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

thirtythirty

Yes, but again, generally. You take a sample of 60 cars from then, you're going to find the bigger engines generally get less mpg.

And again, even if I'm wrong, it's not the point of the discussion - efficiency (AFAIK) wasn't the prime metric for taxation pre-2008.

We're getting bogged down on one statement I made (right or wrong) in the context of "should motor tax be added to fuel". It's not the deciding point, so let's skip on. I'm genuinely interested in people's alternatives, or re-working, of suggestions so far.

maggy_thatcher

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

It could be handled in the same way that right now a person applies for commercial motor tax. If they have a card with them that has the reg-plate on it that says "commercial use", then they pay the commercial rates...if they don't, they pay the non-commercial rates. The hardest part would be international commercial users, but that could just be handled by having card application on arrival.

spottyelephant wrote: »

- 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 not road tax, it's motor tax. Last I checked, petrol powered chainsaws/lawnmowers have motors in them, so they should have to pay the charge anyway. Combine Harvesters would be covered under agricultural rules as presently.

spottyelephant wrote: »

- 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).

Unless I've missed something in the laws of thermodynamics, engine efficiency is exactly equal to pollution. There are x grams of carbon per litre of fuel, when you consume that fuel, you are breaking the carbon atoms from the hydrocarbon chain and combining it with Oxygen to form CO2. No extra carbon is created.

spottyelephant wrote: »

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

There will be, yes...though electricity charges would go up so additional revenue could be obtained from here.

thirtythirty

Way to skip the following posts that discussed all that there Mag.

So in your opinion then, what is the prime reason for changing the motor tax policy? Disparities in fairness of taxation depending on motor use? How then is the fuel tax different in light of the new problem I highlighted a couple posts up?


edit: Sorry that was a bit rude. I just feel like people are clinging to it's benefits and neglecting to think of the downsides and not considering alternatives!

maggy_thatcher

spottyelephant wrote: »

Way to skip the following posts that discussed all that there Mag.

So in your opinion then, what is the prime reason for changing the motor tax policy? Disparities in fairness of taxation depending on motor use? How then is the fuel tax different in light of the new problem I highlighted a couple posts up?

Yes, the prime reason for changing motor tax policy in my view should be to actually implement the "polluter pays" principle that was idealized in 2008, but didn't actually happen.

The answer to "how much will this car cost me in tax?" would be "Nothing. You pay tax on the fuel to use it."

thirtythirty

So what your essentially proposing then is a an abolishment of motor tax per sae, and an increase in fuel tax.

I agree it makes sense for general public fuel use, but it couldn't work for commercials. The only way I see it working for commercials is that they are not subject to it, and continue on a tax system similar to the current i.e. cheap flat rate.

Edit: actually on reflection i STILL don't think it could work for the simple reason that I don't think you'd see equal revenues of now, and still have declining revenues as cars become more efficient.

There's only so much tax you can add onto the price of fuel before people refuse it. For someone currently paying €580 in motor tax, that's A LOT of driving and re-fuels to make up that revenue difference purely on the extra fuel tax. You would need comprehensive data on driving habits and re-fuels to calculate expected income. Further, back to my original point, it's non-sustainable because as cars become more efficient and get better mileage, they're going to be refuelling less often in a year, and there'll be a steady decrease in revenue.

Edit2: Dyeing wouldn't prevent the fraud. Plus im pretty sure it would feck the engines.

maggy_thatcher

spottyelephant wrote: »

So what your essentially proposing then is a an abolishment of motor tax per sae, and an increase in fuel tax.

I agree it makes sense for general public fuel use, but it couldn't work for commercials. The only way I see it working for commercials is that they are not subject to it, and continue on a tax system similar to the current i.e. cheap flat rate.

Yes, which is what I said -- commercials would have a "card" (replacement to the disk) that showed that the particular vehicle they were driving was for commercial use. The reason for a card is so that they can go into the station with it to prove eligibility. This could be expanded upon further by dyeing the "commercial" fuel, so that they couldn't cheat the system by siphoning and putting the cheap fuel in their non-commercial vehicle.

keithclancy

Unfortunately Ireland shares a border with another state with an independant taxation on fuel, whats to stop people driving over the border and filling up.

Other than that Taxing fuel is a great idea.

I don't know how the Belgians do it, Cheap Diesel, Low Motor Tax and no Vehicle Registration Tax.

Only place (I know of) where you get the best of both worlds by moving your front door :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Nassau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Hertog

Although sending a letter from the Belgian postbox outside your house can take a while to reach your Dutch Neighbour

galwaytt

spottyelephant wrote: »

..I agree it makes sense for general public fuel use, but it couldn't work for commercials.

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

Yes, which is what I said -- commercials would have a "card" (replacement to the disk) that showed that the particular vehicle they were driving was for commercial use.

No need for a card - besides, it's too complicated a system. Trader's already to VAT returns. All that's needed is a 'box' on the system/form, for fuel, and they can be issued a credit against their taxes for fuel used - it's only a receipting procedure. Trader's already manage accounts for their toll's, so it's not that hard. Do a bi-monthly return along with your VAT return.

keithclancy wrote: »

Unfortunately Ireland shares a border with another state with an independant taxation on fuel, whats to stop people driving over the border and filling up.

'funny - that's what DoE said this week - as they said they were afraid of revenue flight to 'another jurisdiction' through 'fuel tourism'. Then, they put 4c on petrol anyway.

And even at that, it's still cheaper down here than up there, so it's a non-argument.

galwaytt

keithclancy wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Nassau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Hertog

Holy **** - and we can't implement & manage a simple tax policy ?? Compared to the above, it's a walk in the park.

maggy_thatcher

spottyelephant wrote: »

There's only so much tax you can add onto the price of fuel before people refuse it. For someone currently paying €580 in motor tax, that's A LOT of driving and re-fuels to make up that revenue difference purely on the extra fuel tax.
You would need comprehensive data on driving habits and re-fuels to calculate expected income. Further, back to my original point, it's non-sustainable because as cars become more efficient and get better mileage, they're going to be refuelling less often in a year, and there'll be a steady decrease in revenue.

You wouldn't need comprehensive data on driving habits. Just take the current income obtained from the existing motor tax, and divide that by the current amount of fuel consumed. This is the fairest system. Each year, review it -- as fuel use goes down but income requirements stay the same, the per-litre charge goes up (encouraging people to get more and more fuel efficient cars). Obviously it would help if the UK adopted a similar system to prevent fuel tourism...

spottyelephant wrote: »

Edit2: Dyeing wouldn't prevent the fraud. Plus im pretty sure it would feck the engines.

People are managing with agricultural diesel pretty well...and if the fines are severe it should reduce fraud (it will obviously never eliminate it completely).

I'm not saying it's the answer, but the current system is biased so that infrequent drivers are subsidizing the costs of those who drive all the time.

How would you reform motor-tax to be more equitable?

thirtythirty

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

You wouldn't need comprehensive data on driving habits. Just take the current income obtained from the existing motor tax, and divide that by the current amount of fuel consumed. This is the fairest system. Each year, review it -- as fuel use goes down but income requirements stay the same, the per-litre charge goes up (encouraging people to get more and more fuel efficient cars). Obviously it would help if the UK adopted a similar system to prevent fuel tourism...

Ah now c'mon now your just not thinking about this at all. That's prime current policy thinking! Can't even begin to explain what's wrong with that.

dumb_parade

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

You wouldn't need comprehensive data on driving habits. Just take the current income obtained from the existing motor tax, and divide that by the current amount of fuel consumed. This is the fairest system. Each year, review it -- as fuel use goes down but income requirements stay the same, the per-litre charge goes up (encouraging people to get more and more fuel efficient cars). Obviously it would help if the UK adopted a similar system to prevent fuel tourism...


People are managing with agricultural diesel pretty well...and if the fines are severe it should reduce fraud (it will obviously never eliminate it completely).

I'm not saying it's the answer, but the current system is biased so that infrequent drivers are subsidizing the costs of those who drive all the time.

How would you reform motor-tax to be more equitable?

I though one of the main goals of the system proposed was not to overly penalise the person who cant change their car every year. This surely would penalise them even more.

maggy_thatcher

dumb_parade wrote: »

I though one of the main goals of the system proposed was not to overly penalise the person who cant change their car every year. This surely would penalise them even more.

That's true...but I was trying to pick a system that would penalize "polluters" equally...so if your proportion of the total pollution output is higher then you pay a proportionally higher charge.

I'd love to see a fair solution that:

1. Doesn't have low users subsidise high users
2. Maintains revenue at least at current levels
3. Manages to not penalize drivers of older vehicles

The current system does none of the above 3.