Are the Green Party for real??? Carbon Tax.

Heroditas

Diarmuid wrote: »

So instead levy cars with high CO2 emissions? Which gets passed onto the consumer. And even then that's not equitable. If someone has a Porsche but it's parked up for 350 days of the year vs someone driving their Corolla 100km each day, clearly the fairer option is to charge the latter more as they pollute more?

Meanwhile the government does absolutely nothing regarding BIK for company cars and the old system of BIK remains - i.e. you get taxed LESS the MORE you drive the car.

View

Heroditas wrote: »

In the same way as the EU is paying for CO2 emmissions while China and India and many developing countries who produce more CO2 aren't opaying anything at all?

The Greens aren't in Government in China or India. They are here. Hence they get to influence Irish and EU policies.

They intend - whether you or I agree with them or not - to change the tax system to modify our behaviour wrt CO2 emissions. These tax changes will change our collective behaviour. At which point, we become an example for all the other states in the world to copy should they so choose.

Incidentally, I don't think many people would go along with an argument that "They don't pay waste disposal charges in China so high waster disposers here shouldn't have to pay waste disposal charges!"

ei.sdraob

View wrote: »

The Greens aren't in Government in China or India. They are here. Hence they get to influence Irish and EU policies.

They intend - whether you or I agree with them or not - to change the tax system to modify our behaviour wrt CO2 emissions. These tax changes will change our collective behaviour. At which point, we become an example for all the other states in the world to copy should they so choose.

Incidentally, I don't think many people would go along with an argument that "They don't pay waste disposal charges in China so high waster disposers here shouldn't have to pay waste disposal charges!"

see my post earlier about trying to put up a wind turbine

where are your greens now

Heroditas

View wrote: »

Incidentally, I don't think many people would go along with an argument that "They don't pay waste disposal charges in China so high waster disposers here shouldn't have to pay waste disposal charges!"

Yes but isn't climate change affecting the whole world? Or is it just affecting the EU? Seems like it's just EU citizens coughing up for the emissions of other countries. Hardly "equitable" in what is supposed to be a global debate :rolleyes:

Long Onion

Diarmuid wrote: »

Levying it on the fuel is the same as levying it on the carbon emissions, it's just easier to measure:

Not always true. There are a number of cars being sold which return equal mpg figures but due to options such as particulate filters etc. have differing carbon outputs. If you were to purchase the vehilcle without the filter and I was to purchase the one with the filter, my emissions would be lower yet we would both pay the same amount of carbon tax assuming we drive the same distance.

Diarmuid wrote: »

Are you kidding? Surely you are not suggesting that the services provided to you (such as the roads you are driving)does not cost the government more to provide than to someone living in an apartment block in Dublin?

I am not kidding in the slightest. The roads in my area may cost more to maintain per head of capita but when you take into consideration the fact that I am on a group water scheme (which I pay for) that I have no public transport, that I have no sewerage scheme, that I already pay by weight for my refuse, that I have no broadband, no street lighting etc etc and yet pay the same rate of tax, then surely the balance has to swing?

Diarmuid wrote: »

So instead levy cars with high CO2 emissions? Which gets passed onto the consumer. And even then that's not equitable. If someone has a Porsche but it's parked up for 350 days of the year vs someone driving their Corolla 100km each day, clearly the fairer option is to charge the latter more as they pollute more?

This is already being done, there is an emissions based VRT system in operation, you should google it. If you are talking about equity here, why not shift the burden to urban dwellers who own cars by way of a congestion charge. Many car journeys are of short duration and could be deemed unnecessary - people just popping down to the shop when it's raining etc. These are the real culprits, the target of such taxes should be those who have an alternative available and choose not to use it, not those who have no other alternative. This would be the most equitable solution.

crocro

Berkut wrote: »

You do realise that Gormley sold out the whole grassroots GP when he got in..don't you?

86% of Green party members voted to go into government in 2007. Earlier this month, 84% of members voted to stay in government. That's not really selling out the whole grassroots, is it?

Long Onion wrote: »

Even if i had picked an electric car, i would still have to pay more as a tax will also be levied on the electricity required to charge it.

Electricity will not be taxed by a carbon tax as it is already covered by the European Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

As you can see, I get no infrastructure aoutside that which I pay for myself.

You certainly get fewer and lower quality services than someone in a village or town. The provision of these services costs more than providing them to someone who lives near to other people. I presume you get mail delivered every day by a company owned by the state. Mail delivery in rural areas costs 4 times the amount to deliver mail in an urban area. Postie has a longer distance to travel between letter boxes and that means more time and more fuel per delivery. Who pays for the increased cost of delivering rural mail? Urban taxpayers. And who benefits? Rural dwellers.

And this pattern is repeated for nearly all services that the state provides.
Electricity, Healthcare, roads, education, policing. You get a worse service and it costs the state more.

I still pay the same tax as everyone else

You pay tax at the same rate as everyone else but rural dwellers generate less tax income than city dwellers as there are fewer opportunities to generate money in isolated areas than in towns. The result is a net transfer. Urban dwellers pay people to live in rural areas through social transfers. That's OK if the people living in the countryside are farmers but not so great if they're city professionals choosing the rural lifestyle. Everyone should be allowed live whatever lifestyle they choose - but is it fair to expect other people to pay for their choices?

I would suggest that the quickest way of bringing about change in this respect is not to tax the consumer but to regulate the motor industry in relation to carbon outputs.

How do you suggest regulating the motor industry? High emission vehicles are already taxed through VRT. Whether the tax is collected from the consumer or producer comes to the same thing.

As it stands, the government is standing behind the option which will produce the most revenue - is this coincidental? - I think not.

It's no coincidence. This is an exercise in raising revenue in the short term and in changing behaviour in the long term.

Long Onion

Heroditas wrote: »

Yes but isn't climate change affecting the whole world? Or is it just affecting the EU? Seems like it's just EU citizens coughing up for the emissions of other countries. Hardly "equitable" in what is supposed to be a global debate :rolleyes:

The problem with thsi whole debate is that we are only reliant on developing countries reducing their emissions because us developed nations have already done the damage in exchange for economic growth. We are now asking the emerging world to forego the levels of growth we experienced in the industrial revolution to save us all.

I recall hearing an exchange between a UK and a Brazilian politician on this issue, the latter stated that his country would consider being more environmentally friendly when the UK brought back it's natine flora and fauna which it had driven to extinction. It is a bit rich for us to go wagging the finger after we have reaped the economic benefits.

mikkael

Long Onion wrote: »

when you take into consideration the fact that I am on a group water scheme (which I pay for)

Ah, the group water scheme. I have that down the country. Great resource, except for most of the time they dump so much chlorine in it you can both smell and taste it. Great for the health I'm sure. I use bottled water to make tea.

Heroditas

Long Onion wrote: »

The problem with thsi whole debate is that we are only reliant on developing countries reducing their emissions because us developed nations have already done the damage in exchange for economic growth. We are now asking the emerging world to forego the levels of growth we experienced in the industrial revolution to save us all.

I recall hearing an exchange between a UK and a Brazilian politician on this issue, the latter stated that his country would consider being more environmentally friendly when the UK brought back it's natine flora and fauna which it had driven to extinction. It is a bit rich for us to go wagging the finger after we have reaped the economic benefits.

And people actually buy into this ridiculous argument, i.e. it's ok to continue to emit, but just not quite as much as we used to. Oh and we'll pick up the tab for you guys - for a while anyway but wait until the "carbon credits" rise to ridiculously high levels and the brokers will make a killing trading them.


EDIT: I'm all for renewable energy and environmentally-friendly products. I just don't buy into this whole carbon tax rubbish. It's an engineered tax to make a select few in society very very rich off the backs of the rest of us.

Long Onion

crocro wrote: »

Electricity will not be taxed by a carbon tax as it is already covered by the European Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

The ESRI are not in agreement with this, as far as they are concerned, electricity will be subject to a carbon tax.

crocro wrote: »

You certainly get fewer and lower quality services than someone in a village or town. The provision of these services costs more than providing them to someone who lives near to other people. I presume you get mail delivered every day by a company owned by the state. Mail delivery in rural areas costs 4 times the amount to deliver mail in an urban area. Postie has a longer distance to travel between letter boxes and that means more time and more fuel per delivery. Who pays for the increased cost of delivering rural mail? Urban taxpayers. And who benefits? Rural dwellers.

So you are saying that the cost of delivering my mail outweighs the savings in not providing me with footpaths, lighting, water, transport, sewerage - I think you may be generalising.

crocro wrote: »

And this pattern is repeated for nearly all services that the state provides.
Electricity, Healthcare, roads, education, policing. You get a worse service and it costs the state more.

I had to fund the additional cost of installing an ESB connection when the house was constructed. Regarding healthcare, I have no medical card and have to drive to my GP or to the hospital if needed. I realise that an ambulance may have to call to me but I am presuming that this cost would be passed to VHI, as I live 35 miles from the regional hospital I am probably closer than a lot of Dublin's population. Education - please explain how the local school costs more per student than the one in an urban area - we had a fundraiser for installing broadband as the Dept of Education would not, the school is not on a sewerage scheme, the teachers are paid the same as teachers in urban areas. Policing - our local station has been closed for a few years, we have to wait for a Garda to come from the nearest town (circa 6 miles) this is hardly any different to the rest of the country?

crocro wrote: »

You pay tax at the same rate as everyone else but rural dwellers generate less tax income than city dwellers as there are fewer opportunities to generate money in isolated areas than in towns. The result is a net transfer. Urban dwellers pay people to live in rural areas through social transfers. That's OK if the people living in the countryside are farmers but not so great if they're city professionals choosing the rural lifestyle. Everyone whould be allowed live whatever lifestyle they choose - but is it fair to expect other people to pay for their choices?

I personally pay a graet deal of tax, my spouse and I contribute in excess of €40k per year in taxes. As i have pointed out above, due to the lack of services in my vicinity I challenge the notion that my area is more expensive to service per head than an urban area. If we had transport and all of the other things mentioned above, I would gladly accept paying more for conveniences, as it stands now I benefit from very little and will now have to pay more for necessities.

crocro wrote: »

How do you suggest regulating the motor industry? High emission vehicles are already taxed through VRT. Whether the tax is collected from the consumer or producer comes to the same thing.

Nobody needs to by a Lamborghini Gallardo, a Range Rover, Porsche, Ferrari - raise the tax take on these vehicles to offset the need to introduce it elsewhere. That way, the person who make the lifestyle choice pays accordingly. If people stop purchasing these high polluting cars then the long term behavioural change is accomplished.

Long Onion

mikkael wrote: »

Ah, the group water scheme. I have that down the country. Great resource, except for most of the time they dump so much chlorine in it you can both smell and taste it. Great for the health I'm sure. I use bottled water to make tea.

Genuine question here - is there a particular point to this (given the fact that you are supporting Diarmuid's responses to my post) or are you agreeing that despite the fact that rural dwellers have to pay for something that is free to the Urban dwellers - what we get is still substandard? If the latter then surely you must have an issue with being told that it is right we have to pay for it because we are 'too expensive fo society to support' unless we are farmers.

mikkael

Long Onion wrote: »

Genuine question here - is there a particular point to this (given the fact that you are supporting Diarmuid's responses to my post) or are you agreeing that despite the fact that rural dwellers have to pay for something that is free to the Urban dwellers - what we get is still substandard? If the latter then surely you must have an issue with being told that it is right we have to pay for it because we are 'too expensive fo society to support' unless we are farmers.

I don't quite understand what you mean. I'm not a farmer. As for water supply, we pay for it many times over in taxes already and no, I don't enjoy being poisoned. Re: my agreement with the other poster, I drive a 15 year old car which saves the enviornement.

Your arguments in relation to cars seem to deal with post 2008 cars, and that's fine. I subsidise those who are less enviornmentally friendly ( post 2008 cars ) to a factor of 4 through the road tax while I continue to save the enviornment by keeping an older car on the road. Enviornment against this backdrop is a load of cock.

GUIGuy

I just don't understand why the term 'Carbon' tax. Carbon is not a pollutant (although CO2 is). Do they think that if you call it Carbon that people will associate it with soot, burning, dirt etc?

Let's be honest the biggest threat is not CO2, it's Methane.
It's 72 times more damaging than CO2 (not 20 as often quoted)
The figures are from the UNs InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/

But for a digestable table based on the same go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

Obviously there are far more dangerous gases than Methane, some of the Fluoroforms are more than 10,000 times more effective. However they are not very abundant.

Food production (especially steak) has been one of the worst contributors

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8329612.stm

I haven't seen the Greens ask for a greenhouse tax on 'betsy' or burgers...

I fear that the Greens are not rational or objective.
They seem to be driven by a desire to change behaviour that they see as 'nasty'.

Their actions, and lack of addressing real reinforce that fear.

Heroditas

GUIGuy wrote: »

I just don't understand why the term 'Carbon' tax. Carbon is not a pollutant (although CO2 is). Do they think that if you call it Carbon that people will associate it with soot, burning, dirt etc?

Bingo! You're spot on there. I wouldn't go so far as to call CO2 a pollutant though. It helps plantlife grow.
Anyway, I would agree with what you say. It used be called carbon dioxide but they ditched the dioxide bit to make it sound "snazzy" and make it more of a buzzword.

Long Onion

mikkael wrote: »

I don't quite understand what you mean. I'm not a farmer. As for water supply, we pay for it many times over in taxes already and no, I don't enjoy being poisoned. Re: my agreement with the other poster, I drive a 15 year old car which saves the enviornement.

Your arguments in relation to cars seem to deal with post 2008 cars, and that's fine. I subsidise those who are less enviornmentally friendly ( post 2008 cars ) to a factor of 4 through the road tax while I continue to save the enviornment by keeping an older car on the road. Enviornment against this backdrop is a load of cock.

I wasn't saying that you were farming - i was referring to the point made earlier by another poster who stated that it's ok for urban generated taxes to be used to support the lifestyles of farmers but not of workers who live in rural areas and commute to work. I agree with you on the group water schemes - we pay out of our own pockets for water (which urban dwellers don't) despite this, the quality is generally poor and we are told to put up with it because we live in the countryside and are a burden on the state regardless of how much tax we pay.

In relation to the cars issue, my present car is 6 years old with 135,000 miles on the clock. I pay over €800 per annum in rad tax, it is a diesel and returns over 55mpg and is fitted with a particulate filter. I have no issue with the road tax, I chose the car and am happy to pay the tax, what I am against is being further penalised by a carbon tax because I happen to live in an area with no public transport or local employment. I agree with your points, sorry if I assumed you were one of the pitch-fork wielding anti rural brigade:)

View

ei.sdraob wrote: »

see my post earlier about trying to put up a wind turbine

I did - you may well have a case that the regulations preventing you from putting up the wind turbine run contrary to government policy on green issues.

In which case, should you point out this anomaly (to politicans), someone - in government - might make a decision on which regulation should in future take precedence in a case such as yours.

Obviously, this won't happen quickly but it certainly won't happen at all, if you don't bring it to the attention of relevant politicans/Ministers as the current rules will stay in place by default.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

where are your greens now

I am not a member of the Greens, hence they are not mine.

View

Heroditas wrote: »

Yes but isn't climate change affecting the whole world? Or is it just affecting the EU? Seems like it's just EU citizens coughing up for the emissions of other countries. Hardly "equitable" in what is supposed to be a global debate :rolleyes:

There is no world government to formulate a "perfect solution" in this or any other matter. Instead, there are multiple states and/or regional bodies - acting either individually or jointly - coming up with highly imperfect solutions to the issue.

The choice on this, as with so many other issues, comes down to either implementing some part of an eventual solution or just hoping it goes away. The Greens have opted for the former.

crocro

Long Onion wrote: »

The ESRI are not in agreement with this, as far as they are concerned, electricity will be subject to a carbon tax.

In 2007, Professor Richard Tol strongly advised against a carbon tax on electricity. The commission on taxation report this year recommended the same. The department of finance has said electricity will not be suject to carbon tax.
http://www.esri.ie/publications/search_for_a_publication/search_results/view/index.xml?id=2489
http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/submissions/State%20Bodies//L01%20-%20ESRI.pdf
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1028/1224257553213.html

We won't know until the budget but I doubt electricity will be taxed further.

I had to fund the additional cost of installing an ESB connection when the house was constructed.

Rural dwellers pay more for new connections and a higher standing charge but they are not charged the full costs. New connections are typically charged at 50% of cost. A rural dweller pays the same as an urban dweller per unit used, but gets a less reliable service in return. This low quality service costs the ESB more to provide than a reliable service in a town.

The difference between the economic cost of providing the service and the cost charged to the rural dweller is paid by the profitable urban customers.

Regarding healthcare, I have no medical card and have to drive to my GP or to the hospital if needed. I realise that an ambulance may have to call to me but I am presuming that this cost would be passed to VHI, as I live 35 miles from the regional hospital I am probably closer than a lot of Dublin's population.

Regional hospitals provide a lower level of service compared to city hospitals. They don't have the numbers to justify specialists and they are relatively unattractive locations for medical staff to work. Population dispersal leads to pressure for dispersed and thus lower quality medical services with poor surgical outcomes, mortality rates etc. So we end up with regional hospitals that cost the same per employee as large hospitals yet deliver worse healthcare outcomes.

VHI rates are the same for urban and rural dwellers, so if a rural medical patient's transport costs are picked up by the insurance company, then these costs are being met with the premiums of the urban customers.

Education - please explain how the local school costs more per student than the one in an urban area

Rural schools in isolated areas often have very small pupil-teacher ratios. Yet the teachers are paid the same as those teaching a full class. These schools are inefficient, educating fewer pupils for the same amount of money as an urban school. In this case, the rural dweller's child receives the benefit of a reduced class size, the increased costs per pupil is borne by the state. The result is a net transfer from the urban taxpayer to the rural transfer recipient.

The state subsidises public transport for people who live more than a certain distance from school. In this case people who live far from school are rewarded with subsidised travel paid for by those who live close to school. People in urban areas tend to live closer to school than rural dwellers so the net result is another transfer from urban to rural dwellers.

Policing - our local station has been closed for a few years, we have to wait for a Garda to come from the nearest town (circa 6 miles) this is hardly any different to the rest of the country?

A garda in a town can quite feasibly patrol the area on foot or bicycle and get to any disturbance in a couple of minutes by car. A dispersed population cannot effectively be policed. The area is too large to patrol. The state makes a token effort by placing the odd cop in a village police station to do nothing all day. This involves paying for a building for 1 or 2 idle gardai to sign off passport applications and motor tax forms.

Nobody needs to by a Lamborghini Gallardo, a Range Rover, Porsche, Ferrari - raise the tax take on these vehicles to offset the need to introduce it elsewhere. That way, the person who make the lifestyle choice pays accordingly. If people stop purchasing these high polluting cars then the long term behavioural change is accomplished.

If only this were possible: a society with everything paid for by Lambo drivers. A Lamborghini owner pays 100K in VAT & VRT at purchase, then pays 2100/year motor tax. Also VAT/excise duty & carbon tax on fuel and levy on insurance costs. There will never be enough supercar owners to make their tax take significant.

I don't want you take this personally - I have nothing against people choosing to move to the countryside outside of towns and villages. I just don't see why I should have to pay for that choice.

Diarmuid

Long Onion wrote: »

Not always true. There are a number of cars being sold which return equal mpg figures but due to options such as particulate filters etc. have differing carbon outputs.

Link please? (ie I think you are wrong)

Long Onion wrote: »

This is already being done, there is an emissions based VRT system in operation, you should google it.

I know. It's dumb (the 5liter car parked all year produced zero emissions). It should be ditched. The Greens agree. (link on a previous page)

Long Onion wrote: »

If you are talking about equity here, why not shift the burden to urban dwellers who own cars by way of a congestion charge.

I agree. Congestion charges are a good way of disincentivise wasteful journeys but this is a related but separate tax.

That still has nothing to do with carbon charges. They should still be introduced for all the reasons already discussed

Heroditas

View wrote: »

The choice on this, as with so many other issues, comes down to either implementing some part of an eventual solution or just hoping it goes away. The Greens have opted for the former.

Have we become sheep that we simply accept this and say it's for "the greater good"?

There is one thing that the carbon tax might be used for though - the NEERP. However, from reading it so far, it's simply a prop-up for the builders.

Diarmuid

GUIGuy wrote: »

I just don't understand why the term 'Carbon' tax. Carbon is not a pollutant (although CO2 is).

Because it's easier to say Carbon Tax than Carbon Dioxide Tax

The Monkey Pump

crocro wrote: »

In 2007, Professor Richard Tol strongly advised against a carbon tax on electricity. The commission on taxation report this year recommended the same. The department of finance has said electricity will not be suject to carbon tax.
http://www.esri.ie/publications/search_for_a_publication/search_results/view/index.xml?id=2489
http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/submissions/State%20Bodies//L01%20-%20ESRI.pdf
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1028/1224257553213.html

We won't know until the budget but I doubt electricity will be taxed further.

Funnily enough, it was Richard Tol on Wednesday's morning Ireland who agreed that electricity would be caught under the remit of a carbon tax.

crocro wrote: »

Rural dwellers pay more for new connections and a higher standing charge but they are not charged the full costs. New connections are typically charged at 50% of cost. A rural dweller pays the same as an urban dweller per unit used, but gets a less reliable service in return. This low quality service costs the ESB more to provide than a reliable service in a town.

OUr service has had no autage in the past 11 years, this doesn't seem unreliable to me.

crocro wrote: »

The difference between the economic cost of providing the service and the cost charged to the rural dweller is paid by the profitable urban customers.

Have you any info to back up this, I would be interested in getting a breakdown of the costs pre serve of rural versus urban areas. Cheers.

crocro wrote: »

Regional hospitals provide a lower level of service compared to city hospitals. They don't have the numbers to justify specialists and they are relatively unattractive locations for medical staff to work. Population dispersal leads to pressure for dispersed and thus lower quality medical services with poor surgical outcomes, mortality rates etc. So we end up with regional hospitals that cost the same per employee as large hospitals yet deliver worse healthcare outcomes.

I would doubt very much that Mayo regional doesn't have the numbers to justify specialists, I would also think that the comment re; unattractiveness is a generalisation, many people move to rural locations for quality of life reasons. Agian I would be interest in seeing information on surgical outcomes and mortality rates for urban hospitals versus rural, I would be interested in seeing average waiting times for surgical procedures also. Cheers.

crocro wrote: »

VHI rates are the same for urban and rural dwellers, so if a rural medical patient's transport costs are picked up by the insurance company, then these costs are being met with the premiums of the urban customers.

Are you sure that they are not being met by the premiums of all the customers who do not claim? Again, a generalisation.

crocro wrote: »

Rural schools in isolated areas often have very small pupil-teacher ratios. Yet the teachers are paid the same as those teaching a full class. These schools are inefficient, educating fewer pupils for the same amount of money as an urban school. In this case, the rural dweller's child receives the benefit of a reduced class size, the increased costs per pupil is borne by the state. The result is a net transfer from the urban taxpayer to the rural transfer recipient.

Scholls are funded by way of a capitation grant.

crocro wrote: »

The state subsidises public transport for people who live more than a certain distance from school. In this case people who live far from school are rewarded with subsidised travel paid for by those who live close to school. People in urban areas tend to live closer to school than rural dwellers so the net result is another transfer from urban to rural dwellers.

The grant for travel to school is means tested. I do not recieve any subsidy

crocro wrote: »

A garda in a town can quite feasibly patrol the area on foot or bicycle and get to any disturbance in a couple of minutes by car. A dispersed population cannot effectively be policed. The area is too large to patrol. The state makes a token effort by placing the odd cop in a village police station to do nothing all day. This involves paying for a building for 1 or 2 idle gardai to sign off passport applications and motor tax forms.

Minutes? I doubt it very much, there are more Gardai per capita in urban areas, this being so, does the rural dweller not subsidise the urban?

crocro wrote: »

If only this were possible: a society with everything paid for by Lambo drivers. A Lamborghini owner pays 100K in VAT & VRT at purchase, then pays 2100/year motor tax. Also VAT/excise duty & carbon tax on fuel and levy on insurance costs. There will never be enough supercar owners to make their tax take significant.

But surely you were saying earlier that the real reason behind a carbon tax is not the tax take but the behavioural change that it drives, no?

crocro wrote: »

I don't want you take this personally - I have nothing against people choosing to move to the countryside outside of towns and villages. I just don't see why I should have to pay for that choice.

I don't and you don't respectively - at least not to the extent you belive, and not in my individual case.

CCCP^

Green is the new PD this year. They are finished at the next election, can't say I will miss them.

Heroditas

CCCP^ wrote: »

Green is the new PD this year. They are finished at the next election, can't say I will miss them.

Unfortunately, their legacy will remain for a long time to come in the form of environmental taxation dreamed up by these dilettantes

Diarmuid

Long Onion wrote: »

n relation to the cars issue, my present car is 6 years old with 135,000 miles on the clock. I pay over €800 per annum in rad tax, it is a diesel and returns over 55mpg and is fitted with a particulate filter. I have no issue with the road tax, I chose the car and am happy to pay the tax, what I am against is being further penalised by a carbon tax because I happen to live in an area with no public transport or local employment. I agree with your points, sorry if I assumed you were one of the pitch-fork wielding anti rural brigade:)

You are being asked to pay for your pollution. It's pretty straightforward, you might not like it but that's beside the point.

And you don't pay road tax you pay motor tax. It goes into the same pool of revenue that income/vat/etc taxes go.

Kered75

crocro wrote: »

I don't want you take this personally - I have nothing against people choosing to move to the countryside outside of towns and villages. I just don't see why I should have to pay for that choice.

I don't see why people in rural areas have to pay subsidize Dublin Bus

This Carbon Tax will have the same affect on the economy as the VAT increase last year, many will just travel over the border to get cheaper fuel
Petrol price in local garage 118.9,Petrol in Enniskillen on Monday £1.09 (1.21 Euro)

The Monkey Pump

Diarmuid wrote: »

Link please? (ie I think you are wrong)

THis is one example:


Peugeot developed FAP technology to make their engines cleaner still. The system retains particles that would otherwise have passed out in the exhaust gasses and incinerates them, significantly cutting harmful emissions.

The fitment of FAP filters also renders the 407s 1.6HDi and 2.0HDi engines compliant with the Euro IV emissions regulations, so company car users are waived the 3% BIK tax supplement levied on non-Euro IV diesels. The key point here is that if you buy a Peugeot 407 diesel from the standard range, it will come fitted with the FAP filter technology but the X-Line special edition models do without it

What FAP does do is slash the engines particulate emissions from 0.046g/km to 0.005g/km while also cutting nitrogen oxide output from 0.307g/km to 0.173g/km.

Carbon Monoxide is also cut significantly and together, all these reductions help to make the FAP HDi engines Euro IV-compliant. This is great for company car users who save 3% on their tax bill but private buyers get no benefit from this aside from the satisfaction of taking the environmentally friendly option. The two diesel engines in the X-Line will appeal to quite different buyers, mainly due to the significant differences in the performance on offer. The 1. 6 HDi is, after all, over two yawning seconds slower to sixty (13.1s) and 10mph slower flat out (110mph). Many will think that worth the model-for-model £1,100 premium that Peugeot require from X-Line buyers wishing to trade up from the smaller engine, even though theres a 10g/km penalty in emissions (155g/km for the 2.0 HDi as opposed to 145g/km for the 1. 6). The fuel consumption figures produced by the two engines (an average of 51.1mpg for the 1.6 as opposed to 48mpg for the 2.0 HDi) are hardly different.


There are many other examples if you care to google them.

Heroditas

Kered75 wrote: »

This Carbon Tax will have the same affect on the economy as the VAT increase last year, many will just travel over the border to get cheaper fuel
Petrol price in local garage 118.9,Petrol in Enniskillen on Monday £1.09 (1.21 Euro)

Even then, the Greens will put a positive spin on it. They'll point to the decreased sales in petrol and diesel and say the tax is having an effect and people are using their car less. When in actual fact, they're just buying petrol across the border.
What a con!

Diarmuid

The Monkey Pump wrote: »

There are many other examples if you care to google them.

Sorry but you are disproving your own point

Here is the spec from peugeot Ireland

Car|Emissions(g/km)|Consumption(l/100km)|Emissions(g/l)*
407 Saloon 1.6HDI FAP|140|5.3|2641
407 Coupe 2.0 HDI|156|5.9|2644

* Margin of rounding error in consumption input is 22-25 g/l

Liam Byrne

MrMicra wrote: »

You've made the decision to live in a remote rural location. Why should the whole planet subisidise your selfishness?

Is this a serious question, or a rhetorical one ?

Firstly, lots of people were born and grew up in rural areas
Secondly, we're not talking "back of beyonds" in Ireland before you don't have resources and infrastructure
Thirdly, thanks to Irish "planning" and "the boom", most people have no choice because they didn't have the half-a-million required to pay for a 2-bed + boxroom

Finally, as I've asked elsewhere - did the people in Dublin object when we all subsidised their M50 (including the buyout of the toll crowd and the never-ending "improvements") ?

Also, it's not even a "rural" issue. To go from Limerick to Galway by train, you have to travel at least 120 miles extra, going via Ballybrophy or Dublin. That's between two CITIES!!!