Huge hike in road tax as motor cash dries up

Professey Chin

Some of the jumps in the pre 08 system show the complete idiocy of whoever makes these decisions.
660 for 1901-2000cc but suddenly 843 for 2001-2100.
How in the absolute fcuk does that make any sense O_o

ShadowHearth

The Great Chinholio wrote: »

Some of the jumps in the pre 08 system show the complete idiocy of whoever makes these decisions.
660 for 1901-2000cc but suddenly 843 for 2001-2100.
How in the absolute fcuk does that make any sense O_o

thats my most hated jump. there are cars like honda accord 2.2 engines and volvo t5 2.3 engines, which get really shafted by that jump

Henry Ford III

ShadowHearth wrote: »

thats my most hated jump. there are cars like honda accord 2.2 engines and volvo t5 2.3 engines, which get really shafted by that jump

Unfortuantely a lot of tax is unfair.

I suppose (and I'm not defending the existing convoluted system in any way) that the reasoning might have been that big engines belonged in the main in big, luxurious, or possibly high performance cars. All of these would have been more expensive than the norm, so their owners could afford to pay extra in motor tax for the privilege.

The advent of the C02 system signalled the end of new registration of certain cars (RX8's, Subaru Turbos and Evos etc.) and the dawn of diesel domination of sales.

It also had the effect of dramatically reducing the value of the cars that compared less than favourably under the old system - mainly larger petrol engined ones - quite dramatically.

I think it's a bit rich for owners of these cars to moan about the motor tax that applies to them now. It was always higher than norm, and it hasn't increased dramatically either. There's no reasonable case to be made for lowering it.

There's a certain amount of jealousy aimed at those who in good faith stumped up for newer cars (and paid a goodly hike of VAT and VRT in the process) and these folk are the ones who are getting really reamed now.

As I said at the start a lot of tax isn't fair.

Fizman

ShadowHearth wrote: »

thats my most hated jump. there are cars like honda accord 2.2 engines and volvo t5 2.3 engines, which get really shafted by that jump

This is true. However, if you're in the market for one, I'm guessing their retail prices are reflective of this (07 cars being in some cases 5-7k cheaper than the equivalent 08) and you are in theory getting much more car for your money?

Big Nasty

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It also had the effect of dramatically reducing the value of the cars that compared less than favourably under the old system - mainly larger petrol engined ones - quite dramatically. I think it's a bit rich for owners of these cars to moan about the motor tax that applies to them now. It was always higher than norm, and it hasn't increased dramatically either. There's no reasonable case to be made for lowering it.

A bit rich?

I do 5k miles a year, why should I pay ten times more in tax than some who does 10 times more mileage than me?

Henry Ford III wrote: »

There's a certain amount of jealousy aimed at those who in good faith stumped up for newer cars (and paid a goodly hike of VAT and VRT in the process) and these folk are the ones who are getting really reamed now.

I'm not jealous of them at all, more the fact that those who pollute more should be taxed more. As in the example above the guy doing 50k a year in a 1.9 smoker is polluting a lot more than me doing 5k in a 3.5 yet I pay ten times more tax than he does.

inforfun

Just do like in Holland, tax cars on their weight.

Is the CO2 output is always stable, the older the engine gets?
Weight will remain the same unless you take out the doors which isnt really an option.

Daved_XB

MCMLXXV wrote: »

I do 5k miles a year, why should I pay ten times more in tax than some who does 10 times more mileage than me?

I think part of the problem is that we are not actually paying a "Road" tax at all & the money isn't being used to fund the upkeep of the road network.

Like it or not we're paying a "Motor Vehicle" tax which is a tax for the privilege of owning a Motor Vehicle....

So they don't feel the need to have the tax reflect the amount of road use you do.... it's kinda like the TV license in a way, if you own 3 TV's you should have 3 x licenses even if you watch less hours of TV as someone with only 1

Ghost_of_ED209

Just taxed my new 09 1.9 diesel car today for the year.. Only cost 160 squid.!.

Can that be right? Thought it'd be a lot more...

Big Nasty

Daved_XB wrote: »

I think part of the problem is that we are not actually paying a "Road" tax at all & the money isn't being used to fund the upkeep of the road network.

Like it or not we're paying a "Motor Vehicle" tax which is a tax for the privilege of owning a Motor Vehicle....

So they don't feel the need to have the tax reflect the amount of road use you do.... it's kinda like the TV license in a way, if you own 3 TV's you should have 3 x licenses even if you watch less hours of TV as someone with only 1

I have to pay the same amount for my TV licence as the fella next door who watches TV 24/7. No issue with that, my choice not to watch much TV. While I don't think a flat rate in motor tax would be fair either I think it's grossly unfair that those polluting less are charged more. If I was doing 30/40k miles a year myself I would expect to be charged more.

CiniO

Daved_XB wrote: »

Like it or not we're paying a "Motor Vehicle" tax which is a tax for the privilege of owning a Motor Vehicle....

To be exact, it's not for "privilege of owning a Motor Vehicle", but for privilege of "using your Motor Vehicle on Public Road in Ireland"/

So they don't feel the need to have the tax reflect the amount of road use you do.... it's kinda like the TV license in a way, if you own 3 TV's you should have 3 x licenses even if you watch less hours of TV as someone with only 1

No. You pay only 1 TV licence no matter how many TV's you have.

robertxxx

Ghost_of_ED209 wrote: »

Just taxed my new 09 1.9 diesel car today for the year.. Only cost 160 squid.!.

Can that be right? Thought it'd be a lot more...

Well i hope your DMF goes very soon on that VW banger enjoy your low tax while you can!

Daved_XB

MCMLXXV wrote: »

I have to pay the same amount for my TV licence as the fella next door who watches TV 24/7. No issue with that, my choice not to watch much TV. While I don't think a flat rate in motor tax would be fair either I think it's grossly unfair that those polluting less are charged more.

I actually liked & miss the flat rate system that I had in Australia as that's the easiest way to get closest to what you want... a low flat rate (remember it's a Tax for owning a car not using it) & then the more you drive the more fuel you'll use & the more tax they will get from the fuel.

Ghost_of_ED209

robertxxx wrote: »

Well i hope your DMF goes very soon on that VW banger enjoy your low tax while you can!

She's nay any VW I'll have you know.. And I shall enjoy my low tax then.. Paid enough on it on a 1.3 petrol for the last few years...

Henry Ford III

MCMLXXV wrote: »

A bit rich?

I do 5k miles a year, why should I pay ten times more in tax than some who does 10 times more mileage than me?

The rules are the rules. That's why. Nobody said they were fair, but at least you knew what they'd be.

You knew you'd have high fixed costs day 1 so why moan about them now?

bazz26

munchkin_utd wrote: »

jaysus!!!!
thats the point

everything thats been said is to "address the new eco friendly" cheap tax on post 08 cars.

The media is spinning this that "the motorist" is due a hit as in all everyone.
Whereas its not.
Its only those in shiny new-ish post 2008 cars are due a hit.

People on the old tax are paying through the hilt already so arent "the problem" and if everything is to be believed then motorists with older cars will see no re-adjustment (not a massive major one like the indo is screaming about anyhow)

You don't really believe that do you? When they are done picking the low hanging fruit (emmissions based cars) and realise that new car sales wiill suffer which means shortfalls in VRT and VAT, not to mind possibly cancelling out any gains they make in motor tax revenue, who do you think they will target next to try and bridge the gap? Low tax cars are only the start of this over the next few years. This will effect everyone who owns a car.

shedweller

inforfun wrote: »

Just do like in Holland, tax cars on their weight.

Is the CO2 output is always stable, the older the engine gets?
Weight will remain the same unless you take out the doors which isnt really an option.

So, what could be going on here is offsetting the decrease in fuel revenue (because so many people have either left or are on the dole!) by loading the motor tax instead.

Graphs to show just how much less fuel we use today vs a few years ago:
http://omrpublic.iea.org/demand/ir_dl_ov.pdf
http://omrpublic.iea.org/demand/ir_gs_ov.pdf
Thats 10,000 barrels less of petrol per day and 9,000 barrels less of diesel per day since 2009! Roughly...

That way they will get their tax regardless of how little a person drives, it perhaps not looking as bad as widespread tolling, which may come out anyway.
It will also serve to help keep the price of petrol and diesel down due to not having to load that so much.

We're in for a few more hard years.:mad:

Big Nasty

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The rules are the rules. That's why. Nobody said they were fair, but at least you knew what they'd be.

You knew you'd have high fixed costs day 1 so why moan about them now?

I have a classic car that I would do a couple thousand miles in a year and it's not very economic at all. If motor tax was absored in to fuel costs it would cost me A LOT more to run that. Yet I would be happier to see that done as I think it would be more fair all around.

Henry Ford III

MCMLXXV wrote: »

I have a classic car that I would do a couple thousand miles in a year and it's not very economic at all. If motor tax was absored in to fuel costs it would cost me A LOT more to run that. Yet I would be happier to see that done as I think it would be more fair all around.

Forget about motor tax on fuel. It will never happen I reckon.

If you've a low tax classic go and enjoy it.

As I've said tax frequently isn't fair.

Sonnenblumen

MCMLXXV wrote: »

They're getting close in fairness!:eek::eek::eek:

There was an exercise done here not so long ago on the cost of running your car to include loans, petrol, tax, insurance, repairs, depreciation, etc. For tha same amount of money that I spend running my car I could move down to an '06 1.4 Golf.

I wouldn't get much more than €2k for my car if I sold it - I don't really see the point in letting a fine car go for that money so I can buy a little tin can just to satisfy you.

Furthermore, I do cq. 5k miles a year and even though I'm driving a 3.5 why in hell should I be paying more tax then someone in a 1.9 daysul doing 50k a year and polluting infinitely more than me?

Oh, and my weekend car is a 6.6V8!:p

You don't have to satisfy me. You can drive whatever whenever you like, just pay your taxes and park the moaning.;)

listermint

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Forget about motor tax on fuel. It will never happen I reckon.

If you've a low tax classic go and enjoy it.

As I've said tax frequently isn't fair.

But its meant to be balanced reflected on those who can pay.

I cant afford a brand spanking new 520D so i bought a ten year old bmw to enjoy.

Why is my tax nearly 1700 Euro?

Taxation is meant to be balanced otherwise it causes unrest. And we are heading straight for unrest. If you cant see that then your blind to whats going on. We dont have a balanced system here for motor taxation.

And we are ripping the masses off in order to finance absolute poor spending and money management. Tipping point is closing in.

Eric Cartman

inforfun wrote: »

Just do like in Holland, tax cars on their weight.

youd suddenly have every new car in Ireland made out of carbon fibre, with no spare tyre, no bumpers and 15 litre fuel tanks just to get the weight down.

shedweller

Eric Cartman wrote: »

youd suddenly have every new car in Ireland made out of carbon fibre, with no spare tyre, no bumpers and 15 litre fuel tanks just to get the weight down.

But with the right engine that could be a lot of fun!

Henry Ford III

listermint wrote: »

But its meant to be balanced reflected on those who can pay.

I cant afford a brand spanking new 520D so i bought a ten year old bmw to enjoy.

Why is my tax nearly 1700 Euro?

Taxation is meant to be balanced otherwise it causes unrest. And we are heading straight for unrest. If you cant see that then your blind to whats going on. We dont have a balanced system here for motor taxation.

And we are ripping the masses off in order to finance absolute poor spending and money management. Tipping point is closing in.

Your tax is €1700 presumably because that's the rate attaching to your choice of car. You must have known it was a high tax vehicle when you bought it? I assume it was good value having a high liabilty and being a decade old?

Tax on cars, and on many other things too is frequently unbalanced, unfair, and regressive.

I think we need to re-think how we get around and what it's actually costing us.

Electric bikes and scooters offer a fun and real alternative to town and city driving.

Why take up the space with a car when there is mostly one person in a car.

How much will it cost before we change our minds about the car ?

when we are paying 2 euro's per litre ? 1000 a year road tax for a 1.0L ?

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

I think we need to re-think how we get around and what it's actually costing us.

Electric bikes and scooters offer a fun and real alternative to town and city driving.

Why take up the space with a car when there is mostly one person in a car.

How much will it cost before we change our minds about the car ?

when we are paying 2 euro's per litre ? 1000 a year road tax for a 1.0L ?

You must be a mad lad if you think most of the familys around dont need a car due to our awfully disgusting mess of a transport system and disgraceful planning policies over the last decade

Bigus

shedweller wrote: »

So, what could be going on here is offsetting the decrease in fuel revenue (because so many people have either left or are on the dole!) by loading the motor tax instead.

Graphs to show just how much less fuel we use today vs a few years ago:
http://omrpublic.iea.org/demand/ir_dl_ov.pdf
http://omrpublic.iea.org/demand/ir_gs_ov.pdf
Thats 10,000 barrels less of petrol per day and 9,000 barrels less of diesel per day since 2009! Roughly...



:

10,000 less petrol and 9,000 less Diesel per day ! How much of a Reduction in C02 output is that per annum for Ireland?

Goes to prove the Co2 system is working well and reducing or dependence on IMPORTED oil AND reducing our Co2 output which was the whole point of the Greens in the first place and the current Government want to go f*ck this up now.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

You must be a mad lad if you think most of the familys around dont need a car due to our awfully disgusting mess of a transport system and disgraceful planning policies over the last decade

How do you think I got the name ?

Seriously, I didn't say anything about families, but families don't travel together all the time.

I didn't say need a car, I need one, but I use my bike when I don't need the car for trips of 20 miles, sometimes more, sometimes less. The practicality of it is absolutely amazing and I actually go out of my way to not using the car I have so much fun, then again my bike is not like any one you can buy here. That being said I do pedal a lot and have lost 2 stone since last April. The health benefits alone of getting on the bike are priceless!

I plan more peddling when the weather gets better, I want to loose another 2 stone and I'll be a happy Mad_Lad. Even happier knowing the government are not riding me in tax on petrol for every mile I clock up on the bike!

listermint

Bigus wrote: »

10,000 less petrol and 9,000 less Diesel per day ! How much of a Reduction in C02 output is that per annum for Ireland?

Goes to prove the Co2 system is working well and reducing or dependence on IMPORTED oil AND reducing our Co2 output which was the whole point of the Greens in the first place and the current Government want to go f*ck this up now.

It proves nothing! thats a ridiculous statement. Most of the former road users have gone home to poland / gone to canada or are sunning themselves in Oz. You cant realistically believe that stat backs up your claim.

Come off it.

Big Nasty

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

You don't have to satisfy me. You can drive whatever whenever you like, just pay your taxes and park the moaning.;)

Oh, but I do pay my taxes, and if you're doing high mileage an '08+ car in tax band A or B I'm paying some of your share too!;)

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you think I got the name ?

Seriously, I didn't say anything about families, but families don't travel together all the time.

I didn't say need a car, I need one, but I use my bike when I don't need the car for trips of 20 miles, sometimes more, sometimes less. The practicality of it is absolutely amazing and I actually go out of my way to not using the car I have so much fun, then again my bike is not like any one you can buy here. That being said I do pedal a lot and have lost 2 stone since last April. The health benefits alone of getting on the bike are priceless!

I plan more peddling when the weather gets better, I want to loose another 2 stone and I'll be a happy Mad_Lad. Even happier knowing the government are not riding me in tax on petrol for every mile I clock up on the bike!

I walk to work, have a bike for cycling and i still get raped on owning a car that i use maybe every other weekend. Not the fairest system now is it for a non heavy road user. Tax the fuel job done.

Bigus

listermint wrote: »

It proves nothing! thats a ridiculous statement. Most of the former road users have gone home to poland / gone to canada or are sunning themselves in Oz. You cant realistically believe that stat backs up your claim.

Come off it.

They are not my statistics..... i quoted Shedweller,

Ok many people have emigrated but a 2008 Bmw 520d will do 44to 55 mpg , as against the 18 to 23 mpg that its petrol 520 i predecessor did so the reduction in fuel consumption is real in the real world.

listermint

Bigus wrote: »

They are not my statistics..... i quoted Shedweller,

Ok many people have emigrated but a 2008 Bmw 520d will do 44to 55 mpg , as against the 18 to 23 mpg that its petrol 520 i predecessor did so the reduction in fuel consumption is real in the real world.

Oh right its real in the real world. You do know people have ALWAYS bought 520D's in this country even before that tax crap in 2008.

I never said you linked the stat, i said you made a claim that the stat proved the tax changes impacted fuel consumption on this island. Which they clearly didnt. We are doing less manufacturing we have less business we have lost all the builders. There is your drop in fuel consumption.

There is lads that used to drive to give quotes for free, you wont get that now a days. Business meetings are done over the web / phone calls. It all ads up.

Eric Cartman

shedweller wrote: »

But with the right engine that could be a lot of fun!

not with the 3 cylinder, aluminum, low compression, NA, petrol block the tax brigade would buy

listermint

listermint wrote: »

I walk to work, have a bike for cycling and i still get raped on owning a car that i use maybe every other weekend. Not the fairest system now is it for a non heavy road user. Tax the fuel job done.

You can't tax the fuel much more because people are struggling to pay petrol and diesel prices as it is, the tax is way too high and is effecting the economy. The person that has to drive 60-100 miles a day round trip to work is getting screwed!

A lot of people are cutting down on weekend trips, bank holiday drives, which effects hotels, B&B's etc. It does more harm than good.

Hauliers have to raise prices, so the shops have to etc.

It's like this, if everyone decide to sell their cars the Government will then just raise property tax. T.V licence, don't forget water charges are coming, we will most likely see a lot more tolls, it's very depressing thinking what they can do!

We have already seen the cost of new cars rise with the recent vat hike!

Cars are essential for most of us, but we can cut down how we use them.

On one of the bike forums I'm on an Australian man does his weekly shopping with his electric bike, with a trailer on the back. Brings his children to school with it, for him his bike is the essential form of transport.

That might come to a lot more of us, we are spoiled by the comforts of our cars, but rain and wind doesn't bother me, sure I love the sun, but I live where I live!

Bigus

listermint wrote: »

Oh right its real in the real world. You do know people have ALWAYS bought 520D's in this country even before that tax crap in 2008.

I never said you linked the stat, i said you made a claim that the stat proved the tax changes impacted fuel consumption on this island. Which they clearly didnt. We are doing less manufacturing we have less business we have lost all the builders. There is your drop in fuel consumption.

There is lads that used to drive to give quotes for free, you wont get that now a days. Business meetings are done over the web / phone calls. It all ads up.

Absolutely not,

520 d's took off in 2008 end of story. So did a lot of other low consumption hence low Co2 cars . All due to the tax regime encouraging low co2 output.

Reduction of consumption in Ireland by 19000 barrels a day is down to many factors not least being a SWITCH in the car fleet to vehicles that are up to 50% more efficient.

if you can't see this listermint then so be it .

listermint

Bigus wrote: »

Absolutely not,

520 d's took off in 2008 end of story. So did a lot of other low consumption hence low Co2 cars . All due to the tax regime encouraging low co2 output.

Reduction of consumption in Ireland by 19000 barrels a day is down to many factors not least being a SWITCH in the car fleet to vehicles that are up to 50% more efficient.

if you can't see this listermint then so be it .

520Ds took off in 2008? Would you jump the other one.

Take a gander on carzone, There is 358 odd 5 Series diesels to 148 odd 5 Series Petrols between the years 2002 to 2007. The diesels have always been more popular - End of.

5 Series Petrols havent been more popular in this country so thats not very true.

ottostreet

listermint wrote: »

520Ds took off in 2008? Would you jump the other one.

Take a gander on carzone, There is 358 odd 5 Series diesels to 148 odd 5 Series Petrols between the years 2002 to 2007. The diesels have always been more popular - End of.

5 Series Petrols havent been more popular in this country so thats not very true.

Aha! Maybe there is less petrol 5 series because more of them sold! *puts on Devils advocate hat*

Sesshoumaru

listermint wrote: »

520Ds took off in 2008? Would you jump the other one.

Take a gander on carzone, There is 358 odd 5 Series diesels to 148 odd 5 Series Petrols between the years 2002 to 2007. The diesels have always been more popular - End of.

5 Series Petrols havent been more popular in this country so thats not very true.

Another way of looking at it is that car manufacturers put a lot more money into R&D on fuel efficiency due to CO2 taxes across Europe.

creedp

MCMLXXV wrote: »

I have to pay the same amount for my TV licence as the fella next door who watches TV 24/7. No issue with that, my choice not to watch much TV. While I don't think a flat rate in motor tax would be fair either I think it's grossly unfair that those polluting less are charged more. If I was doing 30/40k miles a year myself I would expect to be charged more.

But you are charged more at the pumps .. the more you drive the more fuel tax you pay .. thats the polluter pays principle. Your motor tax is a different matter as you can't tell in advance how much you will use it so its a fixed charge for the life of the car irrespective of whether you do 20,000km or 5,000km. Motor tax should therefore be set using a different basis, i.e. car segment/size/engine capacity. This idea that you tax based on CO2 emmission is mad as it doesn't take into account how much CO2 you actually emit. Its just an excuse to levy prohibitive tax on certain cars which may only do 5k km per year and a low tax on so called low CO2 cars that could be doing 30k kms per yea. Using the CO2 logic, commercial cars should pay a prohibitive tax rate as they will almost certainly emit more CO2.

creedp

Bigus wrote: »

10,000 less petrol and 9,000 less Diesel per day ! How much of a Reduction in C02 output is that per annum for Ireland?

Goes to prove the Co2 system is working well and reducing or dependence on IMPORTED oil AND reducing our Co2 output which was the whole point of the Greens in the first place and the current Government want to go f*ck this up now.

The world will be saved because of the reduction in our CO2 output .. that's the problem with the Green hysteria about CO2 emissions ... we can go back to living in the cave and it will make sod all difference when the Chinese are cruising around in their stretched 3L petrol V8's. I'm all for conservation but Chr1st sometimes the discussion around CO2 emissions is bordering on mania .. You can't seriously believe that CO2 based Motor Tax is saving the world when in reality the overall tax on fuel is what is making people drive less ... call it carbon tax if it makes you feel all warm inside but in reality its simply tax.

larchill

In todays indo ...

"ENVIRONMENT Minister Phil Hogan admitted the Government is considering massive hikes in motor tax rates for drivers of ordinary family cars.

Mr Hogan yesterday confirmed that the annual motor tax system was being restructured, and refused to rule anything "in or out" before December's Budget.

Mr Hogan made the comments while attending the launch of Kilkenny's first Walking Festival, which runs throughout April.

The Irish Independent yesterday revealed that motorists who drive the most popular brands of family cars, including Ford, Volkswagen and Toyota, will be stung for major increases in motor tax.

This is because the Government believes too many cars are falling into lower tax bands, based on carbon emissions, which were introduced by the previous administration.

Finance Minister Michael Noonan and Mr Hogan believe radical change is necessary to reverse plummeting tax revenues.

The majority of motorists have enjoyed a reduction in car tax since the last government brought in a system based on emissions. This has been criticised as unfair as it disregards the cost and size of cars.

The Society of the Irish Motor Industry said: "We do accept there's a hole in the road tax system, but motorists already pay enough and, having made good choices, they may suddenly be burdened with substantial increases. We also need to keep the environmental incentive (to buy less-polluting cars).""

Seems we're going to be screwed.

larchill

larchill wrote: »

...............

Seems we're going to be screwed.

If for example they doubled the rate for band A and B that would result in the rates rising from €160 and €225 to €320 and €450 respectively.

Double band c and it goes from €330 to €660.

A 1.4 litre car taxed on cc is €358/annum at the moment and a 1.6 is €458, there is plenty of scope for increasing motor tax on the low emissions stuff.

And I'm not forgetting the property tax etc etc etc either

Top Dog

larchill wrote: »

The majority of motorists have enjoyed a reduction in car tax since the last government brought in a system based on emissions. This has been criticised as unfair as it disregards the cost and size of cars.

Where do they dream up this horse-sh1t?! :mad: Are they really trying to suggest that a greater percentage of all the cars on the roads today are only registered in the last 3 and a bit years? This country really makes my head hurt at times! :mad:

Top Dog

Top Dog wrote: »

Where do they dream up this horse-sh1t?! :mad:...........

I actually know very very few people who have a 2008 reg onwards car that's their own, a few have a company car alright.

Mycroft H

I'm swapping to a >1.4 liter from a 2 liter car soon. The economics aren't making sense any more an the punitive tax system is killing me.

RXMPS

Feel sorry for the people who bought 08 cars and up, thinking it was a good idea to have a modern fuel efficient car, with low tax rates, they were sold a lie again by the government, conned and betrayed.

I would be seething if the 2010 320d I worked my ass to get, went up to 660 euro road tax, just because the government got it wrong again.

They should base it on c02 or put the tax on fuel.

This engine size crap has gone on long enough.

Pure stupid.

Should a 6'6 man pay more tax than a 5'10 man because he is bigger?

A modern 3.0 turbo diesel uses less fuel than an old 1.3 Colt.

I don't understand it.

RXMPS

RXMPS wrote: »

...............
I would be seething if the 2010 320d I worked my ass to get, went up to 660 euro road tax, just because the government got it wrong again............

Would you not seethe over the thousands/annum it would depreciate by?
€660/annum motor tax is a small fraction of the annual depreciation.

RXMPS

RoverJames wrote: »

Would you not seethe over the thousands/annum it would depreciate by?
€660/annum motor tax is a small fraction of the annual depreciation.

Always a smart answer from you.

No I wouldn't.

I would expect it to lose money.

Top Dog

RoverJames wrote: »

I actually know very very few people who have a 2008 reg onwards car that's their own, a few have a company car alright.

I'm just thinking of my own family now. If extended slightly to include some cousins & aunts it makes a total of about 17 cars. Of those 5 have a reg of '08 or newer. 1 of those is a company 4x4, another is a disabled driver - so only 3 straight-forward privately owned out of 17. Far from a majority :rolleyes:

RXMPS

RXMPS wrote: »

Always a smart answer from you.

No I wouldn't.

I would expect it to lose money.

It wasn't a smart answer, you gave a 2010 320d as an example, that's €25,000/ €30,000 of car, any one who is willing to drop €5000/annum in depreciation for the first couple of years of ownership shouldn't be seething over a few hundred extra in motor tax, in fact I'd hazard a guess most of them would prefer it to increased direct taxation

Also the motor tax system has been flagged as due an overhaul for quite a while now so it's not coming as a surprise to many folk.

Top Dog wrote: »

............ Far from a majority :rolleyes:

Indeed
An extra few hundred in motor tax might well not be a huge burden for them either.