New VRT system shambles...

Beta Ray Bill

Cyrus wrote: »

i find your post nauseating, myopic and selfish

i couldnt care less with the vast majority of people need or do, the point is the system as it stands is not equitable and not proportional, if the aim is the tax the polluter then that is what they should do,

whats your problem, you come across as very bitter

+1

The very Idea of the System is to penalize those who cause the most pollution. This System does NOT do that. Simple.

Zube

grahambo wrote: »

The very Idea of the System is to penalize those who cause the most pollution. This System does NOT do that. Simple.

Not really. The idea was to move from the previous idiotic system based on engine capacity to something which reflected efficiency and emissions a bit better, without losing revenue or throwing the whole system out. Overall, the new system does that (except for road tax on imports).

Obviously a better system to tax polluters would be to dump vrt and road tax, and put a CO2 based tax on oil/gas/petrol and fossil-fuel based electricity instead. This would cause screams of anguish from the actual polluters though, much easier to tinker with VRT and road taxes.

VRT also has an element of luxury/wealth/envy tax to it, which the typical Irish begrudger likes to see.

Biro

grahambo wrote: »

+1

The very Idea of the System is to penalize those who cause the most pollution. This System does NOT do that. Simple.

In reality that doesn't work. Economics are complicated. Tax the pollutor proportionately - that would lead to truckers making a loss, not profit, that only scratches the surface of every ship and plane in the world, industries, power stations, dwelling houses etc. You do that you criple the economy and as a result NO ONE drives a boxter or 911 or whatever, cause it'd cost quarter of a million to make and a hundred grand to ship it here.

Beta Ray Bill

Zube wrote: »

Obviously a better system to tax polluters would be to dump vrt and road tax, and put a CO2 based tax on oil/gas/petrol and fossil-fuel based electricity instead. This would cause screams of anguish from the actual polluters though, much easier to tinker with VRT and road taxes.

Exactly what is needed... the more you burn... the more you pay
Simple and fair.

Biro wrote: »

In reality that doesn't work. Economics are complicated. Tax the pollutor proportionately - that would lead to truckers making a loss, not profit, that only scratches the surface of every ship and plane in the world, industries, power stations, dwelling houses etc. You do that you criple the economy and as a result NO ONE drives a boxter or 911 or whatever, cause it'd cost quarter of a million to make and a hundred grand to ship it here.

I take your point. But we are talking about road cars here.. not ships and planes. But its not right that the people not causing the pollution are paying for it. My Mother drives EVERYWHERE I would say she puts out more CO2 than me, my sister, my father and my gf put togethor! but she pays a tiny amount of tax..... that is wrong. In my opinion thats worse than the old system. at least the old system equates to the value of your car. this system equates to nothing.

The truck drivers are getting a hard deal at the mo I agree but at the same time don't they get the VAT back on all their expenses? And the new Trucks out there are exceptionally Economical! I don't know why they are kicking and screaming about fuel prices etc. But thats Off Topic

pburns

Cyrus wrote: »

if the aim is the tax the polluter then that is what they should do,

whats your problem, you come across as very bitter

grahambo wrote: »

The very Idea of the System is to penalize those who cause the most pollution. This System does NOT do that. Simple.

There seems to an assumption implanted in your minds that the new VRT/tax system is purely an environmental charge. This is a very simplistic interpretation. As zube pointed out the idea was to move from the previous capacity-based system to something which better reflects emissions.

The new system is a practical step in that direction and brings us in line with other juristictions. It is also a concession to the Green coalition patners. Two birds, one stone.

Having a taxation system based purely on emissions/environmental impact is some way off. There are far too many economic and social factors to make it a practical proposition for a government that wants to be re-elected.

As from being 'bitter', well I'm going to refrain from getting into a slagging match...

Cyrus wrote: »

i couldnt care less with the vast majority of people need or do

grahambo wrote: »

And the new Trucks out there are exceptionally Economical! I don't know why they are kicking and screaming about fuel prices etc.

:rolleyes: Let them eat cake!

Cyrus

pburns wrote: »

As from being 'bitter', well I'm going to refrain from getting into a slagging match...

refrain from getting into a slagging match, after slagging people off

good man take the higher ground :rolleyes:

Beta Ray Bill

pburns wrote: »

The new system is a practical step in that direction and brings us in line with other jurisdictions (Corrected that for ya).

What jurisdictions?

I'm not Bitter pburns but if you REALLY think this is a practical step forward then you clearly are benefiting from the change... and thats fair enough, things have swung the way you wanted, I'd be happy too if I benefited from the VRT change, even if I knew I got lucky. But for you to come here and say "it's a practical step forward" is ridiculous. It's basically dashed any hopes of anyone owning a new sports car in this country (which up to 2 months ago were expensive but just affordable) unless you are very rich.

Examples:
S2000's
RX8's
STI's
Evolution's
350Z
Etc Etc Etc (The List goes On)

You wont see those cars (new) in this country anymore. And its a damn shame. we're all going to be stuck driving around in boring diesels. You should live in the UK for a while, and see all the nice cars they have... stupid really.

Biro

grahambo wrote: »

The truck drivers are getting a hard deal at the mo I agree but at the same time don't they get the VAT back on all their expenses? And the new Trucks out there are exceptionally Economical! I don't know why they are kicking and screaming about fuel prices etc. But thats Off Topic

It's still based on the value of the car, the percentage is just determined a different way. I think it's stupid that a 400bhp €70,000 18mpg car pays the same tax as a €25,000 140bhp 50mpg car, the new way makes more sense. I'd rather the 400bhp car, make no mistake, but I can't understand how you could justify it paying the same as the 140bhp one. €2,000 is excessive, but that's a different matter.
And 6 miles to the gallon for a truck is hardly exceptionally economical! It might be doing a huge amount of work for that fuel used, but it still has to be filled up regularly.

ismynametoolong

The new VRT system is quite clearly an idiotic system presented by Dan Boyle and John Gormley and accepted by Bertie and Cowen during their negotations for government.This system will and is costing the exchequer millions in lost revenue in Vat ,VRT and corporation tax as distributors profits
take a nose dive. I know many people dislike the motor trade but a poorly performing motor industry has a knock on effect on many other industries.
We now have the most draconian CO2 tax system in Europe a system the Swiss gov rejected due to the effect it would have on its overall economy but as i said before we are trail blazers.

Darsad

When a CO2 tax was first muted the gov invited submissions from interested parties and the motor ind put forward a system that could have been easly adopted and would have satisfied all concerns and only changed the prices of cars up or down by a few hundred € as they proposed to implement a CO2 weighting within the then current engine cc bands. The one criteria the Gov expressly mandated was that any change to CO2 tax must be revenue neutral ie no loss in the tax take.Unfortunately we had an election and the rest is history . Shortly after this new system was announced I was speaking to a revenue official who told me they knew nothing of the proposed changes and a child could see they were set to loose millions if not billions and this was the price of
FF getting back into government.

Tipsy Mac

Well it can all be put right at the next elections, many people here voted for said people who make these laws.

Beta Ray Bill

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

Well it can all be put right at the next elections, many people here voted for said people who make these laws.

Bingo

No Greens
No Fiana Fail

pburns

Cyrus wrote: »

refrain from getting into a slagging match, after slagging people off

good man take the higher ground :rolleyes:

Well you've managed to retake the high moral ground with your retort. Nice move. Well done.

grahambo wrote: »

What jurisdictions?

I'm not Bitter pburns but if you REALLY think this is a practical step forward then you clearly are benefiting from the change... and thats fair enough, things have swung the way you wanted, I'd be happy too if I benefited from the VRT change, even if I knew I got lucky. But for you to come here and say "it's a practical step forward" is ridiculous. It's basically dashed any hopes of anyone owning a new sports car in this country (which up to 2 months ago were expensive but just affordable) unless you are very rich.

Examples:
S2000's
RX8's
STI's
Evolution's
350Z
Etc Etc Etc (The List goes On)

You wont see those cars (new) in this country anymore. And its a damn shame. we're all going to be stuck driving around in boring diesels. You should live in the UK for a while, and see all the nice cars they have... stupid really.

Did I benefit from the change? Not really... I made a decision based on the new VRT system. If the old system had been in place I probably would have bought something else. I think the new system rewards efficiency though and that, in broad terms, is a good thing.

I know this is a Motors forum and that's fair enough but we are talking about something that effects the ENTIRE car-buying public - from Yaris' to Kias to Audis and beyond. People here seem to think we should have a specialised system to appease a small coterie of performance car drivers!

The fact is that due to bad planning, an over-cosy relationship between developers and government, whatever...we are stuck on this island with urban sprawl and an underdeveloped public transport system. Not to mention the plight of hauliers, taxi-drivers etc.

So I really want to tear out my hair when I hear these 'ivory tower' comments from low-mileage aspiring performance car enthusiasts who cannot fathom why-o-why we can't just have a CO2-based tax based on fossil-fuel use. Fine in a utopian society where we have other options but politically, socially and economically untenable, as well as naive to the point of hilarity.

Darsad

Fine in a utopian society where we have other options but politically, socially and economically untenable, as well as naive to the point of hilarity.[/quote]

I dont agree this is a country of people who lie down put their legs in the air and accept what ever the gov of the day choose to hand out so a fairer system of polluter pays or taxing usage could have easily been adapted and implemented without much trouble.

The problem this gov now have is that Co2 figures are only going one way and thats down along with their revenue and that means constantly dicking around with the bands to maintain the take and everytime they do that they will further uposet the second hand market.

A lot of manufacturers are now looking at high pressure petrol injection systems which under test are producing 20 - 30 % lower co2 figures and this will only be improved upon in the years ahead.

Cyrus

pburns wrote: »

Well you've managed to retake the high moral ground with your retort. Nice move. Well done.

So I really want to tear out my hair when I hear these 'ivory tower' comments from low-mileage aspiring performance car enthusiasts who cannot fathom why-o-why we can't just have a CO2-based tax based on fossil-fuel use. Fine in a utopian society where we have other options but politically, socially and economically untenable, as well as naive to the point of hilarity.

on point one, thanks so much, means a lot :rolleyes:

point 2, your condescension is just wonderful. personally i am not an aspiring performance car enthusiast, i am one with the performance car to match. Oh and guess what i do have a city pad and am a low mileage driver. so why should i be punished under a system that purports to penalise polluters when i dont pollute that much relative to someone who drives to work every day.

its not any more politically untenable than the current farce which has almost destroyed the second hand car market and its not socially or economically untenable (the brits seem able to bear higher fuel costs ok).

nope the only thing wrong is that it doesnt suit YOU, and thats why you insult a certain group of people and argue your own agenda.

gixerfixer

grahambo wrote: »

+1

The very Idea of the System is to penalize those who cause the most pollution. This System does NOT do that. Simple.

I think you need to sit down and have a look over the figures again.The fools who dont give a toss about the planet ARE being penalized.If you own a big Suv or sports car etc...the system DOES do that.Simple.Get with the future and get a low emissions car and stop feeling sorry for the soccer mums with the big X5 and the mid life crisis bloke with the porsche

Cyrus

gixerfixer wrote: »

I think you need to sit down and have a look over the figures again.The fools who dont give a toss about the planet ARE being penalized.If you own a big Suv or sports car etc...the system DOES do that.Simple.Get with the future and get a low emissions car and stop feeling sorry for the soccer mums with the big X5 and the mid life crisis bloke with the porsche

ok einstein, explain to me this, how does a porsche that does say 4000 miles a year pollute more than say a boggo diesel audi a4 that does 20,000 miles a year.

i think you need to engage your brain and actually think about the point being made

gixerfixer

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

Well it can all be put right at the next elections, many people here voted for said people who make these laws.

Wont make a dot of difference.Low emissions is the way forward in every country for the future. In essence the day of the high emissions car is over. Over time the high emissions cars will be fazed out and you will only see the super rich driving around in your Evo's and likes.

gixerfixer

Cyrus wrote: »

ok einstein, explain to me this, how does a porsche that does say 4000 miles a year pollute more than say a boggo diesel audi a4 that does 20,000 miles a year.

i think you need to engage your brain and actually think about the point being made

Ok.No need for insults.Mile per mile which car is worse for the planet (lower emissions)? I rest my case

Cyrus

there was no insult, merely a request, that looks like it has been ignored :rolleyes:

obviousley mile for mile a porsche will pollute more, but thats not the point, before its driven a mile the tax is 2k, yet the fella paying 150 quid a year in his 520d is polluting to high heavens doing 30k a year.

so the polluter isnt being penalised.

Cyrus

gixerfixer wrote: »

Ok.No need for insults.Mile per mile which car is worse for the planet (lower emissions)? I rest my case

oh and on that point, due to the manufacturing process a prius causes the enviroment more harm than a hummer before its even driven.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

maidhc

Cyrus wrote: »

ok einstein, explain to me this, how does a porsche that does say 4000 miles a year pollute more than say a boggo diesel audi a4 that does 20,000 miles a year.

i think you need to engage your brain and actually think about the point being made

I don't think the economy is ready for the model you are proposing. We have thousands of people who actually use their "boggo" a4 for business and other purposes which can be classed as necessary (e.g. rural people bringing children to school etc). For you the M3 is, a luxury. You could make do with a Corolla.

Taxing people on luxury items is inherently sensible. There is more to tax than the environment, even an idiot knows that.

Cyrus

maidhc wrote: »

I don't think the economy is ready for the model you are proposing. We have thousands of people who actually use their "boggo" a4 for business and other purposes which can be classed as necessary (e.g. rural people bringing children to school etc). For you the M3 is, a luxury. You could make do with a Corolla.

Taxing people on luxury items is inherently sensible. There is more to tax than the environment, even an idiot knows that.

well the economy wasnt ready for the model they implemented either, so whats your point?

My point is, if there is a system designed to tax the polluter, it should do as it purports to do, but it doesnt, its completely disproportional.

i know there is more to tax than the enviroment but again that wasnt the reasoning used for the change in the tax system was it?

the point is, the people buying new porsches are already contributing more to the exchequer than most anyway, this crap of a luxury tax is the usual irish begrudgery.

Anyway, why do you class an m3 as a luxury, mine was secondhand and cost me about the same or even less as new a4 2.0tdi? its just a choice?

maidhc

Cyrus wrote: »

the point is, the people buying new porsches are already contributing more to the exchequer than most anyway, this crap of a luxury tax is the usual irish begrudgery

No it isn't. The wealthy should pay more tax. It is how most fair societies work and isn't begrudgery.

Of course a hole is going to appear in the VRT and motor tax take. And we will see increases in the cost of fuel. Thus people will get what they wanted, more of the tax being shifted from annual/once of taxation and onto pay as you use taxation.

What we have now is a ssytem which penalises expensive/thirsty/polluting cars and benefits small thrifty ones. This seems sensible, although as a car fanatic I would rather it be not the case.

At least we can still tax a V8 for €46 a year if we are willing to buy an old one, and this keeps me happy.

Cyrus wrote: »

Anyway, why do you class an m3 as a luxury, mine was secondhand and cost me about the same or even less as new a4 2.0tdi? its just a choice?

Because you don't need it? You chose to pay the (extremely high) tax that comes with the car. You didn't have to. As you said it is a choice, and nothing wrong with it at all. But a mother with a car full of children has more of a need for a TDI than you do an M3.

pburns

Cyrus wrote: »

i couldnt care less with the vast majority of people need or do

Yep, that's about the size of it:rolleyes:...

Cyrus wrote: »

on point one, thanks so much, means a lot :rolleyes:

point 2, your condescension is just wonderful. personally i am not an aspiring performance car enthusiast, i am one with the performance car to match. Oh and guess what i do have a city pad and am a low mileage driver. so why should i be punished under a system that purports to penalise polluters when i dont pollute that much relative to someone who drives to work every day.

its not any more politically untenable than the current farce which has almost destroyed the second hand car market and its not socially or economically untenable (the brits seem able to bear higher fuel costs ok).

nope the only thing wrong is that it doesnt suit YOU, and thats why you insult a certain group of people and argue your own agenda.

Actually, I do considerably less than 15,000 miles a year in total so you're totally incorrect in assuming I am arguing to suit myself or have a vested interest. It's pretty rich throwing that argument at me though. The 'tax-the-polluter' system you are so valiantly championing would suit YOU! In fact it would be tailor made for you! So get off your high-horse and take a look in the mirror before accusing someone else of having a self-serving agenda.

At the end of the day whether or not you buy a performance/high-CO2-emitting car is, for you, a lifestyle choice. You pay yer monies and shut-the-feck-up. Many people, in fact the majority of people are not living in a middle-class urban bubble with Dart, taxi and bus services on their doorstep and do not have this luxury. Are they the ones that should be penalised just so a small percentage can live out their automotive fantasies?

Cyrus wrote: »

My point is, if there is a system designed to tax the polluter, it should do as it purports to do, but it doesnt, its completely disproportional.

I know there is more to tax than the enviroment...

No I don't think you do!!!! You're just repeating this flawed 'tax-the-polluter, tax-the-polluter' mantra because (ironically) if implemented in the way you propose it would suit your particular circumstances :rolleyes:

MSporty

They should tax hot air aswell while they're at it!!

Zube

Cyrus wrote: »

My point is, if there is a system designed to tax the polluter, it should do as it purports to do, but it doesnt, its completely disproportional.?

Quite right, but nothing to do with VRT or motor tax, as I said earlier.

You seem to be under the impression that the changes to VRT were supposed to make it into a perfect carbon tax, but if so, you're the only one who is. It's just a minor shift from the idiotic cc based system to a slightly less idiotic system based on CO2 (which means average fuel consumption, really).

As for this being the end of sports cars in Ireland, get a grip. Take the Subaru Impreza Sti: the VRT change means what, a 10% rise in the sticker price? Road tax going from €1K to €2K? That's not going to stop people buying them.

Beta Ray Bill

If the TAX isn't about "Save the Planet" why was it changed in the first place?

Of course its all about that Green Crap.

You guys are also saying "Luxury" Items should be heavily taxed.

so lets compare:
Mazda mx5 (1.8)
BMW 5 series Diesel (520d)

which is more Luxurious???? I think everyone will agree the BMW is.
now... which is taxed heavier???? The Little sports car is (BAND E).
And there are many more examples

So Please don't give me any of that crap about the "fair" taxation luxury items The BMW cost €15000 more the Mazda (A Car for MR RICH) who now doesn't have to pay High tax as is car falls into band B.

YET ANOTHER case of the rich getting richer and the average Joe having to pay for it. Its an absolute disgrace!

Beta Ray Bill

Zube wrote: »

As for this being the end of sports cars in Ireland, get a grip. Take the Subaru Impreza Sti: the VRT change means what, a 10% rise in the sticker price? Road tax going from €1K to €2K? That's not going to stop people buying them.

tax was €540 euro (approx) now is €2000

thats a 400% Hike... it's put me off buying an Evo X

People WILL stop buying them.

L-M

grahambo wrote: »

tax was €540 euro (approx) now is €2000

thats a 400% Hike... it's put me off buying an Evo X

People WILL stop buying them.

Hardly, if u can afford an Evo as a daily driver in the first place, a few quid extra on tax isn't going to stop the majority. All it will stop is the people who can just barely scrape the price of one (which i would imagine there aren't too many). Likewise with anything that 2k tax, alot of these are high end, and if someone is will to pay 60, 70, 80K +++ for a car, tax isn't going to be of a worry to them, nor emission, nor fuel costs.