Big Difference in Tax for two Cars....

les succulent ducks

Just found this online. What do people think. I like the use of Borat.....

les succulent ducks

I cant upload images.... bollocks......

MarkR

Describe it for us. Perhaps with an interpretive dance?

les succulent ducks

ha ha...... feck it anyway.... I found it online.... it was something to do with car tax. The difference between a 2005 car and a 2015 car....

Caliden

Save the image and then upload it to imgur.com.

Or even just use the url on imgur

les succulent ducks

Boards.ie - Why can't I upload images? It tells me I cant upload image due to me being a new member? I have been a user since Nov 2009?

Join Date: Nov 2009

What the devil is the meaning of this...... Poste haste....

bazz26

You need 50 posts min to upload afaik.

Special Circumstances

les succulent ducks wrote: »

Boards.ie - Why can't I upload images? It tells me I cant upload image due to me being a new member? I have been a user since Nov 2009?

Join Date: Nov 2009

What the devil is the meaning of this...... Poste haste....

Do you have a breathalyzer connected to your computer under some court order maybe?

les succulent ducks

hold it..... I have 45 posts...... let me post things.....

les succulent ducks

les succulent ducks

YAY!!!! It worked.... there she is now anyway.....

les succulent ducks

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Two completely different engines and isn't a good comparison.

What would be a good one would be a post-2008 Fiat 500 with the 1.2 engine and a 2002 Fiat Punto 1.2 same engine and emissions.

Indeed but I think it is trying to show the difference in value of the Big one on the left compared to the value of the one on the right. Surely at this stage the tax should be higher for these type of cars etc....

Special Circumstances

les succulent ducks wrote: »

YAY!!!! It worked.... there she is now anyway.....

Pretty good in the end.
The text in the bottom left corner is a bit cringe.

By the time a chape tax diesel makes it to my budget they'll all be financial write offs due ro necessary repairs/replacement.

BMJD

sounds like some kind of lefty outrage! let's take to the streets!

Special Circumstances

les succulent ducks wrote: »

Indeed but I think it is trying to show the difference in value of the Big one on the left compared to the value of the one on the right. Surely at this stage the tax should be higher for these type of cars etc....

You mean those who can afford pay more should pay more? Madness, what sort of way is that to treat your cronies!

bazz26

Some people seem to overlook the fact that resale values of cars with higher motor tax tend to be poorer than those on lower motor tax. Motor tax has a very influential factor on resale values so if you want something with cheap motor tax be prepared to pay more for the privilege. A car that costs more to tax tends to cost less to initially buy and vice verse.

Primera is a poor example though as even if they were cheap to tax they wouldn't be any more desirable.

tom_tarbucket

its just not right. the poor aul fecker with the 10 year old almera having to pay 1000 in tax.

and lets be honest, the rich person with the land rover only paying 400.

Its just not right.

tax should be based on the value of the car.

bear1

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

its just not right. the poor aul fecker with the 10 year old almera having to pay 1000 in tax.

and lets be honest, the rich person with the land rover only paying 400.

Its just not right.

tax should be based on the value of the car.

No, they should be fair and base all cars from say the year 2000 on Co2 rates.
The horsehit of it that I can buy a 2008 version of my car where the emissions are the same but I pay nearly 1k a year in tax just because it's a 04. Idiots, the lot of them.

tom_tarbucket

bear1 wrote: »

No, they should be fair and base all cars from say the year 2000 on Co2 rates.
The horsehit of it that I can buy a 2008 version of my car where the emissions are the same but I pay nearly 1k a year in tax just because it's a 04. Idiots, the lot of them.

ah Co2 is a joke also, sure there are people that have older cars, before any of this Co2 rubbish came out and and im sure the tax on them based on Co2 would be through the roof also.

I still think it should be based on the value of the car.

Atlantic Dawn

The Evogue purchase probably payed €20k in VRT and VAT, such payments to the state should be encouraged, if they are fooled by cheap motor tax as cheaper motoring long may it continue, makes motoring for the rest of us cheaper.

Rob Thomas

bear1 wrote: »

No, they should be fair and base all cars from say the year 2000 on Co2 rates.
The horsehit of it that I can buy a 2008 version of my car where the emissions are the same but I pay nearly 1k a year in tax just because it's a 04. Idiots, the lot of them.

Yeah, it's supposed to be based on emissions but my old 1.9A4 costs twice what we pay for a 1.9 Golf, just because it's not as old! Same engine.

As well as that, they set the new rates too low and had to ramp them up when they realised. Our Golf was only €155 or something when we got it but it's nearly twice that now. We have it 3 years.

If they did the same pro-rata to the pre08 tax the A4 could be nearly €1300 !

Rob Thomas

To look at this another way, the Co2 tax system made a lot of pre 2008 big cars very affordable second hand as the high tax was a discouragement to buying them.

Lots of lads running around in pre 08 big BMWs and Mercs which they wouldn't have otherwise. And they are happy enough to pay the tax for the privilege.

A mate has a fab 06 740 which cost near 100k new. Jesus, it's nicer than my house!

R.O.R

Lets be honest, this is more accurate:

Tea 1000

bear1 wrote: »

No, they should be fair and base all cars from say the year 2000 on Co2 rates.
The horsehit of it that I can buy a 2008 version of my car where the emissions are the same but I pay nearly 1k a year in tax just because it's a 04. Idiots, the lot of them.

If they did that, all pre-08 cars would get unfairly stung though. Take a VAG car with the 1.9 TDI engine. By and large, the CO2 output for a typical user for a car with that engine would be largely the same, regardless of year. But since the squeeze came on CO2, VW tweaked the gearing and engine management systems and EGR's and the like to reduce it a lot for the CO2 official text (which bears little resemblance to real world driving).
So folk would be paying wildly different rates for the same engine.
Also, the rates and the stages they increas in are stupid. The lower ones only increase by €10 for every 10 grams of CO2. The top one increases by €1250 in one go, the difference between 224 grams and 225 grams. Even the lower steps are crazy. Starts going from 390 to 570 to 750 to 1200 to 2250. Crazy. It should be much more incrimental.

tom_tarbucket wrote: »

ah Co2 is a joke also, sure there are people that have older cars, before any of this Co2 rubbish came out and and im sure the tax on them based on Co2 would be through the roof also.

I still think it should be based on the value of the car.

I'd kind of agree. Fairest way might be to bracket the cars by original selling price. 10-20k a flat rate of €150. 20-30k, €250, 50-60k = €550 etc, up along the chain. Then add 20 cent to the price of fuel for the rest, so you pay based on the car you drive and based on the amount of usage. The reason I'd even include the rate based on the original cost of the car is to ease the amount by which they'd have to increase fuel cost.
Also to keep in touch with the "you think you can own something expensive, we'll take some money off you for that!" mentality that served us so well over the years...

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The Evogue purchase probably payed €20k in VRT and VAT, such payments to the state should be encouraged, if they are fooled by cheap motor tax as cheaper motoring long may it continue, makes motoring for the rest of us cheaper.

VRT is cheap enough if the tax is cheap though!

Rob Thomas wrote: »

Yeah, it's supposed to be based on emissions but my old 1.9A4 costs twice what we pay for a 1.9 Golf, just because it's not as old! Same engine.

As well as that, they set the new rates too low and had to ramp them up when they realised. Our Golf was only €155 or something when we got it but it's nearly twice that now. We have it 3 years.

If they did the same pro-rata to the pre08 tax the A4 could be nearly €1300 !

They set too many too low down. They should have scaled it more fairly. If folk were happy paying over €350 for a 1.2 litre car pre-08, why did they need to set the CO2 bands at €104 and €150 for brand new cars with CO2 lievels only averagly low rather than particularly low?

RobAMerc

les succulent ducks wrote: »

Indeed but I think it is trying to show the difference in value of the Big one on the left compared to the value of the one on the right. Surely at this stage the tax should be higher for these type of cars etc....

Holly crap ! Aren't you too busy out protesting to be on here spouting this sh1te !
The landrover is supposedly cleaner and in our tax system they therefore pay less.
If you think it should be more to tax because its worth more do you not think the 25k they've probably paid in vrt and vat is not enough ?

Special Circumstances

RobAMerc wrote: »

Holly crap ! Aren't you too busy out protesting to be on here spouting this sh1te !
The landrover is supposedly cleaner and in our tax system they therefore pay less.
If you think it should be more to tax because its worth more do you not think the 25k they've probably paid in vrt and vat is not enough ?

No we need another tax on top of that. You can't be getting away with paying for something once you know.