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

astraboy · 08-09-2008 7:44pm

Stekelly wrote: »

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.

You seem obsessed with the fact the guy is driving a 3L car. You'd swear it was some 6.8L V8 he was on about!:rolleyes: His point is simple, the car, for its age, mileage, and current maket value, is far over taxed and has by now payed back its market value to the Revenue more then once over. There is no reason to tax a car worth say 2K, over 1K a year because of a silly cc based system that does not change as the car ages, and its value decreases.

The guy probably could have gone out and bought a new people carrier, and pay less tax a year. Buying an older car is more cost effective, probably gives him more space(older bigger cars are cheaper then buying new) and is better for the environment as the car does not end up on the scrapheap for a new car. His 'Big' 3L engine, ensures he will pay plenty of tax at the pump, so why screw him for tax 50% of the cars value that is unrelated to how much it is used? It does also make our roads a bit more interesting, older cars become classics and not everyone wants to drive a 08 C-max.

The main point is that charging 1K a year or more in tax on a car only worth twice that is unfair in the extreme, and the fact that he knew the running costs going in does not make the situation any fairer that people are being screwed, especially those that like to make sure they drive their car until it dies, but end up facing paying the same tax over the life of the car(or facing increases in road tax far more then inflation)

IMO his points are valid and I agree with him.

Guy:Incognito · 08-09-2008 7:48pm

astraboy wrote: »

You seem obsessed with the fact the guy is driving a 3L car. .

No, it would just be a bit pointless putting a different size in my sentences seeing as we are talking about the OP's 3 litre car.

cancan · 08-09-2008 7:56pm

The irish motor taxation system is nuts whatever way you look at it.
We have a '97 2.0 ltr auto carina at home, which a few of my siblings use when the visit home, to save them renting a car.

Due to the taxation system, that car is virtually worthless.
It costs ~600e to tax the thing for the year - it does maybe 3000 miles a year.

A perfectly good car will be going to scrapper soon, because the green party thinks that that’s the best place for a perfectly good car.

I would guess that the car is good for another 10 years, but our taxation system means that it's off to an early grave because our taxation system is stupid.

2.0 ltr, 3.0ltr, it doesn’t matter - being forced to throw away perfectly good cars for "green" reasons does not make any sense.

Yet these green idiots think that my buying a low emissions BMW and driving as huge miles a year should be taxed less.

While stekelly thinks there is no reason for the OP or myself to have a 3.0 or 2.0 car, hopefully he can justify why throwing them away is better?

Guy:Incognito · 08-09-2008 8:12pm

cancan wrote: »

While stekelly thinks there is no reason for the OP or myself to have a 3.0 or 2.0 car, hopefully he can justify why throwing them away is better?

Where did i say any of that? I've no problem if people want to drive 8 litre cars. I'd do so myself if there was a particular one I liked and could afford. As it was I could afford to buy and run a 2.5, so I did.

Guy:Incognito · 08-09-2008 8:17pm

cancan wrote: »

Yet these green idiots think that my buying a low emissions BMW and driving as huge miles a year should be taxed less.
?

Why would the newer lower emissions BMW be doing any more mileage than the carina in your case?

Your scenario is reasonably unique in that you are using your car as an occasional one for visitors. That is nothing to do with the point the op is making.

BTW , why tax it for the year and not i3 month segments around when it'll be used? (assuming its not in use every month).

Why is the car being scrapped anyway? Itll sell for a few hundred euro, even in the current climate, and if it's being replaced with another occasional car, then thats just pointless.

Dave147 · 08-09-2008 8:22pm

Stekelly wrote: »

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.

Why does my car have to be Audi? It's because I want one, I'm happy to drive audi and not something else. So he wants to drive this merc and not another car. Why should he have to suffer because of an absolutely corrupt government robbing us blind.

I pay my motor tax, I also paid my mechanic for 800 euro for a whole new set of shocks for my car. Why you ask? Because of the big huge potholes all over my roads. My families tax for a year could pay for the whole road to be fixed. Still waiting, 11 years later.

superjosh9 · 08-09-2008 8:22pm

My 1998 Volvo 945 (2.3 LPT AUTO, 115,000 miles) is pretty hard on petrol. However, it covers less than 5000 miles per year these days - and yet I use it almost every day. I would prefer to keep it but its days are numbered as, like the OP said, the tax is a killer. I would prefer to spend the money on a new car rather than spend the extra few hundred on the tax because I feel it is going directly into someone's back pocket - and frankly I don't like that.

So which is worse for the envoronment, me keeping the 20-25 MPG Volvo on the road, or me going out and buying that new car???

I agree with the initial point that we can't all go out and afford to buy new cars which are low on C02 - and indeed, what could be worse than all of us going out and buying new cars for the environment?!? The motor industry needs to make that quantum leap forward in fuel efficiency right NOW in order to justify it all - because right now - there's damn all in it. But, as it is, they're drip-feeding the technology and therefore the rates, just like any good firm that knows how to make money.

Sounds like the Irish government.

superjosh9 · 08-09-2008 8:25pm

btw, I think one of the points that the OP was making that has been maybe misinterpreted was about the large engines - is it not a waste to get rid of all these cars just because they have large engines? In a lot of other countries - maybe even most - these old cars would still be travelling around not a bother, esp from tax viewpoint etc.

galwaytt · 08-09-2008 8:50pm

Stekelly wrote: »

....Your scenario is reasonably unique in that you are using your car as an occasional one for visitors. That is nothing to do with the point the op is making.

No it's not. I have 3.0, and do less the 4k miles a year, and it's used every week - Thurs/Fri Eve, and the odd Saturday - the rest of the week I drive a bike. But I still have to pay a ludicrous tax.

And on that basis, I am a low-emissions motorist, but get no acknowledgement for it.

Superjosh - don't do it. I guarantee you'll regret it. I sold our (new) 07 1.8Tdci Galaxy, went back to an old 3.0 petrol. My cost-per-month are now less, even allowing for the rip-off tax, and a bit more fuel. No car payments, no depreciation, and I have a car I love. You'd be doing the same, and yours has all the toys. When you work it out, your new 'friendly' car will annoy the **** out of you because of the quality you had to give up........and you won't be saving any money.

What's not to like ?

cancan · 08-09-2008 8:54pm

Whats the point having emissions based of a per mile figure, that has absolutely nothing to do with the yearly emissions that that car will actually make?

Makes a mockery of the whole green idea behind taxation.

The taxation system is not right if it forces perfectly good cars off the roads.

VH · 08-09-2008 9:22pm

people always have choice - a friend recently bought a 7 seater toyota, also 13 years old and diesel, automatic, but its a 2.0 litre. he loves it. have say its a grand yoke - i like it too.

Seth Brundle · 08-09-2008 10:00pm

cancan wrote: »

Whats the point having emissions based of a per mile figure, that has absolutely nothing to do with the yearly emissions that that car will actually make?

Makes a mockery of the whole green idea behind taxation.

The taxation system is not right if it forces perfectly good cars off the roads.

The emissions based system is ideal politically.
Visually Gormley can address the green party and claim that he has saved the world. He can also go up to the Minister for Finance and say that he is still pulling in loads of dosh in motor tax.

Reality has nothing to do with vote getting.

Owen · 08-09-2008 10:08pm

There's a reason Gormley's nickname is Gormless.

unkel · 08-09-2008 10:19pm

In fairness to Stekelly, his point is not against cars with big engines or even in favour of high taxes for big engined cars. He's just stating that if you buy a big engined car, you know up front that tax is going to be high

galwaytt · 09-09-2008 12:02am

unkel wrote: »

In fairness to Stekelly, his point is not against cars with big engines or even in favour of high taxes for big engined cars. He's just stating that if you buy a big engined car, you know up front that tax is going to be high

and the corollary of that - unfairness ??

- is that Stekelly ignored the OP's points, and went on a rant of his own.

The OP opened his post with a statement about his vehicle, and extolled a list of points in second paragraph on tax, I would submit, generally.

For the record.....OP did not advocate large cars for 'low income' families. What he actually said, was 'older cars'. Out of 8 points, in one paragraph, only two related to engine size. Stekelly add 1+1=3.

superjosh9 · 09-09-2008 12:51am

galwaytt wrote: »

Superjosh - don't do it...

I like your thinking - and I believe that was all the convincing that I needed! It's true, I've sat into/test-driven so many new cars now and everytime I've been left disappointed.

The motor-tax should not be a separate thing but should be lumped into the price of fuel instead, so then we can all decide how often to use our cars and also determine ourselves what car to use without being taxed unfairly.

This way, we would be taxed directly on how often we use our cars. i.e, The old 940 drives 5000 miles/year max - and yet I probably pay double the average or more on tax - even though I might be using one third of the fuel that others use - even with my 20-25 mpg.

Hmm, maybe I'll write to that Gormley fellow.

superjosh9 · 09-09-2008 12:53am

Big engined old cars are cheap because they've been taxed so hard. Catch 22. But, at the same time, it becomes prohibitive for people to keep their big engined cars for more than a few years since, as the op said, they are paying more tax than the car is worth. So they have to sell them, even if they like them. Another.. Catch 22. But yeh, lets go save the environment and lets use all the remaining resources to build those cars we must buy. :mad:

astraboy · 09-09-2008 1:27am

Stekelly wrote: »

No, it would just be a bit pointless putting a different size in my sentences seeing as we are talking about the OP's 3 litre car.

well you seem to think its ok for him to be taxed to death because he bought a larger engined car. 3L, 4L, 2L, it doesn't matter, the original point about tax decreasing once a car gets, say, 10 years old, stands as a seriously valid one to consider.

Just because the guy knew the tax going in does not make the tax rate ok, or any less of a rip off. You, as someone who drove what our tax system considers 'large' should agree.

The OP's points are hugely valid. I'm even sure owners of 10year old plus cars put a larger proportion of money into upkeep and maintenance, and vat from this work and parts, as well as fuel, would more then counteract a fairer and more decent system where a person is rewarded for keeping their car on the road for longer.

Unfortunately, as many have said, the taxation scheme is all political, and if someone in the Gov came up with a actual origional idea to keep older cars on the road, the motor industry and the Dept of finance would be up in arms. I was around Europe(France, Spain and Italy) recently and was surprized at the number of older cars driving around, in fairly good nick. How often does one see a Renualt 19 or equivalent on the roads these days? People are now totally encouraged to seek out a 08 plate, not only to keep up with the neighbors, but to decrease annual road tax.

As we all know, a simple tax on fuel, and removal of the road tax scheme alltogether(bar perhaps a flat fee each year for every car) would solve this problem. People would be free to drive their Eco boxes all over the country, and those with a passion for cars with more power can drive them on the weekend and pay proportionately.

galwaytt · 09-09-2008 9:05am

superjosh9 wrote: »

Hmm, maybe I'll write to that Gormley fellow.

Yes, you, we all, should.

I'll be sending him a note tonight on another matter, having seen him on TV last night, handing over the Tidy Towns awards. Something he said made my blood boil..........but that's a different forum (not car related.....):mad:

FWIW, my sis-in-laws 2.5 3-series only does 1mpg less, on average, than the 1.9 it replaced ..............so big engine/big fuel bills, are a myth..........even my 3.0 on is giving about 26mpg.

vibe666 · 09-09-2008 9:09am

unkel wrote: »

In fairness to Stekelly, his point is not against cars with big engines or even in favour of high taxes for big engined cars. He's just stating that if you buy a big engined car, you know up front that tax is going to be high

all the regular motors posters know Stekelly likes nothing more than riling up people who think the government unfairly taxes consumers. If he had his way whatever the government has in store for us (regardless of how unfair it might be) we should all be lubed up and bent over ready to take it with a smile on our faces.

but to be fair I'm being overly harsh on him and in some respects he's right, coming on here and whinging about it isn't going to change anything. I'm sure if anyone actually ever got a bunch of people together to campaign outside the dail, he's be there with the rest of us waving a banner for cheaper taxes and I bet he's going to past something now to confirm as much!

there was a link to a carbon offset calculator a week or so ago in here showing the carbon tax rip off scheme for what it is.

anyway, i have a 2.8L TD Pajero because it will happily run on 100% biodiesel and with some minor modifications it will run on veg oil blends too. Litre for litre when using 100% Biodiesel my co2 footprint is slightly less than a Toyota Prius, so I'm pretty chuffed about that in itself.

I do about 15-20k a year so decided to see what my carbon offset would be. it turns out that if I want to 'pay off' my carbon debt for doing 20k miles a year in a 20mpg diesel guzzler it will cost me a grand total of a smidgen under £130.

I wonder what the carbon offset cost of manufacturing a Prius is (anyone who saw the bit about that on Top Gear will know what I mean)?

unkel · 09-09-2008 10:30am

vibe666 wrote: »

I wonder what the carbon offset cost of manufacturing a Prius is?

If anyone knows, please don't post it here unless you want half of Hollywood to hang themselves from organic macrobiotic biodynamic ropes

jimogr · 09-09-2008 11:09am

vibe666 wrote: »

I wonder what the carbon offset cost of manufacturing a Prius is (anyone who saw the bit about that on Top Gear will know what I mean)?

These guys do a dust-to-dust comparison, they look at everything from how much energy is used in manufacture to how long the model is expected to last, to how efficient it is.

A prius comes in at an energy cost of $2.19 per mile.

A ford focus $0.62 per mile.

The Maybach has an energy cost of $15.97/mile.