Motor Tax on old cars cost almost as much as the car!

kuro_man

I have a 13 year old Merc 3 litre estate diesel. It was cheap to buy, has 7 seats, does 35mpg easily, and only 8000 miles/year.
Motor tax is €1,231 per annum, meaning the purchase price of the car will be repaid every few years. Over the last 13 years, it has paid €14,000 in motor tax alone.

I have written to Mr Gormley suggestion the road tax should be 1/3rd the rate for car over 10 years old. I have made the following points:
- Cost would be tiny; number of cars in question is very small
- Larger unstressed engines last longer, but attract higher taxes
- Taxes based on CC are punitive and unfair
- Keeping a car as long as possible is good for the environment.
- Not everyone can afford to buy a low-CO2 7 seater (unless its awful!)
- This measure will help those on low incomes who are more likely to drive older cars
- Money keeping older cars is mostly spent in the local economy. Buying new cars sends large amounts of money out of the country
- it will make it more viable to retain potentially classic cars, protection our motoring heritage.

If anyone agrees, join the campaign! Please write a similar letter/e-mail to Mr. Gormley. His email address is john.gormley@oireachtas.ie

Guy:Incognito

kuro_man wrote: »

I have a 13 year old Merc 3 litre estate diesel. It was cheap to buy, has 7 seats, does 35mpg easily, and only 8000 miles/year.
Motor tax is €1,231 per annum, meaning the purchase price of the car will be repaid every few years. Over the last 13 years, it has paid €14,000 in motor tax alone.

How long have you had the car? Is this a rant because you blindly bought a car without checkign the tax rate?

kuro_man wrote: »

I have written to Mr Gormley suggestion the road tax should be 1/3rd the rate for car over 10 years old. I have made the following points:

You've written to the man who brought in a new system to get people out of older bigger cars and into newer , more efficient ones to ask him to encourage people into older , bigger cars by reducing tax?

kuro_man wrote: »

- Taxes based on CC are punitive and unfair:

This has been changed from now on.

kuro_man wrote: »

- Not everyone can afford to buy a low-CO2 7 seater (unless its awful!):

But said people can afford €1200 a year in tax? Nobody forces you to drive a 3 litre car. You chose to and take the associated charges.




-

kuro_man wrote: »

- This measure will help those on low incomes who are more likely to drive older cars!

Why do people on low incomes need 3 litre cars?

kuro_man wrote: »

it will make it more viable to retain potentially classic cars, protection our motoring heritage.!

Old Mercs are Irelands motoring heritage?

Seth Brundle

Stekelly wrote: »

You've written to the man who brought in a new system to get people out of older bigger cars and into newer , more efficient ones to ask him to encourage people into older , bigger cars by reducing tax?

In fairness, people should be encouraged to keep old cars instead of this "keep up with the Jones" attitude and further depleting natural resources.

Stekelly wrote: »

This has been changed from now on.

Not on cars that are already registered here![/quote]

Stekelly

Stekelly wrote: »

Why do people on low incomes need 3 litre cars?

clearly when its costs more to tax a car annually than to buy it things are silly.
Whats your problem with big engines? Its better for the environment to hold onto cars for longer. Plenty of fine cars going to the scrap yard because they are simply old.

galwaytt

Stekelly wrote: »

But said people can afford €1200 a year in tax? Nobody forces you to drive a 3 litre car. You chose to and take the associated charges.......why do people on low incomes need 3 litre cars?

You're completely missing the point: he bought a cheap, safe, economical car with 7 seats, obviously for kids/etc.. It just happens to have a 3 litre engine. I dare say if he'd come across it in 2.0, he'd have bought that.........except Merc never made one....

Where does it say he is 'low income' ? Define 'low income'.

And even if he's a frickin millionaire, he's still right to complain, and he's not obliged buy shiny new unreliable ****boxes that are built just to appease Gormley & Co. Remember, a new Galaxy 2.0 still costs 1k p.a. to tax under the new regime - and that, tbh, is a tax on families. They'd rather you run 2 x 150g cars than 1 x 197 car. Oh yes, that's so blindingly environmentally friendly....:rolleyes: And I'm not including that 2 x cars use more juice than one, and that 2 x new cars have a huge C02 impact by dint of their manufacture.

A 13 year old car has had it's C02 footprinted long evaporated, and, for every minute it runs, it saves tonnes - not grammes -of C02 emitted by dint of not requiring a squeaky new 'clean' one to be built to replace it.

I agree, once cars reach 10 years, there should be a sliding scale downwards on tax, to incentivise people to NOT buy a new one, at a huge cost to the environment. Engine size doesn't even come into it.

Reduce (not so many, new...)
Reuse (keep old ones running, longer)
Recycle (at end of it's use to you, don't scrap it......let someone else use it, whether for vehicle or parts for their own....)

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle ? Don't make me laugh - con job of the year, esp when the minister(s) went out and bought both Lexus' and A8's inside the last few weeks........:mad:


It'll be interesting to see if Cowan allows the low car tax bands and low VRT rates to remain after Oct 14th - Gormally handed away millions in lost revenue, and in the current climate, it won't take a genius to eye up the recoupment possibilities........

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

clearly when its costs more to tax a car annually than to buy it things are silly.

A quick root around carzone will find a car cheaper than every tax bracket.

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats your problem with big engines? .

Where didI say I had a problem with big engines. I drove a 2.5 up till recently. I didnt whinge about the cost of the tax though. I knew what it was before I bought it.

Guy:Incognito

galwaytt wrote: »

Where does it say he is 'low income' ? Define 'low income'.
.

The low income part was the next answer I gave. He mentioned people on low incomes

galwaytt wrote: »

You're completely missing the point: he bought a cheap, safe, economical car with 7 seats, obviously for kids/etc.. It just happens to have a 3 litre engine. I dare say if he'd come across it in 2.0, he'd have bought that.........except Merc never made one.....

Why does it have to be a Merc and /or 3litre? The tax rates are there for all to see. People can make their buyign choice with that in mind. Theres no after purchase surprises here.

10-10-20

I'm happily driving an 11 year old Alfa.
CO and MPG? Poor, I'm sure.

With all of the energy which goes into the production of a new car, I'm sure it works out better.

galwaytt

10-10-20 wrote: »

I'm happily driving an 11 year old Alfa.
CO and MPG? Poor, I'm sure.

With all of the energy which goes into the production of a new car, I'm sure it works out better.

++1 on that.

Guy:Incognito

galwaytt wrote: »

They'd rather you run 2 x 150g cars than 1 x 197 car. Oh yes, that's so blindingly environmentally friendly....:rolleyes: And I'm not including that 2 x cars use more juice than one, and that 2 x new cars have a huge C02 impact by dint of their manufacture.

theres plenty of other 7 seater sin lower brackets. The S-max being one.The 1.8 tdci is in the €430 brackets.


The people who buy new cars are not the same people who buy 13 year old mercs so encouraging people to buy 10yr old+ cars is not goign to reduce the amount of new cars anyway.

To use the Galaxy as an example theres plenty of older 1.9d and 2.0 petrols that would have fit the bill just fine. The OP bought a 3 litre car knowing how much the tax was. If the cost was too high, the simple answer is to buy something that costs less to tax.

If the current system was more in favour of big engined new cars would you all be on here tellign people not to buy a new big engines car but stick to your old 1.2 supermini because it's better for the environment? Or does it suit your current situation/future ambitions to whinge and moan about old bigger cars and you couldnt really give a toss that keeping an older car on the road is better for the environment ?

FWIW my current car , if new would be in the €2000 tax bracket and I dont care about the environment. I will probably buy a newer diesel in a couple of years but it will be a purely financial decision on my part (assumign it's still cheaper)

Magown3

Stekelly wrote: »

theres plenty of other 7 seater sin lower brackets. The S-max being one.The 1.8 tdci is in the €430 brackets.

I didn't know you could buy an S-Max 1.8 TDCI for only €430!! :rolleyes:

I think you're missing the point of the op.

Guy:Incognito

Magown3 wrote: »

I didn't know you could buy an S-Max 1.8 TDCI for only €430!! :rolleyes:

.

If your going to be smart, at least let it make sense.

Magown3 wrote: »

I think you're missing the point of the op.

His only point is that he doesnt want to pay so much tax.

I'd love to pay 5% income tax. It's not going to happen though.

robbie99

kuro_man wrote: »

- Keeping a car as long as possible is good for the environment.

kuro_man wrote: »

- Money keeping older cars is mostly spent in the local economy. Buying new cars sends large amounts of money out of the country
- it will make it more viable to retain potentially classic cars, protection our motoring heritage.

Eh, there's already a huge incentive in place to keep cars for as long as possible... VRT.

Run_to_da_hills

If the OP can hang on to his prised Merc for another 17 years it will can be taxed as vintage

Currently it is only e36 per year and it will be also NCT exempt

kuro_man

For the record, I have the car almost 2 years. I knew the tax would be high but I wanted the diesel (3L) over petrol (2L, 2.2L) because they are better more efficient engines, last longer and can easily be converted to bio-diesel if it becomes feasible.

(I know there is a 2.5L diesel but they are extremely rare in an estate because it is underpowered)

The simple point is that smaller engines die younger. Large engines, with less stress, last longer - especially diesels. The CC based tax punishes people with larger engines that last. W124 E-class is considered the last of the breed of Mercs built to a quality not a price - it would be sinful scrap such a cars because the government taxes them so highly.

I didn't want to get into debt to buy a younger car, and I don't like MPVs. The merc is lovely to drive and has the best boot ever; it will probably prove to be more reliable than an MPV as well. It's perfect for my family and I intend to keep it until it dies or I die (which ever happens first!).

My proposal was to reduce the motor-tax to 1/3rd on ALL cars over 10 years old, not just those with large engines. This still has me paying over €400, which I think is a fairer amount.

TomMc

robbie99 wrote: »

Eh, there's already a huge incentive in place to keep cars for as long as possible... VRT.

Exactly.

The govt want people buying new cars every few years to maximise on VRT revenue. A car bought for the long haul is a once only payment, they want people changing cars every 2 to 3 years. They can put certain green issues into the mix to give the impression that is what matters most, but there is also a certain element of duplicity going on. If the govt really cared about the environment they would not encourage people to buy five cars when one car would suffice for a say a ten year period. What is happening is if motorists want the new tax rates they are forced to buy new and get stung on VRT. It is swings and roundabouts or a double edged sword. Bottom line it is more about money, not high minded ideals. If they cannot screw us on VRT they will do so on road tax. And they change the rules as they go along and when and where they see fit. Revenue before right-minded values or principles.

TomMc

If the Government had vision and principles, they would scrap VRT (It is illegal afterall), and road tax (or at least leave it as a nominal amount) and put it all on fuel. Then whoever drives the most, in the most uneconomical (environmentally unfriendly) vehicles, pay the most. Simplistic yes, but effective and fair. But no, diddle the motorist, they are an easy target because without a proper public transport system, our personal freedom and having any quality of life kind of depends on one. And we will pay through the nose for doing so and won't fight back. (It should be a right not merely a privilege). We are a soft touch, an easy target, it is a pity we are not a little more like the French.

mike65

Burning sheep wouldn't work I suspect. :pac:

The rest I agree with - "pay as you go"

Mike.

alpina

Talking to our government on this issue is just frustrating & will make you blow up, Gormley does not give a **** about our large engine classic cars.
Just tax mine for the summer, may aswell have thrown the €324 down the toilet this year unless we get a heatwave fefore the end of the month...:rolleyes:

Well that's my Friday rant, apologies.

E92

kuro_man wrote: »

For the record, I have the car almost 2 years. I knew the tax would be high but I wanted the diesel (3L) over petrol (2L, 2.2L) because they are better more efficient engines, last longer and can easily be converted to bio-diesel if it becomes feasible.

(I know there is a 2.5L diesel but they are extremely rare in an estate because it is underpowered)

The simple point is that smaller engines die younger. Large engines, with less stress, last longer - especially diesels. The CC based tax punishes people with larger engines that last. W124 E-class is considered the last of the breed of Mercs built to a quality not a price - it would be sinful scrap such a cars because the government taxes them so highly.

I didn't want to get into debt to buy a younger car, and I don't like MPVs. The merc is lovely to drive and has the best boot ever; it will probably prove to be more reliable than an MPV as well. It's perfect for my family and I intend to keep it until it dies or I die (which ever happens first!).

My proposal was to reduce the motor-tax to 1/3rd on ALL cars over 10 years old, not just those with large engines. This still has me paying over €400, which I think is a fairer amount.

Absolutely. Large engines rarely have to be pushed hard. Smaller engines are like trying to put a square peg in a round hole - they either don't get stressed out and have zero power, or they can get a shift on but they're either going to be expensive to make or else very unreliable.

I really don't see the latest super duper diesels with 100 bhp per litre lasting very long at all.

Similarly does anyone really expect the new Ibiza Curpa with no less than 180 bhp from just 1.4 litres to be very reliable, especially as with this engine being installed in a hot hatch, it is going to be thrashed on a regular basis?

I certainly don't, and VAG even admits that the less powerful versions are only good for 300k km, or 186k miles.

Meanwhile older, but less powerful VWs used to do up to 300k miles, not km without too much trouble.

OTOH, when it comes to reducing CO2, we only have to reduce our own, us buying newer cars will reduce this country's CO2 emissions, especially with the VRT system the way it is and the fact that new cars produce on average 21 g/km less than before the changeover to CO2 emissions and it will improve our air quality now that the Euro 5 emissions standards are coming along, and thus will help us avoid all the fines. We don't have to care about what is actually the best thing for the environment, as long as we reduce our CO2 footprint by buying new cars and transferring the Co2 from this country to another, so who cares:rolleyes:?

We're not going to get any sympathy from Kyoto when we tell them that "ah sure what's really bad for the planet is us all buying new cars and not keeping the older ones for longer, so we took a principled stand in the interest of saving the planet and decided not to incentivise buying new cars; our CO2 emissions thus aren't down as much as we had hoped but sure look we'll have helped out a few other countries to cut down theirs":rolleyes:.

Instead, what we need to make absolutely sure is that we don't start increasing VRT, and instead work towards moving towards taxing those who pollute most i.e. phasing out VRT in favour of taxing the fuel.

And since diesel is taxed at 6 cent a litre less than petrol, this would be a very good place to start, as diesel produces 13% more CO2 than petrol for every litre burned.

galwaytt

Stekelly wrote: »

theres plenty of other 7 seater sin lower brackets. The S-max being one.The 1.8 tdci is in the €430 brackets.

Not so. First of all, you won't get an S-Max for the same money.The cheapest 7-seat 1.8 S-Max on Carzone is Eur 24,000. The Merc is worth, what.....3500 ?? Even if he did borrow the money to buy the S-Max as some sort of deluded environmental guilt, the interest on the money would add to the cost, and make the gap between the actual running costs of the two cars even larger.

Secondly, it will not last as long, and so will ultimately cost more than, that old Merc over it's lifetime. E92's post regarding longevity is correct in this respect. As the (unfortunate) purchaser of a new 1.8Tdci in March 07, I can state that for a fact.

E92 - and I'm not sure if you were being serious or sarcastic - the notion that by changing our cars for cleaner ones will reduce our C02 emissions measurably beneficially is exactly that.....notional. As Mr Gormley has decided to only calculate and benefit emissions on cars registered from Jan 1 2008 in the VRT scheme, then, in order to replace the entire national fleet (2.2m vehicles) with one of (credibly lower) C02 output will take in excess of 14 years, at current sales rates.

Are we to honestly expect therefore, that our annual motoring contribution is anything other than token, in a world-wide context ?? Emerging economies around the world, for instance, do not have EU standards for emissions, and to expect a minority (us) of a minority (EU) of a group, to bring any credible effect is.......well, frankly, incredible..........that may sound negative, depressing even, but no less true.

So why are we killing ourselves to make an effort, when it clearly behoves govt to facilitate us, but in fact does nothing of the sort.

Hypocrisy Central, Do As I Say, Not Do As I Do, HERE

To use the Galaxy as an example theres plenty of older 1.9d and 2.0 petrols that would have fit the bill just fine.

But are there, really? They are - significantly - of lower quality. Why voluntarily buy poor quality - it'll only add to the cost in the long run......there is a reason a Merc costs more than a Galaxy in the first place.

If the current system was more in favour of big engined new cars would you all be on here tellign people not to buy a new big engines car but stick to your old 1.2 supermini because it's better for the environment?

.. but you'd have the choice, not this Gormley-led 1984-like funnel vision of what's good for us......

.. [ Or does it suit your current situation/future ambitions to whinge and moan about old bigger cars and you couldnt really give a toss that keeping an older car on the road is better for the environment ?

...let's not let facts get in the way of a good yarn....why we should keep old 'uns.......

FWIW my current car , if new would be in the €2000 tax bracket and I dont care about the environment. I will probably buy a newer diesel in a couple of years but it will be a purely financial decision on my part (assumign it's still cheaper)

Indeed, and that's your choice. But that doesn't make the OP's point any less valid - you are prepared to pay the tax, irrespective. The OP feels it unjust, and has just cause, especially in the light of facts: that if the environment were truly at the centre of the issue, we wouldn't be taxing vehicles in this fashion at all, and to coin their own phrase: 'polluter pays'. Yeah, right .............

carchaeologist

TomMc wrote: »

Exactly.

The govt want people buying new cars every few years to maximise on VRT revenue. A car bought for the long haul is a once only payment, they want people changing cars every 2 to 3 years. They can put certain green issues into the mix to give the impression that is what matters most, but there is also a certain element of duplicity going on. If the govt really cared about the environment they would not encourage people to buy five cars when one car would suffice for a say a ten year period. What is happening is if motorists want the new tax rates they are forced to buy new and get stung on VRT. It is swings and roundabouts or a double edged sword. Bottom line it is more about money, not high minded ideals. If they cannot screw us on VRT they will do so on road tax. And they change the rules as they go along and when and where they see fit. Revenue before right-minded values or principles.

Well said..its always about the money..

Seth Brundle

TomMc wrote: »

If the Government had vision and principles, they would scrap VRT (It is illegal afterall), and road tax (or at least leave it as a nominal amount) and put it all on fuel. Then whoever drives the most, in the most uneconomical (environmentally unfriendly) vehicles, pay the most. Simplistic yes, but effective and fair. But no, diddle the motorist, they are an easy target because without a proper public transport system, our personal freedom and having any quality of life kind of depends on one. And we will pay through the nose for doing so and won't fight back. (It should be a right not merely a privilege). We are a soft touch, an easy target, it is a pity we are not a little more like the French.

1. Its not illegal! End of!
Its not nice, fair, etc. but its certainly not illegal.
2. The government rake in too much money for them to abolish the entire system and bring in something that would wake people into using public transport or whatever.

alpina wrote: »

Talking to our government on this issue is just frustrating & will make you blow up, Gormley does not give a **** about our large engine classic cars.
Just tax mine for the summer, may aswell have thrown the €324 down the toilet this year unless we get a heatwave fefore the end of the month...:rolleyes:

€324 - pfft! Mine is €899 and with a few more cc it would be a lot more!
Gormley is a puppet who was fairly good in opposition but seems to have sold out once he got power. Out of curiosity, whats he driving now?
Does anyone remember when his missus used his gas-guzzling mayoral car (Volvo) to go to and from work whilst John was bragging about how he didn't use the car (because it was not green)? Feckin hypocrite!

Our government don't give a rats ass about the carbon footprint of a new car simply because its not made here so Ireland isn't responsible for the carbon amount!

Henry Ford III

The system, warts and all, is still the system. You'd be certifiable if you believed there was a hope in hell of road tax being reduced for any vehicle currently.

cronndiesel

the new system suits the importers/dist clique too
the fact is that we ve moved overall to the japanese system but they have a vested interest in having things how they are over there as they have tens of thousands of people employed in the auto industry they actually make the stuff where we threw ours away thinking thats what britain was doing but they were just adusting eg big plants making nissans and toyotas etc (sure if they took off all their clothes we d do that too:rolleyes:)

well done kuro_man and well said galway tt its not about the enviornment at all just an other money making racket though complaining isnt going to get anywhere action might-maybe if we just refused to co operate:D

kuro_man

To add insult to injury, the reason my mileage is so low is because I cycle to work. Then I have to put up with terrible cycle-lanes, poor surfaces and ignorant drivers - ironically often taxis in a E300 diesel, taxed at €79pa!

blackbox

I totally agree that it is unfair.

However, the high road tax does affect the market, so it brings down the price of larger engined cars.

Also, on the positive side, once you go above 3 litres it doesn't increase any more.

It would be nice if there was a sliding scale towards the "classic" rate, but unfortunately this affects such a small proportion of the population (electorate) that politicians have no interest.

unkel

blackbox wrote: »

the high road tax does affect the market, so it brings down the price of larger engined cars.

Good point not often made here

CyberGhost

Stekelly wrote: »

But said people can afford €1200 a year in tax? Nobody forces you to drive a 3 litre car. You chose to and take the associated charges.

Why do people on low incomes need 3 litre cars?

It's sad that most of the people think this way in this country, big engines are awesome, more reliable and more pleasant to drive.

The road tax in Ireland is a complete and absolute rip off, and you know it.

I'd rather drive an older car with a 3 litter engine than a new one with a 1.4 litter.

I was on a trip to eastern europe recently when I came back I was shocked by what garbage drives here. A 1.2-1.4 engine is considered to be a mid sided engine here.

smash

It annoys me paying 1,200 a year for a 10 year old car that's only worth about 6k and that I only drive about 3k a year but I love the car so I'll pay up!

Government attitudes will only change if we(the public) give them a choice:
1. Work for and with the people
2. Get the hell out of power

Neither of these will ever happen because:
1. We're not a country full of petrol heads and as such the average Joe public thinks anything over 1.6 is big and it's 'killing the planet'
2. Not enough people will protest

We should take a tip from students... college fees might come back - go and protest!!!! But what do we do as motorists? hidden speed traps on perfectly safe roads, crazy VRT, stupid tax system.... we sit back and accept it and moan and never lift a finger!

I will say 1 thing, tax and VRT will never come down now, but if they do up in the next budget which is happening pretty soon then I'll be outside the DAIL with my car and I'll bring as many people as I can!

Guy:Incognito

CyberGhost wrote: »

It's sad that most of the people think this way in this country, big engines are awesome, more reliable and more pleasant to drive.

.

Why are you trying to make it sound like I went off on an anti big car rant?

As I said in a post in this thread, until recently I drove a 2.5 , which happened to get 19-20 mpg. I knew getting in what the costs were. I chose to buy and use the car. I didnt whinge and moan about the cost of things.

I still faily to see what the issue is with me askig why low income people need 3 litre cars. (The OP brought up the low income part btw) . If people on lower incomes have issues with the tax, why do they not have issue with fuel economy? If your on a tight budget and/or the car is just a means to transport family then costs are your main factors, be they tax, fuel or whatever. A 3 litre Merc is not going to be anywhere near the top of the list (top being best for said families) for fuel economy, tax or service costs.


Plus as the point was made above. If tax was €400 on a 3 litre merc they wouldnt be as cheap as they are anyway.