Budget 2019 and EV

Shefwedfan

I think a lot of people are listening to Ruth Coppinger....blame everyone who bothers to get up off their arse and make a living!!!

Time we kicked those shower of plonkers out of this country

ELM327

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I think a lot of people are listening to Ruth Coppinger....blame everyone who bothers to get up off their arse and make a living!!!

Time we kicked those shower of plonkers out of this country

Couldn't agree more with this
Regardless of who you align yourself to, the likes of the hurlers from the ditch above should not be next nor near our houses of the oireachtas

zep

Orebro wrote: »

zep wrote: »

I personally think your talking pure ****! No one is subsidising tax money for any Model S/X owners, and I'm sure they have all earned their right to drive one if they choose to do so. I'm also sure they already pay significant tax in the first place to be able afford their cars. And Tesla are much more conversation pieces than Leaf's and i3's, I've witnessed this first hand at my place of work, several electric cars plugged in charging and everyone wants to stop look and talk about the Tesla's. Don't think a Leaf or i3 inspires people to want to move into the EV space.

0% BIK is subsidizing.

So you don't mind "subsidizing" someone into a €50,000 car but go over that and you have a real issue!
BTW who do you think is going to subsidize the annual €600m fines for missing our Carbon Reduction Targets for 2020? The wealthy? No the middle income earners will be hit hardest by this eventually, but let’s not worry about that now, sure it's years away.
As far as I'm concerned EV's need to be the mainstream cars on our roads and if 0% BIK encourages this then it will benefit everyone long term, financially and health wise.
I'll reiterate my personal point, I don't see this as subsidizing, are "[font=Arial, sans-serif]the family next door with the 10 year old 7 seater" [/font]paying higher taxes to subsidize this? No!

Orebro

zep wrote: »

So you don't mind "subsidizing" someone into a €50,000 car but go over that and you have a real issue!
BTW who do you think is going to subsidize the annual €600m fines for missing our Carbon Reduction Targets for 2020? The wealthy? No the middle income earners will be hit hardest by this eventually, but let’s not worry about that now, sure it's years away.
As far as I'm concerned EV's need to be the mainstream cars on our roads and if 0% BIK encourages this then it will benefit everyone long term, financially and health wise.
I'll reiterate my personal point, I don't see this as subsidizing, are "[font=Arial, sans-serif]the family next door with the 10 year old 7 seater" [/font]paying higher taxes to subsidize this? No!

Helping a few dozen wealthy people into luxury cars isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to our CO2 emission targets, and would be a very expensive way to try and do something about it, not the return on investment any sane Government would make. The money would be far better spent giving grants for solar PV and other projects to reduce emissions.

n97 mini

Orebro wrote: »

0% BIK is subsidizing.

Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low.

Tax: a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

BIK is a tax. Reducing a tax does not constitute a subsidy.

zep

Orebro wrote: »

zep wrote: »

So you don't mind "subsidizing" someone into a €50,000 car but go over that and you have a real issue!
BTW who do you think is going to subsidize the annual €600m fines for missing our Carbon Reduction Targets for 2020? The wealthy? No the middle income earners will be hit hardest by this eventually, but let’s not worry about that now, sure it's years away.
As far as I'm concerned EV's need to be the mainstream cars on our roads and if 0% BIK encourages this then it will benefit everyone long term, financially and health wise.
I'll reiterate my personal point, I don't see this as subsidizing, are "[font=Arial, sans-serif]the family next door with the 10 year old 7 seater" [/font]paying higher taxes to subsidize this? No!

Helping a few dozen wealthy people into luxury cars isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to our CO2 emission targets, and would be a very expensive way to try and do something about it, not the return on investment any sane Government would make. The money would be far better spent giving grants for solar PV and other projects to reduce emissions.

At present some BMW i3's fall outside this limit, the Tesla Model 3 (an EV for the masses) will most likely fall outside this bracket as will nearly all current pending EV's. 
BTW what money would be better spent elsewhere? Most companies/employees wouldn't bother with a company EV if they are paying BIK, so hence no further income for the Government to spend elsewhere, why did the whole company car perk all but disappear over recent times?

zep

Nicely put n97 mini.

liamog

zep wrote: »

At present some BMW i3's fall outside this limit, the Tesla Model 3 (an EV for the masses) will most likely fall outside this bracket as will nearly all current pending EV's.
BTW what money would be better spent elsewhere? Most companies/employees wouldn't bother with a company EV if they are paying BIK, so hence no further income for the Government to spend elsewhere, why did the whole company car perk all but disappear over recent times?

It would make more sense to cap the benefit, the exemption should be applied similar to the VRT cap, exempt the first 10k of BIK would still have a posistive impact on the market.

KCross

n97 mini wrote: »

Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low.

Tax: a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

BIK is a tax. Reducing a tax does not constitute a subsidy.

Thats splitting hairs though.

If you reduce tax from one cohort it in effect increases the tax burden on everyone else as all the money goes into one big pot to be redistributed. Suggesting that the BIK foregone doesnt increase the burden on everyone else is putting your head in the sand or not understanding how our tax system works.

So, I'm with Orebro on that point.


What I dont agree with is the hatchet job the govt have done on this scheme. They should have had sliding scales or something..... give free BIK upto 50k and then charge BIK on the remainder.... a bit like the CO2 bands on motor tax. Basically something that makes it more beneficial to pick an EV over an ICE for the company exec but not giving him a massive reduction... just make it cheaper than ICE, not free. With limited money you need to spread it across the market and the BIK foregone on a €70k+ car is alot to give one punter. You could help 10 cheaper EV's with the same money so balance is what was required.... we didnt get it.

zep

Hi KCross,
While I don't agree on the tax burden issue as from my earlier point, Most companies/employees wouldn't bother with a company EV if they are paying BIK, so hence no further income for the Government.
I agree that they have made a right mess of the whole thing and could have implemented higher limits and maybe a sliding scale as you suggested. Imo, BIK benefit upto €50k is a red herring as many of the vehicles available under the limit simply don't have the range to be viable company cars with the current infrastructure.
"With limited money you need to spread it across the market and the BIK foregone on a
€70k+ car is alot to give one punter. "

But nothing is been given here to decrease the coffers, only not collecting the tax aspect and if the punter wasn't bothering with the company car due to the BIK there would be no extra tax revenue created in the first place.

n97 mini

KCross wrote: »

Thats splitting hairs though.

The correct terminology is important, and a tax cut does not constitute a subsidy.

KCross wrote: »

If you reduce tax from one cohort it in effect increases the tax burden on everyone else

It's not that simple. This budget increased spending, and we're running a planned deficit until 2020, when the economy is (supposed) to go into surplus. So it's not a case of simply taking a little bit from here and putting it there.

KCross wrote: »

What I dont agree with is the hatchet job the govt have done on this scheme. They should have had sliding scales or something.....

I wholeheartedly agree, but the civil service here by and large only do hatchet jobs. You either qualify or you don't. Social housing, medical card, SUSI grants, etc. Even our income tax system. I don't remember the exact figures but there is a point somewhere where if you get a €1k pay rise, you actually take home less money.

ELM327

n97 mini wrote: »

The correct terminology is important, and a tax cut does not constitute a subsidy.



It's not that simple. This budget increased spending, and we're running a planned deficit until 2020, when the economy is (supposed) to go into surplus. So it's not a case of simply taking a little bit from here and putting it there.



I wholeheartedly agree, but the civil service here by and large only do hatchet jobs. You either qualify or you don't. Social housing, medical card, SUSI grants, etc. Even our income tax system. I don't remember the exact figures but there is a point somewhere where if you get a €1k pay rise, you actually take home less money.

I'd well believe it, and I'm pretty sure it's to do with PRSI and/or USC thresholds.

KCross

zep wrote: »

Hi KCross,
While I don't agree on the tax burden issue as from my earlier point, Most companies/employees wouldn't bother with a company EV if they are paying BIK, so hence no further income for the Government.
I agree that they have made a right mess of the whole thing and could have implemented higher limits and maybe a sliding scale as you suggested.

So, if they dont buy a company car it means they are buying their own and paying tax on that and paying fuel duty etc.

You cant have it both ways on the tax argument. Tax foregone is a tax burden on everyone else.


As I said, they needed to make it more attractive than financing their own car or buying a diesel company car. What we got was none of the above. They now have a BIK incentive that will have minimal effect on the EV market.

zep wrote: »

Imo, BIK benefit upto €50k is a red herring as many of the vehicles available under the limit simply don't have the range to be viable company cars with the current infrastructure.

That is a fair point. How many execs are going to buy a Leaf to replace their 5-series BMW!

However, it might cause one man band type people (sole traders etc) to buy a Leaf, Ioniq, Kona etc and thats to be welcomed.

The Kona and eNiro will have a 500km range and are under €40k.

zep wrote: »

"With limited money you need to spread it across the market and the BIK foregone on a €70k+ car is alot to give one punter. "

But nothing is been given here to decrease the coffers, only not collecting the tax aspect and if the punter wasn't bothering with the company car due to the BIK there would be no extra tax revenue created in the first place.

Discussed above. I dont agree.

KCross

n97 mini wrote: »

The correct terminology is important, and a tax cut does not constitute a subsidy.

OK. But what its called isnt that important. Its one section of society cross subsidising another section. Call it what you will.

n97 mini wrote: »

It's not that simple. This budget increased spending, and we're running a planned deficit until 2020, when the economy is (supposed) to go into surplus. So it's not a case of simply taking a little bit from here and putting it there.

I dont understand that.
If you forego tax in sector A then everywhere else has to make up that "loss" or not get a service they would otherwise get.

The fact the economy is growing and we have increased spending isnt relevant to that basic balance sheet concept.

For example, lets say the govt forego €10m in BIK (figure out of the air). And lets say the govt, becuase of increased tax revenues in general increase the funding to hire Gardai by €50m.... if they didnt forego the €10m in BIK they could have increased the Garda budget by €60m instead of €50m.... its all one big pot.

Shefwedfan

Ahh you can't beat a good old budget to get the tempers rising :-)

I am 12 months on from thinking I would get a lovely new eGolf and still no further with my lease company

Personal I blame
A. 1%
B. The other 98% because they are all bast**ds as well
C. Government
D. Vulture fund
E. Ruth Coppinger
F. The sun(the sun as in the Sky, not the sh**ty newspaper

On Second thought
G. The Sun(the shi**y newspaper)

n97 mini

KCross wrote: »

I dont understand that.
If you forego tax in sector A then everywhere else has to make up that "loss" or not get a service they would otherwise get.

The fact the economy is growing and we have increased spending isnt relevant to that basic balance sheet concept.

For example, lets say the govt forego €10m in BIK (figure out of the air). And lets say the govt, becuase of increased tax revenues in general increase the funding to hire Gardai by €50m.... if they didnt forego the €10m in BIK they could have increased the Garda budget by €60m instead of €50m.... its all one big pot.

Overly simplistic, as you're looking at the budget in one year. Think about it as being spread out, rolling along over a period of years. The economy is growing as numbers in employment are growing, population is increasing etc. All going to plan the economy will be running a surplus in 2020 (whether it will or not is another thing, but that's the plan).

So if you want to increase the garda budget by €60m *and* keep the €10m in BIK, you can have both, without raising taxes. The growth in govt revenues will pay for it in time. Sure, you're borrowing now to fund it, but as I said we're running a planned deficit.

zep

KCross
We are forgetting that the €10m in BIK is hypothetical, who says people would get Company cars, if they don't then no bik income for government. No that argument about budget for other things is obsolete.

KCross

n97 mini wrote: »

Overly simplistic, as you're looking at the budget in one year. Think about it as being spread out, rolling along over a period of years. The economy is growing as numbers in employment are growing, population is increasing etc. All going to plan the economy will be running a surplus in 2020 (whether it will or not is another thing, but that's the plan).

I have no idea the point you are making here.

You are talking about balancing budgets and surpluses. Completely separate topic. We should be running a surplus regardless of any BIK decisions so this is just a strawman argument.

n97 mini wrote: »

So if you want to increase the garda budget by €60m *and* keep the €10m in BIK, you can have both, without raising taxes. The growth in govt revenues will pay for it in time. Sure, you're borrowing now to fund it, but as I said we're running a planned deficit.

Thank god your are not Minister for Finance.... thats Charlie McCreevy policitcs in full swing there.... "I have it so I'll spend it"..... and look where that got us.

Its very simple... if you decide to give someone a tax break, someone else in society is "paying" for that either in increased taxes, smaller decreases in taxes or services not provided.

KCross

zep wrote: »

KCross
We are forgetting that the €10m in BIK is hypothetical, who says people would get Company cars, if they don't then no bik income for government. No that argument about budget for other things is obsolete.

I've explained that one already. If they dont buy a company car it means they are paying tax on their own private car so the govt is still getting tax off them..... thats why BIK exists in the first place as companies were scouting around the tax rules by giving a company car(which was tax free at one point) rather than a pay rise(which is taxable).

zep

I suppose this discussion could really drag out 😂. I take all your points. I suppose the really issue here is how the government just balls everything up.

n97 mini

KCross wrote: »

Thank god your are not Minister for Finance.... thats Charlie McCreevy policitcs in full swing there.... "I have it so I'll spend it"..... and look where that got us.

As I've been saying, that's what the actual minister is currently doing, which I have expressed doubts about.

KCross wrote: »

Its very simple... if you decide to give someone a tax break, someone else in society is "paying" for that either in increased taxes, smaller decreases in taxes or services not provided.

Unfortunately there's no economy in the world that 100% fair to 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Anyway, it's getting a bit personal now, so I'm leaving it at that.

KCross

zep wrote: »

I suppose this discussion could really drag out ��. I take all your points. I suppose the really issue here is how the government just balls everything up.

On that we agree!

I would much rather see for instance a whole bunch of Tesla company cars paying €10k in BIK rather than a 5 series polluting diesel paying €20k on BIK.... at least the govt coffers would still have the €10k and another EV on the road.

What they did was just kill everything over a specific retail price which was particularly dumb.

Orebro

zep wrote: »

I suppose this discussion could really drag out 😂. I take all your points. I suppose the really issue here is how the government just balls everything up.

So I wasn’t talking sh1t after all, or you just fire around insults at will?

zep

zep wrote: »

................ Most companies/employees wouldn't bother with a company EV if they are paying BIK, so hence no further income for the Government to spend elsewhere, why did the whole company car perk all but disappear over recent times?

Well anyone "not bothering" with a company car EV will no doubt continue to ICE themselves to work with their net income or from their car allowance etc.
I believe the government will get further income from that avenue. Perhaps more so then from an EV

zep

zep wrote: »

KCross
We are forgetting that the €10m in BIK is hypothetical, who says people would get Company cars, if they don't then no bik income for government. No that argument about budget for other things is obsolete.

I know a few self employed folk who went EV after last years budget.
It's effectively akin to the bike to work scheme. 0% BIK and tax relief on the purchase of the car.

KCross

Augeo wrote: »

I know a few self employed folk who went EV after last years budget.
It's effectively akin to the bike to work scheme. 0% BIK and tax relief on the purchase of the car.

What did they buy? Tesla's or budget EV's?

KCross

KCross wrote: »

What did they buy? Tesla's or budget EV's?

One chap bought a Tesla for a fairly significant wad of cash. The others (4) bought a Leaf, 2 2nd hand, 2 new.
A friends husband was waiting until this budget to go Leaf or not.

All self employed and none had company cars or vans before. Literally just went with it as a means of reducing their tax bill while putting themselves in a new (er) car too with small running costs compared to ICE. The Tesla man was coming out with comments like "who am I to argue if the government want to allow me to have a half price Tesla" or some such speel.

KCross

So the ministers speech says he has €13m for EV support for this year. Thats a €3m increase from last year.

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/news-and-media/press-releases/Pages/Minister-Denis-Naughten-announces-€647-million-for-Communications,-Climate-Action--Environment-funding-which-is-an-11-incre.aspx


No breakdown yet on how he is going to spend it but it is a €3m increase from last year. (2016=€5m, 2017=€10m, 2018=€13m).

We didnt see any benefits on the ground from the charging infrastructure last year and he had €5m extra so I dont know if we will see any improvements with this extra money.


I also see this....

New €500m Climate Action Fund to encourage commercial investment in innovative climate change projects in the area of renewable energy projects, energy efficiency, district heating, electric vehicle charging networks and enhanced environmental protection.

€500m would go down nicely!
So, how do you encourage commercial investment in EV charging networks..... subsidy, tax write down?

ELM327

KCross wrote: »

So the ministers speech says he has €13m for EV support for this year. Thats a €3m increase from last year.

https://www.dccae.gov.ie/en-ie/news-and-media/press-releases/Pages/Minister-Denis-Naughten-announces-€647-million-for-Communications,-Climate-Action--Environment-funding-which-is-an-11-incre.aspx


No breakdown yet on how he is going to spend it but it is a €3m increase from last year. (2016=€5m, 2017=€10m, 2018=€13m).

We didnt see any benefits on the ground from the charging infrastructure last year and he had €5m extra so I dont know if we will see any improvements with this extra money.

Interesting but I think a larger question would be... can they show a breakdown of where the previous money was spent?

Orebro

Yes details on where the €10m was spent last year would be good.

zep

Orebro wrote: »

So I wasn’t talking sh1t after all, or you just fire around insults at will?

[snip] I stand by my statement. I just can't be arsed going back and forward with the discussion.
I stand by all my points/comments and accept that others are also allowed their opinion, regardless of what I think of their opinion.

Mod Note: I expect more civility in this forum. If you want to make an argument for your opinions fine, but watch the tone. --cros13

KCross

The Minister's speech has this..

in addition, I would like highlight the Climate Action Fund which has funding of at least €500m at part of the National Development Plan. The first Call for Applications, which I launched in July, includes provision for supporting electric vehicle charging networks along with a range of other project types. The deadline for applications has now passed and I can confirm that almost 100 applications have been received. An assessment of these applications is currently underway. In addition, my Department, in conjunction with the SEAI, is working on how best to support the provision of greater levels of on-street public charging.

Is any of that publicly available?
Was it an eTender?

I know eCars had one out requesting tenders for 50kW rapids.

Presumably there is more than that involved since he talks about getting 100 applications since July.

Anyone know anything about it?

Shefwedfan

ELM327 wrote: »

Interesting but I think a larger question would be... can they show a breakdown of where the previous money was spent?

Exactly....


How many home chargers got installed via the grant?
How many public charger got installed?
How many got repaired?
How many got replaced?



What was the rest of money used for?

DrPhilG

Very legitimate question that, we should be contacting out local politicians to push for answers.

I might send a few emails during the next 2 hours I'll be sat at a slow charger because the fast charger in Letterkenny is dead.

Shefwedfan

DrPhilG wrote: »

Very legitimate question that, we should be contacting out local politicians to push for answers.

I might send a few emails during the next 2 hours I'll be sat at a slow charger because the fast charger in Letterkenny is dead.

I contacted my local waster ages ago.....not a single word back from him

catharsis

n97 mini wrote: »

The correct terminology is important, and a tax cut does not constitute a subsidy.

While I agree with the essence of your message and favour a sliding scale on BIK and so forth, this is a simplistic and not factually accurate presentation of facts based upon an oversimplification.

2 counterarguments

1. Economists would not agree
2. Apple EU judgement that we gave Apple an illegal subsidy by not collecting tax.

n97 mini

catharsis wrote: »

While I agree with the essence of your message and favour a sliding scale on BIK and so forth, this is a simplistic and not factually accurate presentation of facts based upon an oversimplification.

2 counterarguments

1. Economists would not agree
2. Apple EU judgement that we gave Apple an illegal subsidy by not collecting tax.

1. Tax breaks are not subsidies. Many online articles explaining the difference.
2. Apple EU judgement that we gave Apple illegal state aid. No mention of subsidy in EU text.

liamog

Your kind of arguing apples and oranges.

A subsidy is the €600 grant towards charger installation.
The tax break would be allowing you to reduce your taxes by up to €600 after installing a charger.

Either way the goverment has €600 less and you have a charger.

n97 mini

liamog wrote: »

Your kind of arguing apples and oranges.

A subsidy is the €600 grant towards charger installation.
The tax break would be allowing you to reduce your taxes by up to €600 after installing a charger.

Either way the goverment has €600 less and you have a charger.

In many cases the outcome is the same for the government. But simply put, being permitted to keep your income is not the same as taking it from others.

liamog

liamog wrote: »

.........

Either way the goverment has €600 less and you have a charger.

And folk who bought a €70k Tesla as a company car who'd have paid themselves the money otherwise................ government has €35k ish less cash

zep

Augeo wrote: »

liamog wrote: »

.........

Either way the goverment has €600 less and you have a charger.

And folk who bought a €70k Tesla as a company car who'd have paid themselves the money otherwise................ government has €35k ish less cash

Not that simple at all. Yes as an option a person could have paid themselves the extra money, probably over a couple of years and bought the car private, as there is no way anyone would be getting a company car costing that. That same self employed person could then just claim mileage and expenses against their driving, so no tax would be paid on that money. So what the government initially gets from extra personal taxes would be quickly wiped out with mileage expenses.

KCross

zep wrote: »

Not that simple at all. Yes as an option a person could have paid themselves the extra money, probably over a couple of years and bought the car private, as there is no way anyone would be getting a company car costing that. That same self employed person could then just claim mileage and expenses against their driving, so no tax would be paid on that money. So what the government initially gets from extra personal taxes would be quickly wiped out with mileage expenses.

The mileage expense would match the tax forgone in BIK?!
Thats some mileage to do that!

I'd like to see the figures that prove your point. Have you worked it out or is it a generalisation?

zep

KCross wrote: »

zep wrote: »

Not that simple at all. Yes as an option a person could have paid themselves the extra money, probably over a couple of years and bought the car private, as there is no way anyone would be getting a company car costing that. That same self employed person could then just claim mileage and expenses against their driving, so no tax would be paid on that money. So what the government initially gets from extra personal taxes would be quickly wiped out with mileage expenses.

The mileage expense would match the tax forgone in BIK?!
Thats some mileage to do that!

I'd like to see the figures that prove your point. Have you worked it out or is it a generalisation?

"Over a couple of years" I did specify that in my statement, as such it is easily achievable.
25,000km per year would out @ €8,819 allowable mileage claims (lowest rates) , €4.6k the Government don't get in taxes, adds up very quickly.

KCross

zep wrote: »

"Over a couple of years" I did specify that in my statement, as such it is easily achievable.

But isnt full BIK collectable every year on the RRP of the car(not its current value) so I dont see how a couple of years would make a difference?

zep

KCross wrote: »

zep wrote: »

"Over a couple of years" I did specify that in my statement, as such it is easily achievable.

But isnt full BIK collectable every year on the RRP of the car(not its current value) so I dont see how a couple of years would make a difference?

I also stated that the individual buys the car private not via company, can't claim mileage if it's a company car. So zero BIK on private car purchase.

KCross

You've lost me. I dont see your point.
I wont go for another tit for tat tax related discussion with you today!

zep

KCross wrote: »

You've lost me. I dont see your point.
I wont go for another tit for tat tax related discussion with you today!

Haha I was just about to post similar 😂😂😂

zep

zep wrote: »

Not that simple at all. Yes as an option a person could have paid themselves the extra money, probably over a couple of years and bought the car private, as there is no way anyone would be getting a company car costing that. That same self employed person could then just claim mileage and expenses against their driving, so no tax would be paid on that money. So what the government initially gets from extra personal taxes would be quickly wiped out with mileage expenses.

Any self employed folk I know were tempted to go the EV route as they do practically ZERO business miles.

So, I think is is that simple in many cases.

liamog

Alot of companies pay civil service rates for mielage expenses. @27.55c/km using your private EV could be very lucrative.

DrPhilG

KCross wrote: »

I wont go for another tit for tat tax related discussion with you today!

Which one is the tit though?