Ireland facing EC proceedings over VRT charges

Mailman

VRT as a tax is incorrectly framed in contravention of article 226 of the Treaty of Rome. PAYE is not in contravention of article 226.
Please be logical in your arguments. If there was a basis in law on which I could argue against PAYE or PRSI then I would. I have a basis in law to object to VRT and Niall O'Dowling has been successful in making the EU Commission see this.

-Chris-

I'm arguing that either VRT should not be abolished, or that VRT should be abolished in a very controlled manner, in order to minimise the impact on used car values.

I completely disagree with the notion that an abolishment of VRT (whether it's an illegally implemented tax or not) would be to the benefit of the consumer.

I'm confused at this point as to what you want to do with VRT. Are you looking for total abolition?

Mailman

-Chris- wrote: »

I completely disagree with the notion that an abolishment of VRT (whether it's an illegally implemented tax or not) would be to the benefit of the consumer.

So you are suggesting it would not be to the Consumers benefit to remove punitive taxation on a product they need?
I'm having a great difficulty understanding where you are coming from as you appear to be arguing contrary to plain common sense. Are you Contrarian by nature?

Johnny Utah

Mailman wrote: »

I have some familiarity with this case.

The issue is with the notional OMSP and more importantly the method of calculation which is based on depreciation scales of varying severity.
I have acknowledgement of depreciation scales and the Taxman moves cars from one scale to another depending on circumstances.
There is also an issue with how OMSP is calculated which is based on a first hand valuation of a similiar Irish registered car. A first hand valuation is Revenue looking in Carzone at asking prices(not selling prices) for cars on dealer forecourts(not at auction, not in private sale)
Hopefully if Niall O'Dowling is successful then a flat fee vehicle registration tax or registration tax based upon invoice price will replace the ad valorem system currently in place.
If it is flat fee then it can't be set too high as it would be regressive and punish those who run smaller cars more than large cars.
If it is based upon invoice price then anyone will be free to go overseas and purchase a car at a fraction of the price in the local market and still not have to pay too much tax.
Niall O'Dowling has succeeded in making the EU acknowledge that the valuation system is a joke and as the Irish Government has not complied with the directions of the Court I don't expect them to go easy on them.

Advice: If you are importing a car, appeal the VRT valuation. Amongst the reasons for appeal cite clearly that you have no faith in the Revenue Commissioner's ability to accurately value the car's OMSP. If things go well in this case and you've appealed your VRT valuation then you might if you are lucky be in line for a refund.

I always thought that this was precisley the way to challenge the VRT system. The OMSP calculation is clearly a joke on some (most?) imported cars. I reckon this challenge has a very good chance of success!

Mailman

@Chris. I've already addressed your concerns regarding immediate abolition of VRT in earlier posts. It's getting late and I'm off to bed. Good night and fight the good fight.

-Chris-

Mailman wrote: »

So you are suggesting it would not be to the Consumers benefit to remove punitive taxation on a product they need?
I'm having a great difficulty understanding where you are coming from as you appear to be arguing contrary to plain common sense. Are you Contrarian by nature?

IMHO, all taxes are punitive, but necessary for the running of the country (which is why I compared VRT to PAYE).

In fact, is there any chance we'd be able to park this discussion, Mailman, and go back to discussion of the OP's point - the change in the appraisal of VRT for imported second-hand cars?

My response to DanGerMus's post seems to have dragged this thread off topic...

daRobot

Nice input, Mailman. I completely agree with the points you've made.

Who is Niall O'Dowling by the way?

-Chris-

Mailman wrote: »

@Chris. I've already addressed your concerns regarding immediate abolition of VRT in earlier posts. It's getting late and I'm off to bed. Good night and fight the good fight.

You posted as I was responding. Good night.

-Chris-

daRobot wrote: »

Nice input, Mailman. I completely agree with the points you've made.

Who is Niall O'Dowling by the way?

This guy:

-Chris- wrote: »

Here's the article:

Ireland facing EC proceedings over VRT charges
Sunday, June 14, 2009
By Kieron Wood

The European Commission has begun proceedings against Ireland for infringing EU law by charging vehicle registration tax (VRT)o n vehicles imported from other EU member states.

The Revenue Commissioners charge VRT based on a notional ‘‘open market selling price’’ of imported vehicles, rather than the actual purchase price.

The open market price would typically be higher than the purchase price, resulting in higher VRT for the purchaser. VRT is charged at rates of up to 36 per cent, depending on a vehicle’s emissions.

Second-hand car dealers have long been critical of the method of calculating the VRT rate. In 1998, Niall O’Dowling of Used Car Importers of Ireland (UCII) brought High Court proceedings against the ‘‘secretive and arbitrary’’ way the tax was imposed. He claimed there was unfair discrimination in favour of the importers of new vehicles.




O’Dowling said that the distributors of new vehicles decided their open market selling prices, on which VRT was based. But the Revenue Commissioners calculated the open market price on second-hand vehicles, based on 25 unpublished ‘‘depreciation scales’’.

The Revenue claimed the open market price was the price a car might reasonably be expected to sell for on the retail market, and said it administered the VRT system ‘‘objectively and impartially’’. In 2005, it was ordered to provide all the relevant documents to UCII. At a hearing in 2006,Miss Justice Mary Laffoy said: ‘‘Unfortunately, the enthusiasm for a speedy resolution of the matter, which obviously inspired that order, seems to have dissipated.”

O’Dowling said last week: ‘‘We received a letter of confirmation from the EU Commission last week. The proceedings go back to a complaint registered in 1999. I would expect that the investigations are now at an advanced stage, given the time span involved.”

A spokeswoman for the Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union in the European Commission confirmed that the Commission had opened proceedings, but added: ‘‘No public information is available at the moment.”

Total net receipts for VRT rose from €820 million in 2003 to a high of €1.4 billion in 2007. This year, VRT receipts have collapsed, with provisional figures of €240 million for the five months to May 31 - equivalent to an annual drop of almost 60 per cent.

ninty9er

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Bar the negative equity, if VRT was dropped it would all be relevant to the consumer. I.e - your car is now worth X instead of Y and the cost to trade against a different vehicle would have reduced accordingly.

No, it would remain the same.

daRobot

Cheers Chris, I didn't catch the first post.

Guy:Incognito

Mailman wrote: »

registration tax based upon invoice price will replace the ad valorem system currently in place. .

So all of a sudden you get rakes of Ferraris, Porsches, Bentley's , Mercs and 3 series all arriving in the country haveing been bought in the UK for £2k.

I have a sneaking feeling theres a few people with their fingersd crossed that that comes in.

DanGerMus

@ Chris

Sorry if my post earlier was a little blunt but i don't think it's completely off topic. I probably shouldn't have mentioned road tax it's a different argument.
I know that basically the government has to gather revenue and if they don't do it with VRT they'll get it somewhere else.

I agree that to abolish VRT could damage the trade in the short term but in the long term it could greatly benefit the consumer and maybe even the trade by basically making buying cars a lot easier on the pocket.

Furp

If they changed the way VRT was calculated as a percentage if the car car cost plus the VAT it would not be so bad but the whole way it's done on an OMSP is a joke. It even screws with the cost of extras on cars so instead of a fixed price for an extra it's a sliding scale depending on the VRT bracket.

If income tax was calculated the same it would work like this simplified example
I'm a widget maker and earn 25000 a year and pay 20% tax which is 5000
However if it worked like VRT the revenue would look at all the other widget makers and figure my earnings are worth 35000 and tax me on a scale depending on how much waste I produced let's say 25% which would be 11500.
Thankfully income tax does not work like, this but VRT does.

JHMEG

Stekelly wrote: »

Who do you think you are comign in here and reading things properly before posting?

Your here long enough to know that certain buzzwords and acrynoms can only be replied to with rabble rousing.

The whole OMSP problem would be solved very simply if it was done transparently, instead of being done in secret as it currently is by the Revenue/SIMI/Orange Order/GAA (insert secret society of choice)

drunkmonkey

@Chris I understand your point about the depreciation that would follow abolition of VRT.
What I can't understand is your argument for keeping it in place because of the above reason. An adjustment in car values will happen, but it'll only happen once. Should we keep the current system in place for generations just so no generation takes a hit. It doesn't make sense.
We have had a property bubble and a car price bubble, it's time to burst these bubbles once and for all and let the natural balance be restored.

If I sell my car I bough it Northern Ireland back to the UK now I would get most of my money back, but I can't because I've paid 6k in VRT. I would literally be throwing my money away. If I sell the car here I still loose the 6k. The current system does not work in anyones favour but the collector general. We can make money on export as well as import but VRT makes it a one way system.

McSpud

JHMEG wrote: »

The whole OMSP problem would be solved very simply if it was done transparently, instead of being done in secret as it currently is by the Revenue/SIMI/Orange Order/GAA (insert secret society of choice)

+1.

This case has nothing to do with changes to VRT charges but the OMSP usedf to calculate the prices.

A transparent system which lists all the OMSP of cars in this country on the department web site would solve this issue over night.

Guy:Incognito

McSpud wrote: »

A transparent system which lists all the OMSP of cars in this country on the department web site would solve this issue over night.

The VRT calculator lists the OMSP . It just doesnt tell you where they get it from.

As it is, There are plenty of cars undervalued as well as overvalued. At best what will probably happen is the gap between the two will be closed and the OMSP will be simialr for all cars to what they sell for here.

drunkmonkey

Stekelly wrote: »

The VRT calculator lists the OMSP . It just doesnt tell you where they get it from.

As it is, There are plenty of cars undervalued as well as overvalued. At best what will probably happen is the gap between the two will be closed and the OMSP will be simialr for all cars to what they sell for here.

It should be very simple, the price a car is worth is the price your paid for it, regardless of which EU country you bought it. If you can provide a proof of purchase that should be enough.

There should be no vrt on second hand imports as all taxes have already been paid in it's original country of purchase. There should only be a registration fee for your new plates and paperwork. Maybe €1000 at most.

Guy:Incognito

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If you can provide a proof of purchase that should be enough.

That , leads to this

Stekelly wrote: »

So all of a sudden you get rakes of Ferraris, Porsches, Bentley's , Mercs and 3 series all arriving in the country haveing been bought in the UK for £2k.

Plus, what proof do you get when you buy privatly?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There should be no vrt on second hand imports as all taxes have already been paid in it's original country of purchase. There should only be a registration fee for your new plates and paperwork. Maybe €1000 at most.

There is only a registration fee now, it just depends on what you bought.:)

Anyway
My Xantia only cost me €315 to VRT. Under your system my VRT would more than triple. I say leave it be so.

drunkmonkey

The OMSP should be scrapped, registration fee is enough.. have to be under €300 to keep you happy, how about we copy the UK model and keep it at 55 quid with no VRT:)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/ImportingAndExportingAVehicle/DG_4022583

skyline33

there is a bigger picture out there re VRT , and many are overlooking it . Read all recent court cases

Voodoomelon

Matt Simis wrote: »

However for certain older model, big engined or rare models the OMSP is actually way undervaluing the (UK) price, so its not all roses if they fixed the OMSP on the price paid.

My car being a prime example, OMSP is half of what I paid for it and I I saved approx €8000 at the time over Irish prices. So the OSMP was approx 30% of the selling price in Ireland.

JHMEG

Bigger cars/bigger engined cars depreciate quicker here than in the UK, so it is quite possible that the actual market price (not necessarily the notional one) for a given car is lower here than the market price is in the UK.

It doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. A friend of mine made few quid a number of years back buying big engined cars and exporting them to Britain.

Guy:Incognito

skyline33 wrote: »

there is a bigger picture out there re VRT , and many are overlooking it . Read all recent court cases

Why be cryptic?

Why not just share the big revelations with the rest of us yourself?

Cars&cars

Hi

just want to add that I actually made a Formal Complaint to the EU about VRT and how it works in Ireland, with false Open Market Selling Prices derived by Revenue / Long Appeal Processing / No real consideration for Car condition / No real consideration for Car mileage ect ect ect

My complaint is part of the complaint by the EU against Ireland and the current proceedings by the EU. I think for those of us that have made complaints to the EU these have been combined and there is sort of one joint complaint that is part of the Infrindgement Proceedings.

Also, I understand the arguements about loss of revenue for the Irish Government, but when there is a practice that breaks the very ethos of EU membership, that focuses on one section of society (motorists), that is very unfairly applied, with crazy OMSPs, that causes one product in an economy (cars) to be artifically priced and protected from competition (from the UK mainly), well then the people that are being short changed and ripped off are you (the Irish people), so its time the VRT System was scrapped.

Lisbon Treaty - how could an Irish Government ask any Irish person to vote YES to the Lisbon Treaty when that very same Irish Government is breaking the very founding principles of the Treaty of Rome. Im sorry, its a big fat NO to Lisbon and a big fat YES to Rome, give us our freedom of movement of goods first and then we can consider Lisbon!

crocro

At the moment VRT is here to stay. It has been regularly tested and found to be compliant with EC law on the basis that the tax is equally applied regardless of where the vehicle is purchased in the EU by an Irish consumer.

This petition summarises the legal position:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/cm/536/536456/536456en.pdf

Local governments have the power to tax their own citizens as they see fit so long as those taxes do not distort trade by favouring one country's products over another. This position will be repeated in the next few days with the legal guarantee on the right of member states to set local tax rates as part of the set of guarantees to be announced to sell a rerun of the Lisbon treaty.

VRT is applied in a majority of member states and has been for decades. Only a few countries impose large VRT like us but we are not the highest - Denmark is certainly higher. Finland, Netherlands and Portugal all have high VRT. A 2.0 TDI 170hp Golf is €60K in Denmark. In Portugal, 82 grand will get you the same car with 140hp.

There was a proposed EU directive to abolish VRT across the EU by 2016 but this would require the consent of all member states. Not very likely these days.

VRT was reduced for many vehicles last year and this was met by howls of protest from dealers and owners. It was a net long term benefit to consumers even to those who lost equity in their current vehicle but many people didn't see it that way.

Abolishing VRT would lead to more howls of protest from owners and the taxation would then be raised by imposing a new tax or just raising motor tax rates. A new tax would be desperately unpopular. Conclusion: VRT is going nowhere.

Mailman

crocro wrote: »

At the moment VRT is here to stay. It has been regularly tested and found to be compliant with EC law on the basis that the tax is equally applied regardless of where the vehicle is purchased in the EU by an Irish consumer.

This petition summarises the legal position:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/cm/536/536456/536456en.pdf

Local governments have the power to tax their own citizens as they see fit so long as those taxes do not distort trade by favouring one country's products over another. This position will be repeated in the next few days with the legal guarantee on the right of member states to set local tax rates as part of the set of guarantees to be announced to sell a rerun of the Lisbon treaty.

VRT is applied in a majority of member states and has been for decades. Only a few countries impose large VRT like us but we are not the highest - Denmark is certainly higher. Finland, Netherlands and Portugal all have high VRT. A 2.0 TDI 170hp Golf is €60K in Denmark. In Portugal, 82 grand will get you the same car with 140hp.

There was a proposed EU directive to abolish VRT across the EU by 2016 but this would require the consent of all member states. Not very likely these days.

VRT was reduced for many vehicles last year and this was met by howls of protest from dealers and owners. It was a net long term benefit to consumers even to those who lost equity in their current vehicle but many people didn't see it that way.

Abolishing VRT would lead to more howls of protest from owners and the taxation would then be raised by imposing a new tax or just raising motor tax rates. A new tax would be desperately unpopular. Conclusion: VRT is going nowhere.

Members states' right to retain sovereign control of their domestic taxation policy is only protected by the E.U. to the extent where it doesn't compromise the other articles of the various treaties those Countries signed up to.
Niall O'Dowling has established that VRT as a Tax works against article 226 of the Treaty of Rome. If a Tax called VRT exists after the E.U. Commission make their ruling it will not be based on a fantasy OMSP set by SIMI members.

I actually haven't heard "many" consumers complaining about the changes to VRT. I have however heard many vocal vested interests in the local motor distribution network(cartel) howling bitterly about the changes to VRT.

Everyone knows that when a punter goes in to a showroom the only thing he\she cares about is the cost to change and whether they can afford the cost to change. The cost to change will not increase so the consumer has no reason to crib. The majority of consumers will actually find it costs less to change.
Up to 70% of a car's sticker price is taxation. Getting rid of VRT and replacing it with another form of VRT will actually cause the price of cars to drop dramatically narrowing the price difference(in euros) between the car a buyer wishes to trade-in and the one they want to buy.
I do make one definite prediction and that is whatever VRT is replaced by will be called VRT too because to abolish a Tax on the orders of the E.U. Commission would be an implicit acknowledgement that Government have been stealing money off the public for the last 17 years.

Big Nasty

Mailman wrote: »

Members states' right to retain sovereign control of their domestic taxation policy is only protected by the E.U. to the extent where it doesn't compromise the other articles of the various treaties those Countries signed up to.
Niall O'Dowling has established that VRT as a Tax works against article 226 of the Treaty of Rome. If a Tax called VRT exists after the E.U. Commission make their ruling it will not be based on a fantasy OMSP set by SIMI members.

I actually haven't heard "many" consumers complaining about the changes to VRT. I have however heard many vocal vested interests in the local motor distribution network(cartel) howling bitterly about the changes to VRT.

Everyone knows that when a punter goes in to a showroom the only thing he\she cares about is the cost to change and whether they can afford the cost to change. The cost to change will not increase so the consumer has no reason to crib. The majority of consumers will actually find it costs less to change.
Up to 70% of a car's sticker price is taxation. Getting rid of VRT and replacing it with another form of VRT will actually cause the price of cars to drop dramatically narrowing the price difference(in euros) between the car a buyer wishes to trade-in and the one they want to buy.
I do make one definite prediction and that is whatever VRT is replaced by will be called VRT too because to abolish a Tax on the orders of the E.U. Commission would be an implicit acknowledgement that Government have been stealing money off the public for the last 17 years.

Here's the buzz mailman - as you have correctly stated the general public will have little or no advantage if VRT is dropped (illegal as it may be) as both their current vehicle and their sought after one will both have dropped in price accordingly. However, as correctly stated at some stage or other in this thread, dropping VRT will mean approx 40% in value will come off current dealers stock. I.e: if you were a dealer and you had a car priced at 10K last December it would now be worth 2K between depreciation and removal of VRT. You've got 10mill tied up in stock, have sold little or nothing in the last 6 months and now said stock is worth 2mill! How in the hell are you supposed to cover that loss!!??!! If this was brought in tomorrow pretty much every dealer in the country would be forced to close. Then you could go buy all the cars you want in the UK because there would be no dealers left to sell cars to you here!

To summarise: Dropping VRT =

No benefit for Consumer
Drastic Results for Dealers
Loss of Revenue for Exchequer
Loss of Jobs

And what does all that mean to you?

More tax on YOUR wage to pay for all the unemployed and cover the revenue lost to the govt!

Mailman

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Here's the buzz mailman - as you have correctly stated the general public will have little or no advantage if VRT is dropped (illegal as it may be) as both their current vehicle and their sought after one will both have dropped in price accordingly. However, as correctly stated at some stage or other in this thread, dropping VRT will mean approx 40% in value will come off current dealers stock. I.e: if you were a dealer and you had a car priced at 10K last December it would now be worth 2K between depreciation and removal of VRT. You've got 10mill tied up in stock, have sold little or nothing in the last 6 months and now said stock is worth 2mill! How in the hell are you supposed to cover that loss!!??!! If this was brought in tomorrow pretty much every dealer in the country would be forced to close. Then you could go buy all the cars you want in the UK because there would be no dealers left to sell cars to you here!

To summarise: Dropping VRT =

No benefit for Consumer
Drastic Results for Dealers
Loss of Revenue for Exchequer
Loss of Jobs

And what does all that mean to you?

More tax on YOUR wage to pay for all the unemployed and cover the revenue lost to the govt!

Did you not read my last post where I explained why the gap in euro terms will close when trading in your car for a new car. Did you understand it.

As the majority of people use finance to purchase their car once the changes filter through they will save money on servicing their debt.

The VRT system as operated creates a Cartel pushing prices up. As people will be free to go abroad they can purchase cheaper new and pre-reg cars. With a VRT system that opens up the market and makes it a free market the dividend will be that the price of cars will drop by more than the tax reduced.

With the abolition of VRT in it's current form you will be able to go over to a car supermarket in the UK and buy a pre-reg car at 60% of RRP. At the moment you can't because you'll still be paying VRT based on OMSP of car which is 90% of the RRP which strangely doesn't bear any relation to the pre-tax price of the same product in the UK even though the block exemption policy suggests that they should be roubhly equal.

Also there is a philosophy to taxation which economist could bore you for hours about. Income tax is an efficient tax. VRT is not. VRT distorts the market beyond the amount of revenue collected. Income tax's effect is limited to the amount of revenue collected.

I feel no sympathy for Distributors and Dealers represented through SIMI. They made VRT work, not Bertie. It couldn't have worked without them supplying the RRP of their cars and they weren't obligied to supply that information to Government, they gave the information willingly in exchange for a suspension of the free market in the trade of the product they sold.
VRT is a perfect example of vested interests and Central Government working in tandem to screw the consumer. Official Ireland treats it's citizens with contempt.

Know your enemy and act accordingly.

Mailman

People who no longer have to spend excess money on purchasing cars can then go and spend the money they save on other goods and services.
Cars are not locally sourced. If they purchase locally produced goods and services then there will be a net gain to the economy and the jobs lost will be replaced with other more sustainable jobs and as I said I hate SIMI for their treachery.
This is not an "if" scenario; People do spend what they earn. Few squirrel away more than a few hundred a month.
Go on, oppose VRT. It's good for the local economy. It's your patriotic duty.

Big Nasty

Ok, so the consumer may benefit *slightly* more but the rest of my post still applies.

Many business' made lots of money over the last number of years because of exhorbitant prices. WE paid for them without question coz we had more money. EVERY market was inflated. Now many of them are fcuked! Many dealers were forced to build the glasshouses to hold on to their franchise(s) and good enough for them some may say. I know one particular dealer who completed a 30k Sq Ft premises mid-2007 and has sold just 4 new cars this year and about 2 dozen used. He's up **** creek as it is and you want to decrease the value of his stock by a further 40%!?! This guy is not alone either! Do you wish to see EVERY business go insolvent or JUST The Motor Trade?

I don't agree with VRT either but its abolition will kill the business in one fell swoop!

Seth Brundle

mike65 wrote: »

People would complain less about a progressive tax on usage

but they would complain that their shopping costs more because unless trucks manage to get some form of exemption.

Mailman wrote: »

Cars are a depreciating asset which need to be replaced regularly;

regularly? If you look at many countries within the EU they keep cars for much longer. The Irish & Brits love buying new cars so they can keep with the Jones.

Mailman wrote: »

Keeping the price of a an item like this artificially high is lunacy from an economics POV.

Not really because there is no other option for buyers.

crocro

Mailman wrote: »

Niall O'Dowling has established that VRT as a Tax works against article 226 of the Treaty of Rome.

Do you mean that he legally established this? Do you know the judgement or the court?

I actually haven't heard "many" consumers complaining about the changes to VRT.

VRT reductions were only one factor in the collapse of used car prices but I don't think you'd argue with the fact that many people were horrified at the trade-in values they were offered by garages in 2008-2009. The fact that their cost to change had also gone down was no consolation because people are thick.

Mailman

your view is that the customer will "benefit slightly". When the average mid sized vehicle is retailing for 30K I see benefits in the region of 4K every 2 to 3 years for the consumer.

Boo-Hoo to the poor dealers. Think of all the poor consumers who had to make sacrifices to put a set of four wheels under them.
Not being able to afford to upgrade to a more roadworthy car. A car with more safety features. Did the box for ESP remain unticked when they were ordering their car or the box for curtain airbags or were those tick boxes even available because Irish cars were despecified because VRT got charged on the cost of the safety equipment too.
How long did the consumer have to save. Did he or she have to forego a holiday, work overtime, skimp elsewhere in their life just to afford a car which is after all a necessity in a country which has no genuine public transport alternative.
You show me a poor dealer and I'll show you a 100 down-trodden voiceless consumers who this Government sold out for a quick easy buck.

Mailman

crocro wrote: »

Do you mean that he legally established this? Do you know the judgement or the court?

VRT reductions were only one factor in the collapse of used car prices but I don't think you'd argue with the fact that many people were horrified at the trade-in values they were offered by garages in 2008-2009. The fact that their cost to change had also gone down was no consolation because people are thick.

The Court asked for the depreciation tables. After they finally admitted they existed, the Revenue Commissioners said they'd provide them and four years later they still haven't provided them because they are damning to their defence; the outcome is certain.

Mailman

kbannon wrote: »

but they would complain that their shopping costs more because unless trucks manage to get some form of exemption.

regularly? If you look at many countries within the EU they keep cars for much longer. The Irish & Brits love buying new cars so they can keep with the Jones.

Not really because there is no other option for buyers.

Trucks have nothing to do with the arguement and will not be taxed heavily in any future taxation policies unless the Greens steal control of the government and try to force us back to an agrarian lifestyle. .

Fleets don't like keeping up with the Jones' and dispose of their cars after 3 to 5 years before major service items need to be attended to. Cars need to be replaced regularly. A car will not reach 80K miles without needing a major service as manufacturers can't push out the very major work beyond then.

I've re-read your point about keeping prices high not being lunacy and still can't see a reasonable side to your argument on that point.
Elaborate, so I can shoot you down on it.

Don't I remember you bitching about VRT because your non Irish Girlfriend's GB reg car was fingered by Customs? Haven't checked. But I think I remember that. KBannon is a username I remember.

EDIT: found it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055114095&page=5&highlight=kbannon

Lord Nikon

mike65 wrote: »

People would complain less about a progressive tax on usage

I wouldn't miss a few cent extra on fuel, than 7k lump of cash from my pocket.

Seth Brundle

Mailman wrote: »

Trucks have nothing to do with the arguement and will not be taxed heavily in any future taxation policies unless the Greens steal control of the government and try to force us back to an agrarian lifestyle. .

If fuel costs (using a progressive tax) was introduced and trucks were not exempted somehow then naturally it will cost them a fortune which they will definitely pass on.

Mailman wrote: »

Fleets don't like keeping up with the Jones' and dispose of their cars after 3 to 5 years before major service items need to be attended to. Cars need to be replaced regularly. A car will not reach 80K miles without needing a major service as manufacturers can't push out the very major work beyond then.

Long term, it can still work out cheaper to keep an old car rather than to keep buying newer models.
I also made the point that the likes of the French prefer to keep older cars and not try to show their wealth in the same manner as the Irish and the British.

Mailman wrote: »

I've re-read your point about keeping prices high not being lunacy and still can't see a reasonable side to your argument on that point.
Elaborate, so I can shoot you down on it.

How was it lunacy? The government creamed it in over the years to the point that they cannot afford to get rid of it (even if they are taking in much less currently).
Many people were only too willing to pay the VRT charges through the practice of buying new cars. If people wanted a car (which by and large they did) then they had to pay the VRT. The public were in a catch 22 situation - buy a car and pay VRT or not get that 0x model? They tended to opt for the latter. People were willing to pay these high rates and it was only natural for a government to take full advantage of it.
Has the government not kept prices 'artificially high', where would the finance come from?
The fact that sales are down is only in part to the changes in VRT & motor tax. It is also down to the fact that many people can't get finance and those who can are worried that soon they may not be in a position to pay it back.

Mailman wrote: »

Don't I remember you bitching about VRT because your non Irish Girlfriend's GB reg car was fingered by Customs? Haven't checked. But I think I remember that. KBannon is a username I remember.

EDIT: found it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055114095&page=5&highlight=kbannon

I do disaree with VRT - what has that got to do with my points?
(incidentally she was from NI and carried an Irish passport (as NI was part of Ireland under the then constitution).

Mailman

kbannon wrote: »

If fuel costs (using a progressive tax) was introduced and trucks were not exempted somehow then naturally it will cost them a fortune which they will definitely pass on.

Brian Lenihan acknowledged in the last budget that he can't put fuel taxes up any higher than they currently are. We're safe on that count. The parasite has figured out it can't extract any more from us in terms of fuel duty.

kbannon wrote: »

Long term, it can still work out cheaper to keep an old car rather than to keep buying newer models.
I also made the point that the likes of the French prefer to keep older cars and not try to show their wealth in the same manner as the Irish and the British.

I trust Fleet Managers know what they are doing and they make their purchasing and disposal decisions in full knowledge of international best practice as communicated through international trade papers and magazines.

kbannon wrote: »

How was it lunacy? The government creamed it in over the years to the point that they cannot afford to get rid of it (even if they are taking in much less currently).
Many people were only too willing to pay the VRT charges through the practice of buying new cars. If people wanted a car (which by and large they did) then they had to pay the VRT. The public were in a catch 22 situation - buy a car and pay VRT or not get that 0x model? They tended to opt for the latter. People were willing to pay these high rates and it was only natural for a government to take full advantage of it.
Has the government not kept prices 'artificially high', where would the finance come from?
The fact that sales are down is only in part to the changes in VRT & motor tax. It is also down to the fact that many people can't get finance and those who can are worried that soon they may not be in a position to pay it back.

A Government is elected by it's people to serve their best interests. A Government which seeks to keep the cost of an essential product\service, like transport, too high is engaged in a lunatic policy unless it Government has been subverted by a vested interest in which case it is treason. The cons of creating a closed market and reduced sustainable local economic activity through VRT outweigh the Pros in fiscal/revenue terms but the vested interests can make a nice cloudy argument for VRT's retention.
Someone please think of the poor dealers!!!!!!!!!!

kbannon wrote: »

I do disaree with VRT - what has that got to do with my points?
(incidentally she was from NI and carried an Irish passport (as NI was part of Ireland under the then constitution).

So? viewpoints on VRT shift as easily as constitutional changes to recognised borders?
I bet you were incandescent on the day. I bet you were steaming. Seething. Apoplectic. I bet the dog if you had one was lucky to escape being kicked cos God knows you couldn't do anything to the man from Customs. Remember your anger, harness it and use it productively.

It's my bedtime again. Good night.

drunkmonkey

MCMLXXV wrote: »

if you were a dealer and you had a car priced at 10K last December it would now be worth 2K between depreciation and removal of VRT. You've got 10mill tied up in stock, have sold little or nothing in the last 6 months and now said stock is worth 2mill! How in the hell are you supposed to cover that loss!!??

your not meant to cover it, your meant to go bust, you've overstretched yourself buying depreciating assets. It's bad business management.
Asking the consumer to keep you afloat through taxation is not fair.

We should be exporting our used cars, the process would be a lot easier and a lot more profitable if we did not pay too much for them in the first place. Look at the price of a car in Japan, they can drive a car for 3 years, ship it to Europe and still get back more than they paid for it depending on the model. Maybe we should try the same trick , I'm sure there's a market for our BMW's, Volvos, Mercs, Saabs etc somewhere.

Seth Brundle

Mailman wrote: »

Brian Lenihan acknowledged in the last budget that he can't put fuel taxes up any higher than they currently are. We're safe on that count. The parasite has figured out it can't extract any more from us in terms of fuel duty.

He also claimed that he was able to stop sitting TDs claiming pensions and what happened?
He also claimed that the country was better off for bailing out Anglo!
I'm not aware of any legal impediment to him changing the tax regeime to one of usage over that of engine capacity or emissions - do you?

Mailman wrote: »

I trust Fleet Managers know what they are doing and they make their purchasing and disposal decisions in full knowledge of international best practice as communicated through international trade papers and magazines.

What percentage of cars are bought by fleet managers here? What reductions do they get from the dealers/manufacturers?
Joe Public does not have the same buying power as these and my point about them wanting the newest model still stands.

Mailman wrote: »

A Government is elected by it's people to serve their best interests. A Government which seeks to keep the cost of an essential product\service, like transport, too high is engaged in a lunatic policy unless it Government has been subverted by a vested interest in which case it is treason. The cons of creating a closed market and reduced sustainable local economic activity through VRT outweigh the Pros in fiscal/revenue terms but the vested interests can make a nice cloudy argument for VRT's retention.
Someone please think of the poor dealers!!!!!!!!!!

If that was the case why are we more fecked than pretty much every other economy in the EU?
Our current government is dominated by a party that puts the party before the national interest - IIRC the national interest is estimated about third on a list of its priorities.

Mailman wrote: »

So? viewpoints on VRT shift as easily as constitutional changes to recognised borders?
I bet you were incandescent on the day. I bet you were steaming. Seething. Apoplectic. I bet the dog if you had one was lucky to escape being kicked cos God knows you couldn't do anything to the man from Customs. Remember your anger, harness it and use it productively.

My view hasn't changed. I disagree with VRT but I realise that there is no escaping it and that were it abolished we would have to pay more in income tax or similar. I guess that I'm a bit of a realist.
Also, I was more angry that we had given them as much honest info as we could but it still wasn't enough.
And it was an ignorant bitch a woman from Kildare Co. Co. incidentally!

Mailman wrote: »

It's my bedtime again. Good night.

Good night.

crocro

Mailman wrote: »

.The Court asked for the depreciation tables. After they finally admitted they existed, the Revenue Commissioners said they'd provide them and four years later they still haven't provided them because they are damning to their defence; the outcome is certain.

So, when you said

Niall O'Dowling has established that VRT as a Tax works against article 226 of the Treaty of Rome.

you meant that you expect the court to decide this - that the outcome is certain?

Lord Nikon

if ever there was a time to burst the inflated price of motor vehicals, it's now. Hell, there is hardly any cars selling at the moment anyway, so take the hit when the impact wont be so bad.

Mailman

crocro wrote: »

So, when you said you meant that you expect the court to decide this - that the outcome is certain?

They're opening infringement proceedings. The Revenue Commissioners have already been through the mill on this arguing that they haven't infringed the treaties so all that is available now is remedy.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/343

Mailman

kbannon wrote: »

He also claimed that he was able to stop sitting TDs claiming pensions and what happened?
He also claimed that the country was better off for bailing out Anglo!
I'm not aware of any legal impediment to him changing the tax regei

Posturing in the Dail is one thing. Already taxing our fuel higher than our neighbour is another.
http://www.aaireland.ie/petrolprices/ see May month and remember that Supermarkets sell fuel cheap in the north.

kbannon wrote: »

What percentage of cars are bought by fleet managers here? What reductions do they get from the dealers/manufacturers?
Joe Public does not have the same buying power as these and my point about them wanting the newest model still stands.

Buying power has no impact on VRT. It's an Ad Valorem tax which gets paid by Distributor to Taxman. You just provided me with another negative aspect of the tax. Only people who get preferential treatment on VRT on holiday rental car companies if I remember correctly.

kbannon wrote: »

If that was the case why are we more fecked than pretty much every other economy in the EU?
Our current government is dominated by a party that puts the party before the national interest - IIRC the national interest is estimated about third on a list of its priorities.
My view hasn't changed. I disagree with VRT but I realise that there is no escaping it and that were it abolished we would have to pay more in income tax or similar. I guess that I'm a bit of a realist.
Also, I was more angry that we had given them as much honest info as we could but it still wasn't enough.
And it was an ignorant bitch a woman from Kildare Co. Co. incidentally!
Good night.

So are you ready to take to the streets in protest yet?

Cars&cars

"In particular, registration taxes are identified as one of the biggest obstacles to the free movement of cars in the Internal Market: the Commission therefore recommends that they are gradually replaced by annual road taxes and fuel taxes (so that the tax burden would remain the same but related to the use of a car rather than its ownership). Member States are invited to take the Commission´s recommendations into account when evaluating and revising their national vehicle taxation systems.
Finally, it must be said that within the next months, the Commission intends to present a proposal for a Directive on vehicle taxation on the basis of the principles of that Communication. Such a proposal should mean a decisive step in order to put an end to the problems currently faced by the European citizen due to the lack of harmonization in the field of vehicle taxation".

--
just read that earlier EU article - so I think the EU boys are well aware that us EU-citizens are not happy being taken for money by our own Government in Ireland (and elsewhere) while they sip coffee in Brussels talking about how great the EU Free market is. VRT makes a mokery of the EU concept! In addition, VRT is legalised stealing by our own Government, what are we being charged for after all, a number, 08-d-xxxx on a computer system, and how much €8000 please "thank you very much"!

VRT might not go soon, but the Government that hiked it up will, goodbye FF, and VOTE NO to LISBON - VRT our Virtious Reply Thanks!

Zube

Mailman wrote: »

So are you ready to take to the streets in protest yet?

"What do we want?"

"No VRT and a massive income tax hike!"

"When do we want it?"

"Errrm, actually, now that I think about it..."

Mailman

The link some posters are making between a reduction in VRT and an automatic proportionate increase in Income tax is fallacious. There are myriad political reason why the Government would find it very difficult to increase Income Tax rates. Attempting to increase Income tax rates would also hasten their departure from office.

Cars&cars

The argument that an unjust and inequitable tax should not be replaced because the lost revenue would need to be found somewhere else, is valid but a poor argument. Tax, accordingly must be fair and fairly applied.

1. Telling a citizen they need to pay e.g. €10,000 for a number plate registration is hardly fair, and remember its not an import tax but a fee on registration.
2. it goes against all principles of EU free movement of goods
3. Crazy OMSPs show how poorly the tax is applied
4. Appeals take months and are not as quickly applied as the imposition of the tax
5. Consumers can not readily compare prices of cars in Eire and the UK, as this additional tax burden distorts price comparisons
6. it creates an artifical market for car prices in Ireland
...we could go on and on

Yes, the revenue may well need to come from another stream, but what ever that might be, it should be a fair tax, full stop.

p.s. how much revenue has the country lost by the Government messing up the whole economy, by allowing a property bubble, by colluding with developers, by having no control over the financial mismangement of banks. Oh yes, how much has the average citizen lost off their share prices, off their house prices, off their pension pots? Not to mention how much tax has been pumed into the banks to keep them afloat?