Budget 2020 new motor tax scale

Just to clarify, it’s Jan 2020 when they start hitting imports with more VRT is it? I’m currently in my 6th month waiting on delivery of a new van (I’d have been quicker ordering a unicorn) and I’m seriously going to have to start looking at alternatives if this is going to kick in by that stage.

drunkmonkey

Imports with high nox that'll effect old diesels and a lot of petrols. Depending on what your buying it may have little to no nox so no extra tax due on VRT. Just check the nox on what your importing.

Sexual Chocolate

Even still if Brexit happens at the end of the month or end of January were still probably going to be liable for VAT.

elbyrneo

Lost.

I was hoping early next year to import a 2015 audi s3, stat code 42085145 for the 300ps black edition most likely. VRT is a horrendous 6860eur based on market value 25409eur and CO2 158 and vrt 27%

Is it going to get even worse??

John_Rambo

Saul Thundering Revenue wrote: »

Nonsense of the highest order. It’s a total fallacy that cattle, cows etc are contributing to emissions, farms are neutral at worst if not in most cases creating a sink to emissions and positively impacting the environment.

That's 2004's outdated data. It's 2019. Ireland is the most carbon-intensive beef producer in Europe, and ranks as Europe’s third highest on emissions from its dairy sector.

http://www.antaisce.org/articles/bombshell-for-irish-beef

Far more emissions than your average rural driver trying to get to and from work.

MTBD

MTBD wrote: »

.......

There is no data to suggest that it has had any of its original intended benefits. It's been an unmitigated disaster of a policy and has only lead to an increase in air pollution with all the diesels it put on the road.

So many folk were delighted with it.
Folk went from driving 1.4 petrol pieces of sh1t to driving junior exec saloons as they became attainable.

I don't personally thinkthe majority of private cars running on diesel is s good idea but that's not really here or there.

This topic is about potential changes to the current motor tax regime .... The budget didn't touch them.

LillySV

Saul Thundering Revenue wrote: »

Nonsense of the highest order. It’s a total fallacy that cattle, cows etc are contributing to emissions, farms are neutral at worst if not in most cases creating a sink to emissions and positively impacting the environment.

Well you disagree with most scientists then... anyways I’m not getting in to an argument about it... I love red meat! Thanks farmers

ELM327

In fairness I despise the Great Hunberg and still must acknowledge man made climate change

That's the great thing about science - it doesn't care if you "believe" it or not, it exists anyway!

drunkmonkey

John_Rambo wrote: »

That's 2004's outdated data. It's 2019. Ireland is the most carbon-intensive beef producer in Europe, and ranks as Europe’s third highest on emissions from its dairy sector.

http://www.antaisce.org/articles/bombshell-for-irish-beef

Far more emissions than your average rural driver trying to get to and from work.

If we hadn't the potato famine the stats wouldn't look as bad. We're on a little island in the Atlantic, were never going to have the benefits of scale people on the mainland have.
We shouldn't be hammering each other over it.

is_that_so

Micky 32 wrote: »

I read to today that as long as Leo is in power he will rise carbon tax every year.

It's a FF policy to raise it as well. AFAIK every party is in favour of it.

NIMAN

I had assumed that the government would have started to increase motor tax on diesel, and probably petrol, cars from the budget yesterday.

And then made it a gradual increase every budget to try to wean folk off ICE cars.

But apparently not.

ELM327

NIMAN wrote: »

I had assumed that the government would have started to increase motor tax on diesel, and probably petrol, cars from the budget yesterday.

And then made it a gradual increase every budget to try to wean folk off ICE cars.

But apparently not.

No, that would make too much sense.
We elect morons so we get the governance (or lack thereof) that we deserve

is_that_so

NIMAN wrote: »

I had assumed that the government would have started to increase motor tax on diesel, and probably petrol, cars from the budget yesterday.

And then made it a gradual increase every budget to try to wean folk off ICE cars.

But apparently not.

Motor tax on fuel doesn't make much sense, given where we're going and it will decline very quickly in the years to come. We'll still need a new model but that's not it.

drunkmonkey

NIMAN wrote: »

I had assumed that the government would have started to increase motor tax on diesel, and probably petrol, cars from the budget yesterday.

And then made it a gradual increase every budget to try to wean folk off ICE cars.

But apparently not.

New diesel engines are very clean with little to no dangerous pollution. The war on diesel is coming to an end. Ice cars will be around for a long time yet.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If we hadn't the potato famine the stats wouldn't look as bad. We're on a little island in the Atlantic, were never going to have the benefits of scale people on the mainland have.
We shouldn't be hammering each other over it.

The mainland?
WTactuakF .... Lol.... Are you Irish?

ninty9er

elbyrneo wrote: »

Lost.

I was hoping early next year to import a 2015 audi s3, stat code 42085145 for the 300ps black edition most likely. VRT is a horrendous 6860eur based on market value 25409eur and CO2 158 and vrt 27%

Is it going to get even worse??

Your NOx surcharge will be less than €100 on this car.

Most folk didn't want additional motor tax.... Most folk got what they wanted.
I don't see the problem TBH.

drunkmonkey

Just to put this new nox tax into perspective.
A new Mercedes 220d produces no tracable Nox so is exempt. A BMW 520d Touring produces 1mg per km, so will be hit with a €5 nox tax.

Harry Palmr

Augeo wrote: »

The mainland?
WTactuakF .... Lol.... Are you Irish?

Ever heard of le Continent?

marcos_94

MTBD wrote: »

Name some more cars that are not BMW's. A 3L BMW isn't considered anything special in most countries. It's just the way most of them are. For every 6 cylinder BMW that isn't in the highest two tax bands I can name about 10 cars from other manufacturers that are in the top two bands. Go on to carzone and filter cars by 2008-2015, select petrol, then select engine size over 2.5l and you will find 82 cars listed. Over half of them are for sale for over €40,000 and a good share of them are much closer to €100k.

Well to start, were not in most countries, so yes a 3L BMW is different in Ireland and not common. Im not saying that youre wrong, what im trying to say is that there are options out there.

Any 3L BMW will have the cheaper tax so you can get a Z4, 630i, or 530i with €750 tax depending what youre looking for. If you look at the cost of some of the cars in the high tax brackets (especially pre 2008) theyve depreciated massively so the cost of buying one is relatively cheap compared to say the UK (when VRT is included). The fact you can buy a 2007 Merc S500, Lexus LS, or a BMW 7 series for less than €5k is crazy to me.

MTBD wrote: »

A 320d after 10 years will likely have 200,000+ miles on it and therefore have emitted even more co2 than a WRX probably wouldn't even reach 100,000. There has clearly been no thought out into the current system at all. It's punitive.

In terms of your Subaru vs 320d comparison, I completely agree that the tax difference is crazy and unjust. However, your statement on emissions is wrong. Diesels are bad emmitters of NOx emissions, but their CO2 emissions arent as high as a petrol engines. So, taking a 2008 BMW 320d (emissions of 128 g CO2/km) and a 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX 2.5L (emissions of 246 g CO2/km), if the BMW travelled 200k miles as you said, it would emit 41.2 tonnes of CO2 while the Subaru doing 100k miles (half the mileage) would emit 39.6 tonnes.

You can see how the CO2 motor tax suited the diesels. If we were to compare NOx emissions, it is a completely different story (BMW = 171 mg NOx/km vs Subaru = 20 mg NOx/km) so including NOx emissions in motor tax rates should be considered.

ELM327

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Just to put this new nox tax into perspective.
A new Mercedes 220d produces no tracable Nox so is exempt. A BMW 520d Touring produces 1mg per km, so will be hit with a €5 nox tax.

Are we sure this isnt like the Clean Diesels from VW?
I find it hard to believe (despite the seemingly conclusive empirical data to the contrary) that a diesel operating under load produces no/trace amounts of NOx

drunkmonkey

Doing that to motor tax will benefit new diesels the most.

KCross

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The new tax will have little to no effect on new diesel sales. All new Mercedes diesels avoid it and a good few BMW's. You could go as far as saying it's tougher on petrol than diesel cars.

Indeed. The main thurst of the motor related changes is to "stop" people buying cars that have engines older than Euro 6.

And thats a good thing.

If you buy new or import a Euro 6 engine this NOx tax will have very little effect.

ninty9er wrote: »

HOWEVER, here's where it gets complicated. If you were looking at a 2015 Ford Kuga 2l, you would need to know whether it is a Duratorq TDCI 140 PS or a TDCI 150 PS, as one has a Euro5 engine which will attract a Nox levy of €3k give or take and the other has a Euro6 engine which will have a levy of less than €300.

That would be a VERY expensive mistake to make.

I think this is going to be the big problem alright. Where do you get the NOx figure that the revenue will accept when you present the car at NCT. Which database will they use? Is it publicly available or do you just use the NCT calculator and see what falls out to the end of that?

People buying in the UK are going to have to be careful as you said.

Micky 32 wrote: »

I own a 300bhp diesel car that i use for my work. With my driving style i probably average 40mpg. I do 50,000km a year which is quite substantial, that only equates 70 euro for the year for the extra 2c a litre. Not many people do 50k a year..


Fast forward 10 years to 2030 when it's 80 euro per tonne. That will add circa 20c a litre. For me thats circa extra 700 euro for the year, 2 euro a day extra and in my business i could find 2 euro extra a day very easily. Not to mention inflation in the next 10 years that will make that 700 euro not as bad.



I think maybe we are stressing out too much about the carbon tax..sorry tree huggers this won't have much of an effect over the next 10 years..

Yea, its a light budget. SIMI did their job for their members. Most people wont even notice the 2c/l this morning.

Once Brexit is decided and we have a new government you could find that there will be some harsher decisions made against diesel though. Their hands were tied with this budget so they did very little other than inhibit UK ****box imports.

drunkmonkey

ELM327 wrote: »

Are we sure this isnt like the Clean Diesels from VW?
I find it hard to believe (despite the seemingly conclusive empirical data to the contrary) that a diesel operating under load produces no/trace amounts of NOx

According to the June edition of the auto specialist magazine "auto motor und sport" (Issue 13, 6 June 2019), emission measurements on twelve test vehicles of different brands resulted in the tested Mercedes C 300 d Estate emitting "almost no NOx". The results measured on the Mercedes-Benz C 300 d Estate (combined fuel consumption 5.6-5.0 l/100 km, combined CO₂emissions 147-133 g/km)* are stated in more precise terms in the copy: "With a measly 13 milligrammes of NOx, it goes to the top of our ‘Mr Clean’ hit list. Until recently, it seemed inconceivable that diesel engines could achieve such figures at all. […] However, the two-litre diesel called the OM 654 has been systematically trimmed for reduced emissions. The NOx problem of many cities is therefore bound to be resolved as soon as more new cars are registered" (auto, motor und sport, Issue 13, 6 June 2019).

https://www.daimler.com/innovation/diesel/nox-reduction.html

ELM327

Micky 32 wrote: »

Suck it up? Watching too many USA movies there?:rolleyes:


Anyway i was doing a bit of sums. It's not all doom and gloom with the carbon taxes regarding transport anyhow, i think maybe the government are making ye tree huggers think they are really doing something when in reality it's not really the case....cute feckers



I own a 300bhp diesel car that i use for my work. With my driving style i probably average 40mpg. I do 50,000km a year which is quite substantial, that only equates 70 euro for the year for the extra 2c a litre. Not many people do 50k a year..


Fast forward 10 years to 2030 when it's 80 euro per tonne. That will add circa 20c a litre. For me thats circa extra 700 euro for the year, 2 euro a day extra and in my business i could find 2 euro extra a day very easily. Not to mention inflation in the next 10 years that will make that 700 euro not as bad.



I think maybe we are stressing out too much about the carbon tax..sorry tree huggers this won't have much of an effect over the next 10 years..

2 cents per liter is nothing
I do 55-65k km per year. I sometimes pay a 5 cents per liter premium to go to a different station because I like the coffee better there!
Paying hundreds per month in fuel, 1.50 per tank is literally not even noticeable.

tobsey

NIMAN wrote: »

I had assumed that the government would have started to increase motor tax on diesel, and probably petrol, cars from the budget yesterday.

And then made it a gradual increase every budget to try to wean folk off ICE cars.

But apparently not.

That’s a good move I think. They aren’t punishing people who already have cars and maybe have no option to change. However anyone who imports a car into the country, whether new or used, is being pushed towards cleaner cars. Over time the national fleet will gradually become cleaner.

If they made the existing stock more expensive to tax that would encourage more people to scrap and more new cars and imports. That’s been shown to be a fallacy when it comes to green thinking because of the amount of energy needed to produce a new car.

Smart move imo.

ELM327

drunkmonkey wrote: »

According to the June edition of the auto specialist magazine "auto motor und sport" (Issue 13, 6 June 2019), emission measurements on twelve test vehicles of different brands resulted in the tested Mercedes C 300 d Estate emitting "almost no NOx". The results measured on the Mercedes-Benz C 300 d Estate (combined fuel consumption 5.6-5.0 l/100 km, combined CO₂emissions 147-133 g/km)* are stated in more precise terms in the copy: "With a measly 13 milligrammes of NOx, it goes to the top of our ‘Mr Clean’ hit list. Until recently, it seemed inconceivable that diesel engines could achieve such figures at all. […] However, the two-litre diesel called the OM 654 has been systematically trimmed for reduced emissions. The NOx problem of many cities is therefore bound to be resolved as soon as more new cars are registered" (auto, motor und sport, Issue 13, 6 June 2019).

https://www.daimler.com/innovation/diesel/nox-reduction.html

I understand there is evidence to the contrary (which is why I said despite the empirical evidence).
I just find it very hard to comprehend and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

drunkmonkey

ELM327 wrote: »

I understand there is evidence to the contrary (which is why I said despite the empirical evidence).
I just find it very hard to comprehend and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

You can't believe Technology can evolve and make clean ICE engines??

ELM327

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You can't believe Technology can evolve and make clean ICE engines??

Clean, yes, but burning oil and not producing nox is odd
I've had a good read through the link and it seems theyve screwed in a load of emission cleaning fluids to do so.

Micky 32

ELM327 wrote: »

Are we sure this isnt like the Clean Diesels from VW?
I find it hard to believe (despite the seemingly conclusive empirical data to the contrary) that a diesel operating under load produces no/trace amounts of NOx

A lot of diesel engines including my own come with an Adblue system, it injects a fluid into the exhaust that neutralises NOx by a huge amount.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Clean, yes, but burning oil and not producing nox is odd
I've had a good read through the link and it seems theyve screwed in a load of emission cleaning fluids to do so.

I would have thought that it’s a given that they are using emission cleaning fluids, it’s hardly a surprise. If they have eliminated the NOx they have eliminated it, that fact they need to use fluids is irrelevant.

Micky 32

is_that_so wrote: »

It's a FF policy to raise it as well. AFAIK every party is in favour of it.

For now anyway, but they'll be waiting to see how Fine gael will get on in the election. If they get hammered because of CT which is possible, FF might not be so eager

That Ryan fella isn't happy he clearly wants to hammer the motorist.

is_that_so

Micky 32 wrote: »

For now anyway, but they'll be waiting to see how Fine gael will get on in the election. If they get hammered because of CT which is possible, FF might not be so eager.

FF introduced it and their position is more abut the level of it. They were looking at a ceiling of €6-7 per tonne. They also favour the steady continuous increase. FG will not get hammered over a 2c a litre fuel increase. There are many other things people will look at. As for Ryan, well, it's how he's always been.

Micky 32

is_that_so wrote: »

FF introduced it and their position is more abut the level of it. They were looking at a ceiling of €6-7 per tonne. They also favour the steady continuous increase. FG will not get hammered over a 2c a litre fuel increase. There are many other things people will look at. As for Ryan, well, it's how he's always been.

Not over the 2c but carbon tax as a whole, heating bills etc. I get around a lot with my job, especially country areas and rural areas, and i talk to and meet a lot of people. If Leo was a horse i don't think i'd be putting a bet on him just yet

is_that_so

Micky 32 wrote: »

Not over the 2c but carbon tax as a whole, heating bills etc. I get around a lot with my job, especially country areas and rural areas, and i talk to and meet a lot of people. If Leo was a horse i don't think i'd be putting a bet on him just yet

It's going to be some version of what we have now with either Leo or Martin. In many rural constituencies it's FF v FG anyway. As both support carbon tax that leaves the options very limited. Heating oil will not increase till May, i.e. in the summer and post-election!

ninty9er

KCross wrote: »

I think this is going to be the big problem alright. Where do you get the NOx figure that the revenue will accept when you present the car at NCT. Which database will they use? Is it publicly available or do you just use the NCT calculator and see what falls out to the end of that?

It's on the V5 - though you won't know that before you buy it unless you ask for a scan of the V5.

Micky 32

is_that_so wrote: »

It's going to be some version of what we have now with either Leo or Martin. In many rural constituencies it's FF v FG anyway. As both support carbon tax that leaves the options very limited. Heating oil will not increase till May, i.e. in the summer and post-election!

Yeah but if FG did suffer because they implemented it and FF get into power it might not quite reach 80 euro per tonne by 2030.

KCross

ninty9er wrote: »

It's on the V5 - though you won't know that before you buy it unless you ask for a scan of the V5.

I guess the V5 is the ultimate answer as you have to present that to the NCT centre.

People will need to be looking at that V5 figure closely before parting with cash.

Sam Russell

Carbon Tax is there to do two things:

1. Change behaviour - get people to go to low carbon alternatives, or reduce carbon consumption. Walk, cycle, or go electric, or at least go for a lower carbon alternative. The current rate is not enough to achieve much of this, but it will in time.

2. Provide a fund to take mitigating actions, like insulate homes to get the BER figures into the A range rather than the F or G that some houses are in. This is the area that will have the greatest effect, and the one they should be concentrating on. Being green should be about lowering costs - use less fuel is cheaper than wasting it.

Solar and wind is free once the capital is paid off.

Also NOx is about health - it causes health problems that are severe and needs to be eliminated anyway.

is_that_so

Sam Russell wrote: »

Carbon Tax is there to do two things:

1. Change behaviour - get people to go to low carbon alternatives, or reduce carbon consumption. Walk, cycle, or go electric, or at least go for a lower carbon alternative. The current rate is not enough to achieve much of this, but it will in time.

2. Provide a fund to take mitigating actions, like insulate homes to get the BER figures into the A range rather than the F or G that some houses are in. This is the area that will have the greatest effect, and the one they should be concentrating on. Being green should be about lowering costs - use less fuel is cheaper than wasting it.

Solar and wind is free once the capital is paid off.

Also NOx is about health - it causes health problems that are severe and needs to be eliminated anyway.

Number 1 is too hard to measure and somewhat aspirational. It also requires the funding that Number 2 could bring through its supporting alternatives.

Sam Russell

is_that_so wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Carbon Tax is there to do two things:

1. Change behaviour - get people to go to low carbon alternatives, or reduce carbon consumption. Walk, cycle, or go electric, or at least go for a lower carbon alternative. The current rate is not enough to achieve much of this, but it will in time.

2. Provide a fund to take mitigating actions, like insulate homes to get the BER figures into the A range rather than the F or G that some houses are in. This is the area that will have the greatest effect, and the one they should be concentrating on. Being green should be about lowering costs - use less fuel is cheaper than wasting it.

Solar and wind is free once the capital is paid off.

Also NOx is about health - it causes health problems that are severe and needs to be eliminated anyway.

Number 1 is too hard to measure and somewhat aspirational. It also requires the funding that Number 2 could bring through its supporting alternatives.

Well, if you go to buy and import a 2nd hand diesel and discover a Euro6 car carries less import tax than a Euro5 car of similar spec, then which would you choose?

Look at what happened with diesel sales after 2008 - petrol died a death and diesel sales soared. Well, lets hope lower CO2 and lower NOx vehicles do the same.

We do need to do more, but at least this is something in the right direction. If most people adjust their behaviour, then something will be achieved.

Paddy GT

Has anyone established if this will effect classic cars ie. cars over 30 years old where the VRT is €200 at present?

Paddy GT

Paddy GT wrote: »

Has anyone established if this will effect classic cars ie. cars over 30 years old where the VRT is €200 at present?

I doubt it very much, classics don’t fall under the normal rules and their vrt is fixed regardless of other factors so can’t see this having any impact.

LillySV

Just wondering if there’s anywhere I can ring or contact to get current vrt calculations for cars such as hybrid Porsche cayennes that aren’t listed on ros site ?

Sam Russell

LillySV wrote: »

Just wondering if there’s anywhere I can ring or contact to get current vrt calculations for cars such as hybrid Porsche cayennes that aren’t listed on ros site ?

I was told that the Porsche is not listed for some reason.

Micky 32

Sam Russell wrote: »

Carbon Tax is there to do two things:

1. Change behaviour - get people to go to low carbon alternatives, or reduce carbon consumption. Walk, cycle, or go electric, or at least go for a lower carbon alternative. The current rate is not enough to achieve much of this, but it will in time.

2. Provide a fund to take mitigating actions, like insulate homes to get the BER figures into the A range rather than the F or G that some houses are in. This is the area that will have the greatest effect, and the one they should be concentrating on. Being green should be about lowering costs - use less fuel is cheaper than wasting it.

Solar and wind is free once the capital is paid off.

Also NOx is about health - it causes health problems that are severe and needs to be eliminated anyway.

Where did you get the government script you copied that from? I'll re number them for you..


1. It's a handy cash grab to pay the EU extortionate emission fines that the government will be made pay in 2020 ( i believe) in the region of 150million, very handy cash for the EU.


2.Makes it look like they are doing something about climate change to keep the doomsday prophets happy.


As for ring fencing? LOL there will be no money for that once Leo sends the 150 million cheque off to the EU.

marcos_94

Micky 32 wrote: »

Where did you get the government script you copied that from? I'll re number them for you..


1. It's a handy cash grab to pay the EU extortionate emission fines that the government will be made pay in 2020 ( i believe) in the region of 150million, very handy cash for the EU.


2.Makes it look like they are doing something about climate change to keep the doomsday prophets happy.


As for ring fencing? LOL there will be no money for that once Leo sends the 150 million cheque off to the EU.

1. Not sure why you're blaming the EU. Ireland set their own targets and through inaction, are going to miss them

2. In an ideal world, the Carbon Tax would be used for subsidies (solar PV, Evs, etc) but in classic Irish tax fashion, it will be lobbed in with all the other taxes to pay for the likes of the childrens hospital overspend or the national broadband plan

ELM327

marcos_94 wrote: »

1. Not sure why you're blaming the EU. Ireland set their own targets and through inaction, are going to miss them

2. In an ideal world, the Carbon Tax would be used for subsidies (solar PV, Evs, etc) but in classic Irish tax fashion, it will be lobbed in with all the other taxes to pay for the likes of the childrens hospital overspend or the national broadband plan

Ignoring the green aspects of the NBP?
remote working = reduced transport emissions.


The EU caused us to have to set targets in the first place

marcos_94

ELM327 wrote: »

Ignoring the green aspects of the NBP?
remote working = reduced transport emissions.


The EU caused us to have to set targets in the first place

Caused us? The EU set targets for 2020 for the 28 member states. Each member state then developed a National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) outlining their targets for 2020, which contribute to the EUs targets, and their plans for getting their. Ireland developed their own NECP with vast promises.

Take one important sector, transport. Ireland only this year welcomed some hybrid buses into Dublin Bus when this could have been done years ago

Sam Russell

Micky 32 wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Carbon Tax is there to do two things:

1. Change behaviour - get people to go to low carbon alternatives, or reduce carbon consumption. Walk, cycle, or go electric, or at least go for a lower carbon alternative. The current rate is not enough to achieve much of this, but it will in time.

2. Provide a fund to take mitigating actions, like insulate homes to get the BER figures into the A range rather than the F or G that some houses are in. This is the area that will have the greatest effect, and the one they should be concentrating on. Being green should be about lowering costs - use less fuel is cheaper than wasting it.

Solar and wind is free once the capital is paid off.

Also NOx is about health - it causes health problems that are severe and needs to be eliminated anyway.

Where did you get the government script you copied that from? I'll re number them for you..


1. It's a handy cash grab to pay the EU extortionate emission fines that the government will be made pay in 2020 ( i believe) in the region of 150million, very handy cash for the EU.


2.Makes it look like they are doing something about climate change to keep the doomsday prophets happy.


As for ring fencing? LOL there will be no money for that once Leo sends the 150 million cheque off to the EU.

I have no connection with any political party, so no Gov script - all my own.

Any increase in tax, be it VAT or carbon tax will have the effect of changing behaviour. In the case of Carbon Tax that is its objective. One of the suggestions is to divi it out to every household, so the net collected amount would be zero. Unfortunately, this would be inefficient as the cost of the distribution would eat into the amount paid out, and the biggest losers are the poor.

Obviously, some CT is unavoidable for most households, in particular, in the short term. However, if you wish to change your car, you would try to purchase one that is more economical, and of course the effect of the CT costs would affect your choice. If there is wholesale change of behaviour, then maybe we will meet our targets for carbon emissions.

Remember, there has been significant changes to building regulations to improve insulation in houses that reduce carbon emissions. It is a pity that this was not done twenty years ago before all those houses were shoved up in the Celtic Tiger building boom.

Of course, if you do reduce your emissions, you tend to save money. Less heating requirement is cheaper. Less fuel consumption in you car costs less. Electric cars (plug in) are much cheaper to run and require much less maintenance than ICE vehicles. Wind and solar energy is free (after you pay the capital cost).

So going green is cheaper, whatever else might cause you to do go green.