VRT Megathread - ALL VRT DISCUSSION IN HERE - Read First Post

JHMEG

-Chris- wrote: »

At the moment, if you buy a new car in Ireland, probably a third of the money goes to the government and two thirds go to the foreign manufacturer .....
It seems like your plan is to send a greater proportion of our car sales money abroad than we currently do, and retain as little as possible of it here.

Chris, you're forgetting VAT. Currently it's possible for the govt to get up to 36% VRT plus 21% VAT.

-Chris-

Fair point, but it won't change the equation - in a like-for-like market, a larger proportion of the money we spend on new cars will go overseas if we abolish VRT.
I think Squod's wrong on several counts.

I don't necessarily agree with VRT, but I see it's function and I can see the bedlam and financial hardship it would cause if you removed it tomorrow.

Guy:Incognito

After much pressing to try get links to prove VRT is illegal and Ireland is being fined, the most I can get from the group is stuff that shows a case thrown out because due process was'nt followed when seizing a car, but nothing to do with legality of VRT.

I did however get one ridiculous reply "what does it matter if its true or not stephen the point is they are pulling people out of cars and treating them like ****". So apparently the title of the group doesnt have to be true. It may as well be a facebook group run by the sun. The best they coul dmuster after that was a chilish reply about me using "no" instead of "know" once when replying from my iphone. Funnily enough the guy had no punctuation in his replies, bu did'nt seem to see the irony.


Between that and the spelling mistakes in the letters they sent to the councillors this has all the hallmarks of something that will bring in real change in our country.:)

They seem to be totally focusing on the supposed illegality of taking someones car under the treaty of Rome in the hope people forget about the actual title and VRT. To me it just seems the people of Donegal want to shore up he law so that the authorities can't take their cars off them and they are free to drive foreign reg'd cars and not have to pay taxes and nothing to do with some moral quest for justice. Dragging in thousands of gullible fools to blindly follow without know anything about what they are followng seems the easy bit.

squod

-Chris- wrote: »

At the moment, if you buy a new car in Ireland, probably a third of the money goes to the government and two thirds go to the foreign manufacturer or their local representatives.

If you abolish VRT and car sales remain the same, the exact same amount of money will go to the foreign manufacturer and their local representatives, but the government will get nothing.

I'll take you up on that. We're being told that VRT is a legal and legitimate tax, so we have to pay it.
The government scrappage scheme is a ''legitimate'' way of controling the Irish market while providing direct subsidy to the foreign manufacturer (primary sector workers). There are many other ways of re-couping this revenue other than VRT.

Providing direct subsidy for the primary sector of foreign economies is all wrong, while we are in a recession. It's a long way off from what should be done to fix this economy.

-Chris- wrote: »

It seems like your plan is to send a greater proportion of our car sales money abroad than we currently do, and retain as little as possible of it here.

My plan is to stop supporting foreign industry when we should be looking after our own primary sector.

-Chris-

squod wrote: »

I'll take you up on that. We're being told that VRT is a legal and legitimate tax, so we have to pay it.

Correct.

squod wrote: »

The government scrappage scheme is a ''legitimate'' way of controling the Irish market while providing direct subsidy to the foreign manufacturer (primary sector workers).

VRT controls or influences the Irish market in line with the government's objectives. At the moment that's collecting revenue while at the same time being eco-friendly.
The change in the VRT system in 2008 has been spectacularly successful in influencing new car buyers to buy lower-CO2 cars. Unfortunately the way it was implemented, and the timing of that was less successful and has reduced the VRT take.

I don't understand how the government is providing a direct subsidy to a foreign manufacturer, can you please elaborate?

squod wrote: »

There are many other ways of re-couping this revenue other than VRT.

VRT gave €1.4bn to the government coffers in 2007 and €1.1bn in 2008. I can't find the figure for 2009, but let's pretend it's €1bn.

Please briefly explain exactly where you intend to recoup €1bn worth of revenue that the government will lose if they abolish VRT. What are the other ways of recouping this revenue?

squod wrote: »

Providing direct subsidy for the primary sector of foreign economies is all wrong, while we are in a recession. It's a long way off from what should be done to fix this economy.

Again, what are the direct subsidies that we're giving to the foreign economies?

squod wrote: »

My plan is to stop supporting foreign industry when we should be looking after our own primary sector.

VRT is spent on us (maybe inefficiently, but that's one for the politics forum). The scrappage scheme creates a VRT reduction that encourages people to buy cars and create work/jobs for people in the motor industry and the finance institutions who fund these purchases. These people then pay taxes and provide employment in other sectors through their purchases.

The scrappage scheme promotes economic activity within Ireland, and provides no subsidy to any foreign industry. Whether VRT is 1,000% or VRT is abolished, BMW Germany still sell a 5-Series to BMW Ireland for the same price.

Guy:Incognito

HAs anyone any links to the VRT take per year? I cant find it.

EDIT, just saw Chris's post above. Any sign of a 2009 figure.

-Chris-

I don't see them online, but the registration figures are here:
http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=TEA01.asp&TableName=Motor+Vehicles+Licensed+for+the+First+Time&StatisticalProduct=DB_TE


Based on this I'd probably reduce my VRT guess for 2009 from €1bn to maybe less than €500m.
So we're already €900m down on 2007, trying to find that revenue elsewhere, before we ban VRT altogether...

Charlie.

JHMEG wrote: »

Which leads me on to Donegal. My understanding is that the cost of running that county in wages to teachers, gardaí, nurses, the co council etc, is more than Donegal takes in from outside the county through tourism, manufacturing etc, and that the county is being subsidised by the likes of Dublin.

There is an element of cake-and-eating-it when counties that are taking more out of the pot than what they are putting in are looking for a discount on the amount they do put in.

Yeah because it's only people from Donegal who drive UK reg cars and don't pay their VRT.
And for course everyone who sets up a business/works in Dublin has grew up and been educated in Dublin:rolleyes:

JHMEG

-Chris- wrote: »

Fair point, but it won't change the equation - in a like-for-like market, a larger proportion of the money we spend on new cars will go overseas if we abolish VRT.

With due respect that's trade union economics. The amount paid to manufacturers stays the same.

-Chris- wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with VRT, but I see it's function and I can see the bedlam and financial hardship it would cause if you removed it tomorrow.

I don't either, but the tax has to come from somewhere. I'd also be happy if there were continuous efforts at reducing the cost of running the country. The Celtic Tiger years resulted in a massive giveaway, which we now can't afford...

JHMEG

Charlie. wrote: »

Yeah because it's only people from Donegal who drive UK reg cars and don't pay their VRT.

Non-compliance with VRT is (naturally) a bigger issue the closer to the border. The facebook campaign is based in Donegal.

Charlie. wrote: »

And for course everyone who sets up a business/works in Dublin has grew up and been educated in Dublin:rolleyes:

What?

MagicSean

Just had a look at that site. God help anyone who follows their advice. They'll most likely end up with a fine, an arrest record and no car. Their policy seems to be along the lines of "If you don't believe in the law it can't get you".

squod

-Chris- wrote: »

Correct.



VRT controls or influences the Irish market in line with the government's objectives. At the moment that's collecting revenue while at the same time being eco-friendly.
The change in the VRT system in 2008 has been spectacularly successful in influencing new car buyers to buy lower-CO2 cars. Unfortunately the way it was implemented, and the timing of that was less successful and has reduced the VRT take.

I don't understand how the government is providing a direct subsidy to a foreign manufacturer, can you please elaborate?




VRT gave €1.4bn to the government coffers in 2007 and €1.1bn in 2008. I can't find the figure for 2009, but let's pretend it's €1bn.

Please briefly explain exactly where you intend to recoup €1bn worth of revenue that the government will lose if they abolish VRT. What are the other ways of recouping this revenue?




Again, what are the direct subsidies that we're giving to the foreign economies?




VRT is spent on us (maybe inefficiently, but that's one for the politics forum). The scrappage scheme creates a VRT reduction that encourages people to buy cars and create work/jobs for people in the motor industry and the finance institutions who fund these purchases. These people then pay taxes and provide employment in other sectors through their purchases.

The scrappage scheme promotes economic activity within Ireland, and provides no subsidy to any foreign industry. Whether VRT is 1,000% or VRT is abolished, BMW Germany still sell a 5-Series to BMW Ireland for the same price.

The argument as outline previously is pretty straight foward. I have no idea why you would try to justify the scrappage scheme, even if it does support some tertiary jobs & taxation. The fact is the benefit is (obviously) more widely felt in the foreign primary sector, with a huge knock-on in their' economy.

The fact that the government is still charging VRT in the manner it does while providing such subsidies is beyond comprehension. Bear in mind that this is a recession.

Guy:Incognito

squod wrote: »

. Bear in mind that this is a recession.

You keep saying that. Sticking [outrage] IT'S A RECESSION [outrage] after everything ,doesnt give you any more leverage.

A subsidy would be givign the manufacturers money towards their cost of doing business here. A reduction in vrt just reduces the cost for the customer and reduces the governments tax take on cars. The only benefit to the manufacturer is through higher sales. Whether VRT is €0 or €100,000 the manufacturer gets the same amount from the sale.

If 5,000 extra people buy cars this year that were not going to otherwise that's 5,000 x the vat amount and the reduced vrt take goign straight to th exchequer that otherwise would'nt be.

What about peopel shopping in Tesco and other foreign stores and not buyign Irish goods, I assume your venting your anger at them? The government also gave them on of your subsidies by reducing the vat rate.

squod

Stekelly wrote: »

What about peopel shopping in Tesco and other foreign stores and not buyign Irish goods, I assume your venting your anger at them?

No. You'll find there's still incentives or opportunity to buy Irish ( support primary sector workers) there too. AFAIK this state isn't handing out benefits to foreign primary sector industries through tesco.

-Chris-

You do know that Tesco isn't an Irish company, don't you?


Also, can you define what you mean by subsidy, foreign and primary sector industry please? You keep using these words/phrases and I don't know if I'm understanding you or not.

Drummerboy08

-Chris- wrote: »

You do know that Tesco isn't an Irish company, don't you?


Also, can you define what you mean by subsidy, foreign and primary sector industry please? You keep using these words/phrases and I don't know if I'm understanding you or not.

He's trying to use big words and phrases to confuse you into thinking VRT is somehow illegal.

Sofiztikated

Let me present 2 scenarios to you, one WITH VRT and one WITHOUT VRT.
(These are completely pulled out of my ass figures, but the premise still holds true.)

With VRT

BMW 5 Series.
€50000 to the customer

Of that €50000, BMW get €40000, the government get €8000 in VRT and VAT, the remaining €2000 goes to the sales team in wages,yadda yadda.

WITHOUT VRT

BMW 5 Series.
€44000 to the customer

Of that €50000, BMW get €40000, the government get €2000 VAT, the remaining €2000 goes to the sales team in wages,yadda yadda.

Without VRT, the "Gubberment" gets less cash in their coffers, they have less to spend on whatever they spend it on, more debt, etc etc etc.

You still with us?

While I don't agree with the percentages, and the skewed OMSP, it is still important.

JHMEG

Sofiztikated wrote: »

BMW 5 Series.
€44000 to the customer

Of that €50000, BMW get €40000, the government get €2000 VAT, the remaining €2000 goes to the sales team in wages,yadda yadda

Sorry, can't let those figures go.

€44000 to the customer means the government gets €7636 in VAT.

€50000 to the customer means the government gets €8677 in VAT.

MagicSean

JHMEG wrote: »

Sorry, can't let those figures go.

€44000 to the customer means the government gets €7636 in VAT.

€50000 to the customer means the government gets €8677 in VAT.

I don't think he was using a calculator. Just demonstrating a point that VRT is worth a lot to the tax payer and has no direct effect on the salesman.

JHMEG

k_mac wrote: »

I don't think he was using a calculator

Are you serious?

Sofiztikated

JHMEG wrote: »

Sorry, can't let those figures go.

€44000 to the customer means the government gets €7636 in VAT.

€50000 to the customer means the government gets €8677 in VAT.

I refer you to the second line of my argument.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Let me present 2 scenarios to you, one WITH VRT and one WITHOUT VRT.
(These are completely pulled out of my ass figures, but the premise still holds true.)

With VRT

BMW 5 Series.
€50000 to the customer

Of that €50000, BMW get €40000, the government get €8000 in VRT and VAT, the remaining €2000 goes to the sales team in wages,yadda yadda.

WITHOUT VRT

BMW 5 Series.
€44000 to the customer

Of that €50000, BMW get €40000, the government get €2000 VAT, the remaining €2000 goes to the sales team in wages,yadda yadda.

Without VRT, the "Gubberment" gets less cash in their coffers, they have less to spend on whatever they spend it on, more debt, etc etc etc.

You still with us?

While I don't agree with the percentages, and the skewed OMSP, it is still important.

See. I even bolded it for you, just in case you still happen to suffer from selective reading sysndrome. As I said, the figures are not correct, just used to point it out to you. That extra €6000 is the VRT that goes straight into the coffers, not too anyone else.

k_mac wrote: »

I don't think he was using a calculator. Just demonstrating a point that VRT is worth a lot to the tax payer and has no direct effect on the salesman.

Exactly.

Eoin

Keep it civil please

@JHMEG - I've deleted your last post.

@Sofiztikated - unbunch the panties.

JHMEG

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I even bolded it for you, just in case you still happen to suffer from selective reading sysndrome.

Since eoin deleted my tongue-in-cheek post, how's about this: If you're going to present an argument you can't be using makey-upey numbers. At least go to the effort of making a factually correct post.

Shane732

This has to be the most ridiculous thread I've ever read.

Some people have some seriously pigeonholed opinions.

RoundyMooney

JHMEG wrote: »

:eek: Are you serious?

Bertie wasn't even able to count the money he stuffed under the mattress.

Indeed, hence my sarcasm at even an accounting clerk in the Mater being able to recognise the revenue stream from VRT

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a dumb way to raise revenue from personal transportation, but we're stuck with it, for a while yet at least.

Sofiztikated

Right you wanted figures, just checked Vrt.ie

BMW 530d MSport, reg 2010 with 50 miles in the clock, garage miles.

Price, €73112 VRT €23995, €49117. That's a hell of a chunk of change to take out if the coffers.

Take VAT of that. None of that leaves the country.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the way its calculated, but none the less, its an important revenue for the government.

hurleronditch

This is a bonkers thread, and a truly bonkers argument from the campaign in general.

I have never facepalmed so many times in such a short space of time.

All these sob stories about having their cars taken and being not able to afford to pay VRT as their kids would be starving otherwise (but god, they should be happy that daddy can drive them to school in the 5 series he picked up in the north for half nothing) are absolutely cringe.

Squods continuous reference of the governments 'direct subsidy' of foreign industry is laughable. That you equate the scrappage scheme to a direct subsidy just complete voids any leg you had to stand on from an economics point of view even wikipedia can defeat that argument in one sentence

Gophur

So, no doubt, after this campaign is successful, we will have the Donegal Brigade deciding

1. We want to buy our cars in the UK,
2. Draw the dole in the Republic
3. Buy our Groceries in the North
4. Pay our Council Tax in the Republic
5. Visit the Dentist in the North
6. Go to school in the Republic
7. Visit A&RE in the North

..........................etc., etc.,

So, cherry picking is the way forward

squod

hurleronditch wrote: »

Squods continuous reference of the governments 'direct subsidy' of foreign industry is laughable.

What would you call it? Obviously, (according to you) the scrappage scheme is having no impact on the manufacturers.........:rolleyes:

http://ostrichdefense.com/images/suited-man-head-in-sand.gif

stephendevlin

JHMEG wrote: »

The should start a facebook campaign to allow Donegal rejoin the United Kingdom. I don't think I'd miss them

Ignorance.... Donegal was never part of the north (UK).

I was asked as at a Dublin vs Donegal match a few years ago by a dub "how did I find it changing over my sterling .... " I just looked at him an thought ... you idiot.

Eoin

Let's keep it on topic please.

Ush1

Can someone tell me the formula used to calculate VRT on a particular car? It certainly doesn't seem percentage of the value it was purchased for.

Eoin

From the revenue site (this page)

Since 1 July 2008 VRT is no longer based on the engine size but rather on the CO2 emissions from the car. This is a fundamental change in the method of charging VRT and impacts on the amount of VRT charged on all new cars on sale in the State and also on second-hand cars imported from abroad. Linking the VRT rates to CO2 emission levels means that those purchasing cleaner, low emission cars will pay less VRT while those opting to purchase higher emitting vehicles will pay more.

Zubeneschamali

stephendevlin wrote: »

Ignorance.... Donegal was never part of the north (UK).

It was never part of the North, but it certainly was part of the UK from 1800 to 1922.

JHMEG

stephendevlin wrote: »

Ignorance.... Donegal was never part of the (UK).

Donegal was a fully fledged part of the UK until 1920.

Ush1

eoin wrote: »

From the revenue site (this page)

Just for the craic I'm looking at how much it would be to get a brand new Chevrolet Camaro on the road over here.:pac:

They cost 22k dollars new in America. I can't seem to find the emissions on them and they aren't listed on the vrt.ie website.

hurleronditch

squod wrote: »

What would you call it? Obviously, (according to you) the scrappage scheme is having no impact on the manufacturers.........:rolleyes:

http://ostrichdefense.com/images/suited-man-head-in-sand.gif

i never said it was having no effect, my argument is that it is not a direct subsidy, which it plainly isnt.

A Direct subsidy is where the government writes a cheque to a company to do business. This is evidenced in things like the UK government paying cash to some of the private rail companies to get them to run unprofitable routes in obscure regions.

The scrappage scheme isnt even a subsidy, its a tax relief/incentive.

The purpose of the SS is to promote purchase of new cars, having the triple benefit of improving the standard of cars on our roads (both safer and better for the environment), promoting the irish motor trade stimulating trade and helping to support a business that was haemorraging jobs, and increasing the tax take.

There is a definite and unquestionable benefit to foreign car manufacturers, but the purpose of the SS was to benefit Ireland as i outlined above and the incentive is doing a damn good job of doing that.

Id like you to walk into any of the car dealers near you and ask the youngest salesman on the forecourt how this has effected him. I guarantee you he will tell you that it has kept him and thousands more like him in their jobs. So what if volkswagen sell 500 more cars and make more profit, the irish tax coffers are fuller, and more people have a reason to get up on a monday morning, and for that, i am very happy.

squod wrote: »

Providing direct subsidy for the primary sector of foreign economies is all wrong, while we are in a recession. It's a long way off from what should be done to fix this economy.




My plan is to stop supporting foreign industry when we should be looking after our own primary sector.

From what i can tell the point of this facebook group is to object to having to pay VRT when you buy a UK car and bring it into the 26 counties. You are saying the government is promoting foreign industry, yet what is your aim?

To be able to buy a car made in another country, originally bought and tax paid in another country, from a dealer in a foreign country, to bring it into our country, not pay any tax on it, and drive it on our roads.

How is that in any way beneficial to Ireland? I would imagine the core purpose of charging VRT on the importation of foreign vehicles is to push people to buy them in ireland, thereby promoting irish business and keeping irish jobs IN A RECESSION as you so politely and irrelevantly remind us at regular intervals.

The point is to make money for Ireland every time a new car hits our roads by whatever means. If you doint support irish business by buying elsewhere, then you should pay a premium

R.O.R

hurleronditch wrote: »

i never said it was having no effect, my argument is that it is not a direct subsidy, which it plainly isnt.

A Direct subsidy is where the government writes a cheque to a company to do business. This is evidenced in things like the UK government paying cash to some of the private rail companies to get them to run unprofitable routes in obscure regions.

The scrappage scheme isnt even a subsidy, its a tax relief/incentive.

The purpose of the SS is to promote purchase of new cars, having the triple benefit of improving the standard of cars on our roads (both safer and better for the environment), promoting the irish motor trade stimulating trade and helping to support a business that was haemorraging jobs, and increasing the tax take.

There is a definite and unquestionable benefit to foreign car manufacturers, but the purpose of the SS was to benefit Ireland as i outlined above and the incentive is doing a damn good job of doing that.

Id like you to walk into any of the car dealers near you and ask the youngest salesman on the forecourt how this has effected him. I guarantee you he will tell you that it has kept him and thousands more like him in their jobs. So what if volkswagen sell 500 more cars and make more profit, the irish tax coffers are fuller, and more people have a reason to get up on a monday morning, and for that, i am very happy.



From what i can tell the point of this facebook group is to object to having to pay VRT when you buy a UK car and bring it into the 26 counties. You are saying the government is promoting foreign industry, yet what is your aim?

To be able to buy a car made in another country, originally bought and tax paid in another country, from a dealer in a foreign country, to bring it into our country, not pay any tax on it, and drive it on our roads.

How is that in any way beneficial to Ireland? I would imagine the core purpose of charging VRT on the importation of foreign vehicles is to push people to buy them in ireland, thereby promoting irish business and keeping irish jobs IN A RECESSION as you so politely and irrelevantly remind us at regular intervals.

The point is to make money for Ireland every time a new car hits our roads by whatever means. If you doint support irish business by buying elsewhere, then you should pay a premium

Thank you - so much better than I ever could have put it, and sums it up perfectly.

squod

hurleronditch wrote: »

1/From what i can tell the point of this facebook group is to object to having to pay VRT when you buy a UK car and bring it into the 26 counties. 2/You are saying the government is promoting foreign industry.....

1/ don't know how this has anything to do with me, my argument is about SS
2/ that's exactly whats happening

Gophur

So, if supporting foreign industry is "wrong" that means one should not buy any American/Japanese/Korean/Chinese Computer ?

We take EU subsidies for donkey's years, but object to buying their cars?

The scrappage scheme has freed up money and got it circulating again, money that was lying dormant in various places.

If even the VRT was refunded 100% (up to the €1,500 level), the Govt is still benefiting from the VAT take, the PAYE/PRSI take for the people in the Motor Industry, and saving possible Social Welfare payments.

Facts are, the volume of sales in 2009 was not repeatable, without catastrophic consequences for the Motor Industry. Anyone who survived those volumes in 2009 could not do so, again, in 2010.


Going back to the OP? Launching a FB campaign is foolish and doomed to failure. For a start it excludes anyone who isn't on FB.

If you want such a campaign to succeed, then do the sums and get the facts ready for debate. Do not be peddling wishes (like VRT = illegal) as fact.

keithclancy

Gah, if you don't like paying a tax in a country then move country.

If you have a car in the Netherlands you'll pay BPM, same as VRT.

However overall just over the border in Germany.

If your Catholic in Germany they'll take 8% of your tax paid and send it straight to the Catholic Church.

Also they basically take half your money and Health Insurance is about 3k / year.

While cars may be cheap you end up with more money coming out of your pocket in taxes.

Gophur

Anyone care to volunteer to pay UK Council Tax? Instead of VRT?



I doubt it!

Ush1

keithclancy wrote: »

Gah, if you don't like paying a tax in a country then move country.

If you have a car in the Netherlands you'll pay BPM, same as VRT.

However overall just over the border in Germany.

If your Catholic in Germany they'll take 8% of your tax paid and send it straight to the Catholic Church.

Also they basically take half your money and Health Insurance is about 3k / year.

While cars may be cheap you end up with more money coming out of your pocket in taxes.

Probably not the place but how do they define if you're Catholic??

JHMEG

Gophur wrote: »

Anyone care to volunteer to pay UK Council Tax? Instead of VRT?

Don't hold your breath - property tax is on its way in here too.

Anan1

Ush1 wrote: »

Probably not the place but how do they define if you're Catholic??

You tell them when you register, agnostics and aetheists are not liable for church tax.;)

Ush1

Anan1 wrote: »

You tell them when you register, agnostics and aetheists are not liable for church tax.;)

So you pay less tax? Bit mad isn't it?

Good in a way I 'spose, should weed out the non hardcore, or very poor catholics!:pac:

keithclancy

Ush1 wrote: »

So you pay less tax? Bit mad isn't it?

Good in a way I 'spose, should weed out the non hardcore, or very poor catholics!:pac:

Its as mad as VRT ...

Guy:Incognito

Anan1 wrote: »

You tell them when you register, agnostics and aetheists are not liable for church tax.;)

That only works int he short term, eventually God works through his list and smites you.:)

Ush1

keithclancy wrote: »

Its as mad as VRT ...

Not so much. VRT does make sense. Involving anything religious into law and taxes is just open to abuse. Nothing can be proven sure.

snaps

I thought being part of the Eu/Europe allowed purchasing of goods in any EU state and bringing them into your own home country? So if this is so how comes with cars you still have to pay a tax if you buy a car in another EU state when bringing it home?

Seems Ireland is in the Eu when it wants to be?