...more on Motor Tax policy.....

galwaytt

...following yesterday's event - and no major skeleton's in the closet, I thought I'd update a bit.

OK, fuel went up. But that's it.

I think what is more important is what DIDN'T happen. And to me, this was the review, or realignment of our two-tier tax system - i.e. pre and post Jan 1 08 cars/rates.

I'm shocked they missed the opportunity to up the post 08 cars, though. From my perspective I'm pissed they didn't do anything for the pre 08's though.

I did a written submission to 3 different department's on this issue: Environment, Transport and Finance. All acknowledged.

Yesterday, John Gormley wrote back, and these are the grounds for NOT adjusting tax to a usage basis:

1. The proceeds from motor tax are not paid into the Exchequer but
directly into the Local Government Fund to support the funding of local
authorities. The Fund is used predominantly to finance local and
regional roads but also contributes to the funding of the general
purpose needs of local authorities. It is important that any changes to
the current motor tax system would not have a negative effect on
revenue.

2. It should be noted that while the suggestion for an additional tax on
fuel in lieu of the current system of motor tax has some merit, the
State’s border with another jurisdiction is likely to make
implementation of any such proposal problematic.

To which I replied today:

1. The mechanic's of redistributing funds from, say the exchequer, in the event of a fuel-tax collection, is no less complicated than the distribution of any other funds from exchequer to Local Authority. And, as that mechanism already exists, I do not see a cost in it. Conversely, the removal of the complete tax administration system would in and of itself more than compensate, through operational savings. That there then would be 100% vehicle compliance is the icing-on-top.

2. Your comment about the Northern Ireland jurisdiction is however, incorrect. It is wrong because you added 4c to petrol yesterday, and now petrol in Athenry, for example, is €1.36 a litre, whilst in the North it is now €1.42 a litre. So the worry about revenue flight is completley unfounded. Realistically, there would have to be a considerable advantage, per litre, for such 'fuel tourism'. Indeed, at the moment, the fuel tourism would be IN to this State, not out of it.

I would ask you Minister, to look at this again, as the two-tier system (of pre Jan 1 2008 and post Jan 1 2008)is completely inequitable, against those least able to afford it.


It really makes you wonder do any of these people live in the Real World ?

Seweryn

galwaytt wrote: »

...It really makes you wonder do any of these people live in the Real World ?

Not really... They live in a different planet, what can be seen when you analyse the budget impact on various groups of people .
The motor taxation system is very wrong at its basis, as it simply is an "ownership tax" and not much more than that. Furthermore it favourisates the rich part of our society, as the poor people simply can't afford cars that are cheap to tax...

doOh

They dont care as long as they get their 400k every year ... twats

Padraig Mor

They've already said in the 4 year plan that "the current CO2 bands and rates structures will be examined in the light of the overall reductions in CO2 emission levels being made by car manufacturers and the standards set internationally with a view to adjusting the bands in line with technological advances on 1 January 2013". i.e. a stonking great increase in motor tax for many in 2013!

Gormley defo is in another world, the chap has no clue. At least he has accelerated the current governments imminent departure though.

BostonB

The most CO2 and fuel efficient cars will be the newest cars. Which the better off will have. The least efficient and worst CO2 will be older cars which the least well off will have.

So the question is who do you tax the most. The people with the most or the least. The flip side, if you want to encourage a greener agenda, then should you be doing this through motor tax? Of course its debatable if keeping an old car running, rather than replacing it, with a new one is greener, considering the resources used in making a new car, and lost in scrapping an old one. My pre 08 car tax would tripleif it was done on the new system vs the old. Gulp...

Del2005

BostonB wrote: »

The most CO2 and fuel efficient cars will be the newest cars. Which the better off will have. The least efficient and worst CO2 will be older cars which the least well off will have.

How can a new car be cleaner for CO2? It emits less CO2 when driven but it will have to be driven a huge distance to recover the CO2 produced in it's construction and transport.

But then CO2 produced in another country doesn't affect us Green policy my @rse, if they where really green they should be grant aiding 10+ year old cars to keep them going and going.

BostonB

Del2005 wrote: »

How can a new car be cleaner for CO2? It emits less CO2 when driven but it will have to be driven a huge distance to recover the CO2 produced in it's construction and transport....

In fairness I made that point in the rest of my comment, which you choose not to quote.

daveharnett

BostonB wrote: »

The most CO2 and fuel efficient cars will be the newest cars. Which the better off will have. The least efficient and worst CO2 will be older cars which the least well off will have.

I'm not sure about the merit of that argument, given the amount of tax that is paid up front on a new car.

daveharnett

BostonB wrote: »

My pre 08 car tax would tripleif it was done on the new system vs the old. Gulp...

Yikes. Rotary engine or massive turbo?

Padraig Mor

Their stated aim is to bring 'average' 08- tax into line with 'average' -08 tax. I think 'old tax' cars will be left as is, and significant increases put onto post-08 low CO2 cars, especially in the 120 - 180 CO2 region, which is where most of the tax reductions have happened, i.e. your average large family saloon was costing €5/600 to tax a couple of years ago, but now only €150 - expect this to be reversed. I'd also expect/hope to see a reduction in tax for the highest CO2 cars (>225), as the tiny number of these being registered must be costing the govt money.

edit: something like this:


Current tax...............................new tax
(< 100 CO2)..............................€100
€104........................................€200
€156........................................€400
€302........................................€600
€447........................................€700
€630........................................€800
€1050......................................€1200
€2100......................................€1600

Del2005

BostonB wrote: »

In fairness I made that point in the rest of my comment, which you choose not to quote.

Sorry I missed that. My fault for speed (not)reading:o

stevenmu

Del2005 wrote: »

How can a new car be cleaner for CO2? It emits less CO2 when driven but it will have to be driven a huge distance to recover the CO2 produced in it's construction and transport.

But then CO2 produced in another country doesn't affect us Green policy my @rse, if they where really green they should be grant aiding 10+ year old cars to keep them going and going.

The 'green' goal of the motor tax policy is a long term goal, and it's affect is distorted because we are still so close to 2008. Encouraging someone to move from a 2007 car to a 2008 one on a CO2 basis is clearly ridiculous, but in 10 years time when people will be choosing mainly between post-2008 cars the CO2 rating will have a benefit then. In 2020 when somebody is deciding between a 2012 car which emits 100g/km and another 2012 car which emits 200g/km, there's a clear benefit to them choosing the 100g/km car.

Realistically a line had to be drawn somewhere, and the closer we are to that line the sillier it looks, but in time it will make more sense.

But then again I'm another whose tax would triple or even quadrouple under the CO2 scheme (rotary engine), so I have a bit of a vested interest in keeping that line where it is. My biggest fear is that they'll decide to bring pre-08 cars into the post-08 rates .

BostonB

stevenmu wrote: »

...My biggest fear is that they'll decide to bring pre-08 cars into the post-08 rates .

I think they only have the "new rate" in England didn't they? They didn't keep an old one for older cars. I may be mistaken.

BostonB

daveharnett wrote: »

Yikes. Rotary engine or massive turbo?

Dirty old 1.6 NA VW. One of the reason it got dropped from the range AFAIK.

BostonB

daveharnett wrote: »

I'm not sure about the merit of that argument, given the amount of tax that is paid up front on a new car.

I think you mean that the well off pay more overall. True. I was taking the motor tax in isolation. Because IMO, running a old car as basic transport vs the luxury of buying a new car and losing a small fortune depreciation for no good reason, isn't directly comparable.

stevenmu

BostonB wrote: »

I think they only have the "new rate" in England didn't they? They didn't keep an old one for older cars. I may be mistaken.

No, they have different rates for cars registered before or after March/April '01:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012524

BostonB

Why did they pick that date? When did they change the rates?

galwaytt

daveharnett wrote: »

I'm not sure about the merit of that argument, given the amount of tax that is paid up front on a new car.

No, you're wrong. Every car on the road has had tax paid up front on it, to register it. And, in the case of pre Jan 08 ones specifically, they've actually paid far, far MORE, not less.
And I'm someone who bought a new 'clean' diesel in Mar 2007, so the one I bought got shafted by Gormley on Jan 1 2008. I know a guy who had 10k wiped off the value of his DSG equipped Passat. That's 10k the govt got to keep.

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Their stated aim is to bring 'average' 08- tax into line with 'average' -08 tax. I think 'old tax' cars will be left as is, and significant increases put onto post-08 low CO2 cars, especially in the 120 - 180 CO2 region, which is where most of the tax reductions have happened, i.e. your average large family saloon was costing €5/600 to tax a couple of years ago, but now only €150 - expect this to be reversed. I'd also expect/hope to see a reduction in tax for the highest CO2 cars (>225), as the tiny number of these being registered must be costing the govt money.

edit: something like this:


Current tax...............................new tax
(< 100 CO2)..............................€100
€104........................................€200
€156........................................€400
€302........................................€600
€447........................................€700
€630........................................€800
€1050......................................€1200
€2100......................................€1600

Interested to know where they 'stated' that - be good to have a look at the source. If the above is true, then it proves the whole GP thing was a con.

BostonB wrote: »

I think you mean that the well off pay more overall. True. I was taking the motor tax in isolation. Because IMO, running a old car as basic transport vs the luxury of buying a new car and losing a small fortune depreciation for no good reason, isn't directly comparable.

...my experience is that it's the other way 'round, tbh.

Padraig Mor

galwaytt wrote: »

Interested to know where they 'stated' that - be good to have a look at the source. If the above is true, then it proves the whole GP thing was a con..

It's in the 4 year plan document. Don't have it to hand here. The whole GP thing was always a con - it was explicitly stated at the time that the 2008 tax changes were intended to be revenue neutral. Unfortunately the Dept of Finance are as good at forecasting car buying habits as they are at estimating bank debts. You can be full sure they simply took the 2007 registrations, looked at the CO2 levels, and assumed the same cars (and engines) would sell in roughly the same numbers again. The thought that people might buy a lower CO2 car to save on tax is not something that would occur to these people.....

Owen

The new motor tax from 2008 is discrimination against people who can't afford to get a new car, and it's not far off communism either telling us the cars we should be driving. Green is the new red!

Voodoomelon

In fairness galwaytt (and i'm all for your fuel based tax system), the differences you quoted between northern and southern fuel prices are todays prices, that difference would close rapidly and possibly overlap considerably, if this system was to be introduced.

Setting aside the fact that fuel prices are only going to be on the increase in this country due to hikes in every single budget over the next 4 years and the fact that the euro will have a questionable value over the same time period, I put forward the following example.

Assuming a national average of 35MPG for all cars on the road, and 12,000 miles driven per year, each driver consumes 1900 litres of fuel. To achieve an average of €570 from each driver (not totally implausible I think?), fuel would have to increase 30c a litre. Now you might say it wouldn't have to be this much as many more drivers who wouldn't normally tax their car will be drawn into the tax net, but the government is only going to at least match their current intake from the implementation of a system like this, and the rest.

Its quite possible that we could see a 40c per litre increase in a few years time compared to the UK with such a system, so quite a difference there. Even assuming half that, you'd have people heading up North, no complaints from me, i'm only down the road.

galwaytt

I hear ya, but I don't agree with your figures, for the following reasons:

A more accurate calculation to arrive at the tax-per-litre, would be national consumption, divided by no of cars on the road, (or similar). Your calculation, whilst well-intended, just makes too many suppositions.

As you say, revenue-neutral is the minimum level, my basis above would be less likely to affected by individual cases.

And, bearing in mind that the current crop of new-car owner's are enjoying sub-200/yr tax, I think the annual average you quote is at least 100% too high.

Finally, irrespective of any system used, NI will be NI, and we cannot be guided what they might do, or what the euro might be worth. This is the nanniness that has given us bank guarantees etc etc. We need to make a decision for us, only.

Now even if all the above are true, and come to pass, and the resultant tax is deemed too high per litre, then, frankly, we are over-taxed. No surprise there. And for as long as tax is both avoidable and evadable - that's exactly what people will do.

My 0.02 as they say.

BostonB

galwaytt wrote: »

..
...my experience is that it's the other way 'round, tbh.

Not with you. Could you expand on that?

galwaytt

BostonB wrote: »

Not with you. Could you expand on that?

...what mean is - and I'm assuming I understood your comment correctly - is that in my experience, it is those who are least able to afford it, have to make the biggest sacrifices, and so, imho, make the biggest 'sacrifice' and by extension it cost them 'more'.

It is as true of Motor Tax, income tax, and any other 'measure' Muppet Central dishes out......

Clear as.......mud ?

Voodoomelon

Really there is no way of knowing what it would cost each of us until the goverment sits down and works out what they currently take in in motor tax, and then divides that amongst the amount of registered cars, assuming a certain amount of mileage, a combination of both what you and I were saying.

Very true about the north not being a concern, I agree its always going to be there and it shouldn't influence what we do and do not introduce interms of policy. As long as they at least take in the same amount in tax whilst making it fairer for everyone, it shouldn't be an issue.

CyberGhost

Motor tax should be included in the fuel price, I'll pay what I drive.

Everyone would pay "tax" that way and it'd also free up Garda from having to waste time checking for tax discs.

Tax shouldn't be one of the main influences on what car I buy damn it!

Maybe we should organize some demonstration, tell me who do I email to?

Senna

I dont have a source, but it was quoted on here a year or two ago. If they were to put motor tax on petrol, it would increase the price by 25c (if they were to put vrt on petrol, it would increase by 3c).
The method they used seem to be accurate.

Johnny Utah

In the Politics forum, I also suggested adding motor tax onto fuel.... I feel like somebody stole my thunder!


I thoroughly agree with the OP though; motor tax should be added to the price of fuel at the pump. A simple, but very effective solution to the issue of motor tax. It's absolutely nonsensical, inequitable and myopic to have the current motor tax system in place for a number of reasons:

(1) It negatively effects the secondhand value of big-engined cars. The higher motor tax rates of cars over 2L effectively means that Irish people are unlikely to buy them as often the biggest running cost per year is the motor tax. Take an Audi S8 which is a few years old, for example. If you buy it for €6,000; spend about €500-€1000 in service/maintenance per year; you still have to stump up a bill of around €1,500 (I think) in annual road tax. One quarter of the value of the car in motor tax! Imagine buying an Audi A4 for €40k and then spending another €10k on a tax disc!


(2) The Green Party motto in introducing the post-2008 motor tax rates based on CO2 emissions was 'the polluter pays'.... Not quite, in reality. You see, a sales rep can go out and buy the latest 520d, cover the length and breadth of the country every single day of the year, belching out a cloud of black smoke every time he puts his foot down, and he still only pays €150 quid motor tax. Whereas, the fella who only ventures out in his brand new M3 at the weekends and only tips the scales at 5,000 miles per annum, is obliged to cough up over 2 grand in motor tax. I ask you Minister Gormley, who's the polluter in that scenario?


(3) The administration involved in the current motor tax system is unnecessary. Staff at the motor tax office could be better deployed in other departments (eg. Social Welfare) and motor tax premises could be closed. (Licensing renewal/applications could be done online/through the post, so I don't see a need to keep motor tax offices open). If motor tax was added to the price of fuel, then obviously we wouldn't need staff or premises as currently employed for motor taxation offices around the country. The significant savings in the admin of motor tax should reduce the overall cost to the motorist should the system be reformed.


(4) We can also save a huge amount on the policing duties of motor taxation. Firstly, police would no longer be required to set up checkpoints specifically for motor tax. Check points would still be needed clearly, but the time spent checking the tax disc could be allocated to other matters. Secondly, it would save the State money in criminal prosecutions of those caught driving without motor tax. It requires huge State resources in both time and money to bring a case before the courts; there's a Garda investigation, court time before a Judge, legal aid solicitors, possibly interpreters involved etc. Furthermore, there are a huge number of people prosecuted for driving untaxed each year (take a trip to your local District Court to see how common it is). However, if the government simply added the tax onto the pump, they would instantly shed this perennial drain on State expenditure.


(5) A reformed motor taxation system would also incorporate many new contributors into the motor taxation scheme. For example, tourists driving their own cars or rental cars on holidays here, foreign workers living here but who have not yet registered that car under Irish number plates, track cars which are always kept off the public road and therefore don't require a motor tax disc, etc. would all participate by purchasing petrol/diesel. Furthermore, it would also put an end to those who like to chance their arm with 1-month-on, 2-months-off. Under current legislation, a car has to be out of tax for two months or more before it can be seized. Those who partake in 1-on, 2-off know full well that even if they are caught (which is probably quite slim in the more rural parts of the country), the penalties are minimal and the car won't be seized. I can only see this problem getting worse as the recession continues.










(I have a couple of other ideas on motor taxation in Ireland, but it's getting late and my post is becoming a little long-winded.) So, why don't they just reform the motor tax system by including it in the price of fuel? It would reduce the cost for everyone, make the polluter pay his fair share, be a fairer and more equitable system, be easier to implement and enforce....... Well, it's obvious- those in power have little or no innovation, no imagination, no leadership, no business acumen and, quite clearly, they are the incompetents that have the country in the economic mess it's in right now....... Therefore, don't expect a motor tax reform any time soon!:(

BostonB

Fuel would seem to make the most sense.

kdevitt

galwaytt wrote: »

the
State’s border with another jurisdiction is likely to make
implementation of any such proposal problematic.[/I]

They don't seem too concerned at the thought of people crossing the border for all their drink, foods, electronics, clothes though with a 3% VAT rise within 3 years though.

At the time of the Co2 based bands being released, I seem to recall a Green Party TD saying it wasn't feasible to combine the tax with the petrol price - due to a lack of public transport options in the country. It completely contradicts the concept of 'the polluter pays'.

stevenmu

BostonB wrote: »

Why did they pick that date? When did they change the rates?

I've no idea to be honest, when you mentioned that they didn't do it based on year I thought that they did so googled and found the above page. That's the extent of my knowledge on it

galwaytt

Johnny Utah wrote: »

In the Politics forum, I also suggested adding motor tax onto fuel.... I feel like somebody stole my thunder!

...as rightful owner of said Thunder - I object !!

...seriously, very same thoughts' to my own. Question - apart from posting on the forum, did you send that to anybody as a pre-budget submission/other ? DoE, DoT, Finance etc ? Just curious.

Owen

Johnny, you need to send that post to every magazine, newspaper, radio and tv show in the country. Never seen it put so well.

thirtythirty

Adding road tax to fuel isn't viable IMO because:

- It makes no allowances for non vs commercial users, meaning reduced commercial rates would have to be worked out retrospectively, which carries it's own issues
- It's adding road tax to a whole host of non-taxable fuel users; everything from chainsaws, to lawnmowers, to boats, to combine harvesters
- It's applying a flat rate according to mileage i.e. engine efficiency. Efficiency is different to emissions, and completely negates the point of pre-2008 rates (assumption of bigger engines = more emissions) and post-2008 (polluters penalised).
- Same road tax revenue issues as more and more cars go electric.

daveharnett

galwaytt wrote: »

No, you're wrong. Every car on the road has had tax paid up front on it, to register it. And, in the case of pre Jan 08 ones specifically, they've actually paid far, far MORE, not less.

Let me put it this way...

Say that tax represents x% of the cost of a new car. That means that each year, x% of the depreciation on the car is a direct result of the up-front taxes.

So, you can think about the 'annual tax cost' of a car as the Motor tax + x% of the depreciation. I think that by that formula, by and large the tax burden of new and newish cars is higher than older cars.

Owen

spottyelephant wrote: »

- It makes no allowances for non vs commercial users, meaning reduced commercial rates would have to be worked out retrospectively, which carries it's own issues

You can very simply sort that. The Revenue gives every company who has a diesel vehicle a unique code which is entered at the petrol stations till through a small epos unit like a credit card reader. Would take a little bit to setup at the start financially, but it's a one off cost, and not difficult to roll out either. Or give them a SMART card they can use with existing epos units.

- It's adding road tax to a whole host of non-taxable fuel users; everything from chainsaws, to lawnmowers, to boats, to combine harvesters

Combines would use agricultural diesel. Lawnmowers and Chainsaws use so little fuel that the tax would be in cent.

unkel

spottyelephant wrote: »

Adding road tax to fuel isn't viable IMO because:

- It makes no allowances for non vs commercial users

But why should there be an allowance for non vs commercial users? Do commercial users pollute less per litre of fuel used?

thirtythirty

PaintDoctor wrote: »

You can very simply sort that. The Revenue gives every company who has a diesel vehicle a unique code which is entered at the petrol stations till through a small epos unit like a credit card reader. Would take a little bit to setup at the start financially, but it's a one off cost, and not difficult to roll out either. Or give them a SMART card they can use with existing epos units.

It's a WAY bigger exercise than that, mainly due to vast array of fraud channels. You would have endless sub-contracters, co-op managers, vehicle sublisting etc that would suddenly all have to be monitored and enforced, which would be an excessively large cost. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Secondly, it's assuming the entire fuel network is interconnected, and would also require supplier side (ie stations) a system of registration check & calculation even before reporting card use to Revenue. Who's gonna front the cost for that?
Calculations could only be done Revenue side if all stations everywhere reported exact realtime prices. Which in itself is not currently required by law, or wanted by stations as it facilitates a host of new comparison opportunites outside of what pumps.ie (or whatever it is called) does now.

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Combines would use agricultural diesel. Lawnmowers and Chainsaws use so little fuel that the tax would be in cent.

Those were just items off the top of my head. Even in the case of boats - do you have any idea how many litres one tank takes!? And it's an irrelevant point anyway, legally they could not justify application of road tax to non-taxable items.

unkel wrote: »

But why should there be an allowance for non vs commercial users? Do commercial users pollute less per litre of fuel used?

It's not all about pollution. How do you think SMEs would fare with a pure mileage based road tax (which is what a fuel supplement road tax essentially is)!? Logistics in the country would collapse, and the economic impact would far outweigh the minor difference in road tax.


There are only the issues off the top of my head! It's far more complex than it's being discussed here. For one it doesn't even begin to think about the implications for road tax revenue as more and more hybrid and EVs appear, which would then require ANOTHER tax system.

I agree A) that the current system is flawed, and a fuel tax system tackles some fundemental flaws of the current system such as the 180g/km 200,000 mile per annum bmw vs the 179g/km 5 mile granny micra. But it causes almost as many issues and disparities as it solves.

Owen

spottyelephant wrote: »

Those were just items off the top of my head. Even in the case of boats - do you have any idea how many litres one tank takes!? And it's an irrelevant point anyway, legally they could not justify application of road tax to non-taxable items.

I do. I painted a 47 foot Jennaux earlier in the year. Had a good long chat with the owner all about it. So, why not just have specific pumps at the waterside docks for boats then, and prevent them from filling up at normal petrol stations? I can't remember the last time I saw anything bigger than an outboard being filled at a petrol station anyway.

All the arguments you're coming up with can be easily, and inexpensively rectified. They're good arguments mind, but they're nothing to stop the implementation of road tax being included in the price of fuel.

Personally, I'd love insurance included too, mandatory 3rd party insurance so there'd be no need for the uninsured drivers fund that we all contribute to, or the fund to protect against insurance companies going bust that we all contribute to (Which as proven in 2001 actually doesn't exist anymore, and we're all paying for it anyway) - and there'd be no more uninsured accidents on the roads. But that'd be common sense, and it's an argument for another day

thirtythirty

PaintDoctor wrote: »

All the arguments you're coming up with can be easily, and inexpensively rectified. They're good arguments mind, but they're nothing to stop the implementation of road tax being included in the price of fuel.

Even if that was the case (which it's not ), the whole concept of fuel-based road tax is only a short term solution anyway.

Firstly we have no comprehensive data on car (both non and commercial) use including frequency of fillups etc, so calculating potential year 1 revenue would be a nightmare.

But most importantly, it ultimately is a non-sustainable model given the way car technology in terms of engine efficiency and power generation is going.

Not only would revenues per person steadily decline of the next decade (which could only be offest by an increase in vehicles), but immediately you have the problem of the dude driving 400,000 miles on a hyrbid or full EV (or equivalent) and paying €100 in road tax due to fuel used, versus the poor sod in a 5 or 6 year old cheap clio driving 50,000 miles and paying €1000. Surely that's just as unfair as the current system!?

Owen

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the advent of electric vehicles - it's going to be 10-15 years before they're driven here in any great numbers. We've had Hybrids for 6/7 years here and there's still only a sprinkling, and only in cities.

Currently, they're not taxed anyway, your argument is that if we tax the fuel, how will electric cars pay their way? There'd be no difference in regime there.

Back on topic, and off topic about stupid washing machines with wheels, there's no reason not to now alter the current motor tax structure (Which is grossly overpriced anyway) to ensure those who drive more, damage the roads more, pollute more - pay more. There's at least 15 years of dinosaur powered cars ahead of us (Much more after that I'm sure with the advent of new methods of fuel production, not relying on underground oil reserves). Sure, there's a couple of logistical hurdles, but that's all they are. We've a huge attitude in this country of saying "We can't do it because of x", well, lets just fix the little problems with common sense and do it. It can be done, simply, quickly, and will ensure the fairest system for all drivers.

thirtythirty

Oh no, I'm FULLY supportive of a revised motor tax policy "to ensure those who drive more, damage the roads more, pollute more" as you well put. I'm also fully supportive of doing it now.

All's I'm saying is that it can't be a fuel (only) integrated tax, for all of the reasons we've been discussing. Any policy that is implemented needs to future-proofed.

So fuel tax aside, who's got any better suggestions!

Owen

There are only 3 ways of doing it. You can either

a) Tax a consumable a car uses (Fuel/)
b) Charge a flat rate (Motor tax)
c) Use electronics to track people. (GPS modules, ANPR's everywhere).

a) is feasible, b) is feasible, c) will never happen.

Gulliver

spottyelephant wrote: »

Adding road tax to fuel isn't viable IMO because:

- It makes no allowances for non vs commercial users, meaning reduced commercial rates would have to be worked out retrospectively, which carries it's own issues

Have it that business can claim back a certain amount of tax from Revenue for each vehicle they have registered the VIN of. Get mileage data for each registered vehicle from DOE/NCT tests to corroborate.

- It's adding road tax to a whole host of non-taxable fuel users; everything from chainsaws, to lawnmowers, to boats, to combine harvesters

Again, have a claim form for a certain amount of litres (verified by receipts/serial numbers or something) or a separate "home use" fuel pump that only gives 5 litres per transaction. Big fine for garage if caught abusing it. Farmers could use the same system as the businesses above.

- It's applying a flat rate according to mileage i.e. engine efficiency. Efficiency is different to emissions, and completely negates the point of pre-2008 rates (assumption of bigger engines = more emissions) and post-2008 (polluters penalised).

Can't really disagree there, however something needs to be done and the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks. Every one of us knows, or knows of someone who tries to dodge motor tax.

- Same road tax revenue issues as more and more cars go electric.

As mentioned earlier, they don't fall into net at the moment anyway.

It's good you thought of these things, the government could learn to look at both sides of a proposal before railroading it into legislation.

Now that we've sorted the motor tax system, I'm off for a cuppa. After that we'll get started on fixing the banks, insurance and the other little problems and be finished by dinner:D

kdevitt

spottyelephant wrote: »

Efficiency is different to emissions, and completely negates the point of pre-2008 rates

Um - its not really. Revenue already instruct you to use the MPG figure to calculate the Co2 emissions on pre 2001 cars..

alias no.9

kdevitt wrote: »

Um - its not really. Revenue already instruct you to use the MPG figure to calculate the Co2 emissions on pre 2001 cars..

Indeed, measuring CO2 emissions per km is just a fancy way of measuring fuel burned or consumed per km that allows for fair treatment of different fuels, i.e. diesel has a higher carbon content per litre than petrol, so g(CO2)/km equalises for this.

mickdw

spottyelephant wrote: »

Adding road tax to fuel isn't viable IMO because:

- It makes no allowances for non vs commercial users, meaning reduced commercial rates would have to be worked out retrospectively, which carries it's own issues

Coudnt you just put it on the VAT thereby giving the business users a break

thirtythirty

kdevitt wrote: »

Um - its not really. Revenue already instruct you to use the MPG figure to calculate the Co2 emissions on pre 2001 cars..

Context. Don't do a Sindo and take half sentences! You didn't include my "assumption that bigger engines are less efficient" in that quote. So yes, using MPG to calculate Co2 emissions was the right thing to do, because generally speaking lower mpg meant bigger engines meant more emissions in pre-2001 cars. The focus on emissions wasn't as big a priority (I don't think) as a metric for charging tax back then - "the bigger engine" thing was just an easy to understand & execute method of motor tax application, that happened to also apply more tax on cars with more emissions.So I worded it wrong in my hasty reply, it's not the point of the discussion.

And that's another problem actually with the fuel tax - simplicity. It has to be something that people understand. "If I buy this car, i will be paying x motor tax a year". That's important.
You can't have "Well typically the car costs €3 per 100 miles in tax, but that depends on what octane fuel I use, how heavy a foot I'm using, or whether I'm driving in a hilly region". "Hey that doesn't seem very fair, I'm being penalised just because I live in the mountains or tow a trailer most of the year". "Sorry, car salesman, I'm confused - how much will this car cost me in tax?"

Sometimes Boards mirrors the Dail in the worst possible way:

- Someone pitches an idea that tackles one or two main flaws in existing processes and touts all the benefits of their plan, without thinking about the weaknesses post implementation
- The opposition raises a couple points about those weaknesses
- And a squabbling match where people pick specific words in sentences or plans is suddenly the topic of debate, rather than the overall concept of the plan!


Perhaps there would be a way to work it out so that it was possible, but I just think that it's a WAY more complex problem than a lot of people are considering. As far as I'm aware, no country has ever done it, and in my view, for a reason.

galwaytt

spottyelephant wrote: »

Context. Don't do a Sindo and take half sentences! You didn't include my "assumption that bigger engines are less efficient" in that quote. So yes, using MPG to calculate Co2 emissions was the right thing to do, because generally speaking lower mpg meant bigger engines meant more emissions in pre-2001 cars. The focus on emissions wasn't as big a priority (I don't think) as a metric for charging tax back then - "the bigger engine" thing was just an easy to understand & execute method of motor tax application, that happened to also apply more tax on cars with more emissions.So I worded it wrong in my hasty reply, it's not the point of the discussion.
.

...that's all well and good, but the 'big engine is less efficient' is completely wrong. For the reasons you propound yourself as to why thing's need to be kept simple, the small engine=good/big engine =bad is equally erroneous.

Consider - and I'm doing this from memory - but circa 1994, the most EFFICIENT engine on the market, was, in fact, a Porsche engine, which at that time was 3.6l iirc. So we can't just say small=good/big=bad - that is too 'sweeping'.

The proof is in the eating, as they say: My 165k mile old 93 Porsche - an automatic, btw - gets 26mpg on a run - which is an indicator of it's efficiency. Newer, modern ones are much better: wouldn't it annoy the populace to know that the Boxster in the traffic beside them is returning mid 30's mpg - which is better than a 1.4 Golf doing the same run ???

Owen

I know a 1.6 which does mpg in the late teens, and I know of a 4.4 which gives the late 20's. Engine size is not proportional to efficiency.