/taker over of worlds chain:

"Every little helps"

E92

The danger with all the safety features is that people will think that the electronic gadgets will save them if they do anything wrong and they will pay less attention to driving and drive more carelessly.

As for whether people will pay for safety features, I'd say certainly not, you only have to look at the number of Corolla Versos, Mk1 Avensis, previous generation Corolla and Yaris to see that they won't.

In the case of all bar the Yaris, Toyotas across the pond were fitted with more airbags than here, e.g. 4 for Mk1 Avensis, only 2 here, Corolla Verso has only 5, in the UK it has 9, previous generation Corolla had 4 in the UK and only 2 here initially, then when it got it's facelift we got 4 and they got 8, and only the top spec of any of these had the same amount of airbags that was standard on bottom of the range versions across the pond, and look at how many people bought the base spec of these.

The Yaris only gives you curtain airbags when you go for the top of the range Luna and Sol models, and look at how many Yarises sold here are Terra and Strata models.

Same goes for the Avensis, the biggest seller by a mile is the 1.6 litre engine, and there was no stability control, traction control or brake assist that is standard on all other versions until this year.

It's not just Toyota, others are at this game too, and it doesn't affect their sales either(e.g. Golf, A3 etc).

astraboy

colm_mcm wrote: »

Isn't VRT paying for better roads and more cops on the roads? surely reducing VRT will have a negative impact on the country's tax take and ultimately the safety on the roads?

AAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA . You can't be serious? VRT, paying for better roads?! Get real. The best roads in the country are all being build using public/private partnerships and are tolled.

Anan1

Let's be honest here, the whole VRT on safety equipment argument is bullsh1t. If you want the largest possible number of people possible to benefit from, say, ESP there is only one way - make it mandatory on all new cars. Tax has nothing to do with it.

astraboy

Anan1 wrote: »

Let's be honest here, the whole VRT on safety equipment argument is bullsh1t. If you want the largest possible number of people possible to benefit from, say, ESP there is only one way - make it mandatory on all new cars. Tax has nothing to do with it.

Tax has plenty to do with it. Your taxing a safety feature twice, how is that reasonable. Charge Vat on it fine. Anyway everyone is using ESP as an example, what about extra air bags, etc? Making a safety feature like ESP mandatory would be difficult as many manufacturers use different safety systems. How can you reasonably say making safer cars more favorable is "Bull****". Nice attitude.

Anan1

astraboy wrote: »

How can you reasonably say making safer cars more favorable is "Bull****". Nice attitude.

Where did I say that?

astraboy

Anan1 wrote: »

Where did I say that?

Meant to say affordable sorry! But if the Gov insists on putting extra tax on things that are bad for us, surely the other side of this would be reductions in terms of stuff that is good for the general population. Thats my main point really, sorry if I'm repeating myself.

Anan1

astraboy wrote: »

Meant to say affordable sorry! But if the Gov insists on putting extra tax on things that are bad for us, surely the other side of this would be reductions in terms of stuff that is good for the general population. Thats my main point really, sorry if I'm repeating myself.

Like bicycles?;)

astraboy

Anan1 wrote: »

Like bicycles?;)

I suppose! Someone memtioned Gym membership back earlier and i thought it would be great to remove VAT on it! However you know people will take advantage somehow!