Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Challenge; VRT submissions required to Dept of Finance

  • 05-04-2007 11:42am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 12,740 ✭✭✭✭


    As per the now huge VRT thread, and the fact that we're all moaning, but not actually doing anything, and how one poster commented that we didn't submit anything when the Dept of Finance put out a discussion document on the subject...........I thought I'd try something.

    The date for last submission was March, now past.

    So, I emailed them, and was phoned back by a very nice man, and I explained the request for submission didn't get widely publicised, and would the Dept extend the date for submissions. The nice gentleman said that, as they were still going through all they did receive - all at the last minute, of course - that yes, they'd accept some more.

    So there you go - all we had to do, was ask. Here's your chance.

    Your task (all of you), therefore, over this week-end is simple. To write a constructive mechanism/argument for the abolition of VRT and how it may be replaced by something more equitable - include references to annual Car Tax if you want to. It must be ready to submit, I'd suggest, no later than early next week. I would advocate, Monday next 9th April.

    Please, no rants - these people have a job to do, so let's be constructive. And as measure of the do-as-I-do, not do-as-I-say test, I want each poster on the big thread to do one, and to post that you've done so, here.

    There's the gauntlet for ye...........

    Could the poster with the URL for the submission post it back here ??

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 44,875 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    fair play to you for looking into it. Are you foreign? A most unIrish thing to do ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Request for submissions

    I'm doing another one anyway


    I have WAY too much time on my hands right now:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,325 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    One things for sure - no matter how it is changed we are still going to have to pay the same money. "VRT is an important part of revenue collection".


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,740 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    jimmy - maybe so, but we can't sit and just yak, and then complain when nothing is done. Nothing, or at least nothing good, will come of sitting on the fence........

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    if you don't make a submission it removes your right to bitch at the outcome, so methinks I'll probably end up doing a lot of bitching to make up:p :p


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    Also fair play to the person who highlighted smaller engines in bigger cars polluting more due to strain.

    Avensis 1.6 172g/km
    Avensis 1.8 171g/km


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    OK I'm done, I've managed to increase the price of an M5 by 20k and reduce a 2.2 D4-D Avensis by 6k as well as reduce the Corsa 1.3 CDTi by 4k


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ninty9er wrote:
    OK I'm done, I've managed to increase the price of an M5 by 20k and reduce a 2.2 D4-D Avensis by 6k as well as reduce the Corsa 1.3 CDTi by 4k
    How?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    i've scrapped percentages and increased individualised bands of g/km CO2, based on engine emissions alon, no prices, no smoke no mirrors.

    I'll upload it somewhere later when I get a chance and do a linky


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Still opting for a non consumption based mechanism!

    Right then - if VRT is to stay and be charged on a scale based on environmental grounds, does this mean that the government (whoever it may be) is willing to invest more money in conservation, heritage and environmental protection? Are they going to increase funding for public transport? Are they willing to lower fares to encourage more public transport usage?
    Or are they going to use the money to buy more carbon credits and waste the rest like as has been done to date?
    I find it hypocritical of the government (and I didn't want to become political) to be using the environment as justification for something given they way they have/are treating it. The current and previous ministers of the Environment were disasters when it came to looking after the environment.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    It's a tax on motoring as fuels can be used for other things and only affects new buyers.

    consumption based is an alternative to annual motor tax, but the problem still remains that the Dept. of Finance still needs that €1.3bn and to get that out of consumption would lead to outrageous figures on the forecourts....

    It would certainly put cars off the road, and business out of the country....the first being good the second being bad.

    as already stated elsewhere. what about Tom who live 20 miles from nowhere and 80 miles from work...is it fair that because nobody can viably provide his area with transport, that he should have to pay €5/l to transport himself round.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    For what its worth I mailed a submission, looking to move the burden to fuel (along with road tax).

    Mike.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    kbannon wrote:
    Still opting for a non consumption based mechanism!
    They terms of reference for submissions are really for a tweaking of the current system also.

    Revenue still has to be in the region of €1bn


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    the big polluters aren't gonna like the 60k in indirect tax on their engine but here goes...linky


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,936 ✭✭✭wingnut


    I wouldn't hold my breath on FF taking on board any logical submissions.. they haven't done in the past. CC was never a fair gague of pollution but it never bothered them in the past.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,171 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    seems reasonably intelligent except for the VAT anomoly. How does being a luxury car justify more VAT? The idea of the VRT replacement exercise should be emissions based, rather than a punitive measure. By your example, two people could buy the same model car (e.g. Saab 9-3 1.9 TiD), same emissions, same performance etc, but one person could pay 10% more on VAT because he chose to have leather upholstery. That is inherently unfair and will just result in the same amount of betterness that people currently have towards VRT


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    seems reasonably intelligent except for the VAT anomoly. How does being a luxury car justify more VAT? The idea of the VRT replacement exercise should be emissions based, rather than a punitive measure. By your example, two people could buy the same model car (e.g. Saab 9-3 1.9 TiD), same emissions, same performance etc, but one person could pay 10% more on VAT because he chose to have leather upholstery. That is inherently unfair and will just result in the same amount of betterness that people currently have towards VRT

    Yeah, we struggled a bit with where to put the limit on what's luxury and what's not, I'm sure it'd be open to tweaking and could be a bargaining tool in closing a sale below the limit...but the Department need to be sure of revenues...so we've given them a bit of carrot on that. Civil servants don't take stick too well

    However....a Saab 9-3 is Currently mid €30k with VRT so it'd be early to mid €20ks in relation to the pre-tax price as outlined and most likely subject to Top rate + 4% rather than top rate + 10% unless it's an Aero

    edit: sorry didn't answer the question...luxury cars are bought by people who can pay more, like having a higher rate of income tax...wealth redistribution of a kind...not perfect...far from it...but necessary to buoy the revenues


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    While that proposal is far better than the current ridiculous proposal by Herr Roche, it still does nothing to stop people thinking about the enviornmental impact of driving a car. This proposal says that you can have a low emissions vehicle and drive it 40k+ miles a year and you're doing less enviornmental damage than someone who buys say an X5 with the 4.8l V8 and only does a few thousand miles a year. BMW made a submission, which makes for interesting reading, and manages to undermine the whole point of having brought the 316i into Ireland in the first place. http://www.bmw.ie/ie/en/index_highend.html http://www.bmw.ie/ie/en/index_highend.html

    On the one hand, we're told that the 316i is here as it is 'sporty and fuel efficient', yet it emits 184 g/km of CO2 while the 318d emits 150 g/km of CO2. By the way the soon to be introduced 530i with an auto box will produce 178 g/km of CO2, which makes a complete mockery of generalisation that more engine capacity equals more CO2.
    Unsurprisingly, the SIMI have their views, but they're giving a very biased view(especially about the 'gas guzzlers' that are being imported in their droves, and they're moaning a lot about how people are buying much better cars from across the pond), which is in the interest of their members of course http://www.simi.ie/admin/files/SIMI%20VRT%20Consultation%20-%20Submission.pdf .

    As I have said a couple of times the best way to reduce CO2 emissions is scrap VRT and increase the price of fuel. That penalises those who are in their cars all ther time and rewards those who only use their cars now and again. I know that it will hit some people oin their pockets a lot, but we all pay artifically high prices because of VRT as it stands.
    EDIT: I'm after realising that my BMW links dont go to where I had intended, but go to the news section, and look for their VRT submission, and very far down, theres the article of them praising the introduction of the 316i.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ninty9er wrote:
    the big polluters aren't gonna like the 60k in indirect tax on their engine but here goes...linky
    Right then, maybe you can explain or elaborate on a few lines from that sumbission:
    VRT is currently biased in favour of petrol rather than diesel technology.
    How? It is cc based not fuel based.

    The section about VAT on page 3 suggests different rates of VAT depending on the value but as already mentioned - would this value include optional extras?
    Furthermore, you reference various categories but these are not definites but marketing suggestions by the manufacturers. You also proposing excluding "performance derivatives with engines of cubic capacity of 1401 or above" - what exactly is a performance derivative?
    Farm households and business showing a necessity for a 4x4 vehicle, may keep passenger seating and receive a rebate by VAT receipt in the amount of the difference between the applicable rate for a private vehicle and that of a commercial.
    How does one propose that a vehicle is a necessity? Can it be used for non-farm/commercial use? This will encourage the use of commercial vehicles and appears to be in line with FF policy whereby road transport is favoured over rail or other forms of public transport.
    CO2 Tax on New Vehicles (TNV) to replace VRT as we know it. Tax to be based on emissions, NOT cubic capacity and CERTAINLY NOT vehicle cost.
    You emphasise these yet are willing to alter VAT rates based on the value of the vehicle.

    The figures for the Avensis, X5, etc. seem incorrect off the top of my head but I couldn't be bothered calculating them - maybe someone else could.
    There is no smoke and mirrors about this; it is public friendly as most new Revenue Services are.
    Kissing arse there?

    Finally, I note that this seems to have been developed today (with tomorrow's date). Is this a formal proposal to the revenue or to FF?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    kbannon wrote:
    Right then, maybe you can explain or elaborate on a few lines from that sumbission:
    How? It is cc based not fuel based.
    EDIT:
    [delete]Only up to 1400 cc for superminis and city cars...other tha that I don't see how it could be considered cc based[/delete]
    I answered a totally different question there sorry....I meant discriminates, as diesel engines are in the main, subject to the 30% rate due to having been mainly 1.9 or above up until recently
    kbannon wrote:
    The section about VAT on page 3 suggests different rates of VAT depending on the value but as already mentioned - would this value include optional extras?
    Furthermore, you reference various categories but these are not definites but marketing suggestions by the manufacturers. You also proposing excluding "performance derivatives with engines of cubic capacity of 1401 or above" - what exactly is a performance derivative?
    Fiesta ST, Yaris T Sport etc...these are generally bough by people who are looking for performance and will likely drive the vehicle in a more polluting (100km/h in 3rd gear manner) Sorry for generalisations. They are also relatively expensive and not what someone jsut looking for a cheap eco-friendly, a-b car would buy.
    kbannon wrote:
    How does one propose that a vehicle is a necessity? Can it be used for non-farm/commercial use? This will encourage the use of commercial vehicles and appears to be in line with FF policy whereby road transport is favoured over rail or other forms of public transport.
    There's an issue with people needing 5 seats, but requiring a vehicle commercially..(e.g builders could carpool thier Landcruisers if they had 5 seats etc..) private use would be difficult to police, but I imagine BIK would kick in in some instances
    kbannon wrote:
    You emphasise these yet are willing to alter VAT rates based on the value of the vehicle.
    the TNV wouldn't be as VRT currently is, we was attempting to rule out the ad valorem element, in which we have succeeded. In essence this is an exercise in promoting environmental issues, yet keep revenue buoyant....and don 't throw the fule tax back at me.....propose it instead of road tax if you want, there will always be more tax on cars at the point of sale
    kbannon wrote:
    The figures for the Avensis, X5, etc. seem incorrect off the top of my head but I couldn't be bothered calculating them - maybe someone else could.
    Possible they're wrong (I did them)...I wasn't 100% sure on the calculation, but I'm confident I got it right, and the lads were happy to go with me.
    kbannon wrote:
    Finally, I note that this seems to have been developed today (with tomorrow's date). Is this a formal proposal to the revenue or to FF?

    Revenue...to be pushed internally by various TDs, we know some you know:p


    I know that we've probably missed a few elephants getting it ready, but it's what we came up with and agreed on.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 36 Meister


    I have been tracking theis VRT issue for a while, an it really is one of my pet hates. On the surface it seems as, not a bad idea, VRT discounts for less C02emissions (although this mob still cling to engine size!!). But if you dig a little deeper the sinister approcah of Herr Roche becomes appart.

    Euro 5 Emmissions standards to come into effect in 2009, and deals with the issue of NOx gasses (Noxious Gasses), and is designed to force carmakers to implement reductions. Great we all think....well not quite. As a direct result of this will be up to 7% increase in Co2 emissions, and LESS fuel economy.

    Therefor any percieved VRT discount at the moment will be negated come 2009 pusing all cars into the "newly defined" VRT Co2 based bands.

    I am not making this up, as i just bought a new Lexus 220d, and i noticed fuel consumption is ALOT higher than my last diesel, when I enquired from Lexus they told me it was Euro 5 compliant, (the first to be so), which if you look at their Co2 emissions (abot 9% higher the Audi, BMW).

    So FF (or should be refered to as SS), are going to coin it, on the back of increased VRT revenue when we hit Euro 5 2009. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

    Have a look at;
    www.acea.be/euro5_and_co2
    www.euractiv.com/en/transport/euro-5-emissions-standards-cars/article-133325?_print


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,147 ✭✭✭E92


    Meister wrote:
    i just bought a new Lexus 220d, and i noticed fuel consumption is ALOT higher than my last diesel, when I enquired from Lexus they told me it was Euro 5 compliant, (the first to be so), which if you look at their Co2 emissions (abot 9% higher the Audi, BMW).
    Lexus are telling you a lie. There are NO EURO5 diesels on sale in this country. And they're not the first, as they claimed to you they were. Merc were the first, their E320 CDI Bluetec being the first ever Euro 5 diesel car ever to go on sale in the world, which is not available in Europe till next year I believe. Its on sale in the US at the moment, but it definately has not been made in RHD yet. VW were next, with their Euro 5 Tiguan, which will go on sale next year,also with Bluetec. Inevitably Lexus will have a Euro 5 diesel, as they're legally required to from 2009, but as it stands they're wrong, and their own website confirms this http://www.lexus.ie/lexus_cars/is_new/is220d/specifications/specifications.asp


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    I'm going to submit something... If VRT for bikes and commercial vehicles is only 50euro... why should cars be different!


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ninty9er wrote:
    I know that we've probably missed a few elephants getting it ready, but it's what we came up with and agreed on.
    Im sitting here watching a re-run of Top Gear and it reminded me of something else.
    What tax bracket would you place the 247bhp, 234km/hr, <8.7 l/100km, 284g/km CO2 Mazda RX8? it is only a 1.3L car so would this be classed as a 'supermini' or what?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭ninty9er


    kbannon wrote:
    Im sitting here watching a re-run of Top Gear and it reminded me of something else.
    What tax bracket would you place the 247bhp, 234km/hr, <8.7 l/100km, 284g/km CO2 Mazda RX8? it is only a 1.3L car so would this be classed as a 'supermini' or what?

    Supermini isn't defined by engine size!! anyhow it's a "performance" model in the Mazda range so it's automatically in the base +4% bracket


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    kbannon wrote:
    Im sitting here watching a re-run of Top Gear and it reminded me of something else.
    What tax bracket would you place the 247bhp, 234km/hr, <8.7 l/100km, 284g/km CO2 Mazda RX8? it is only a 1.3L car so would this be classed as a 'supermini' or what?
    well VRT office and all insurers class it as a 2.6 - b@stards!


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,740 ✭✭✭✭galwaytt


    haven't checked it, but I was told a long time ago by a rep that drives one, that they classify the 190bhp as a 1.8, and the 230 as a 2.6.............

    Ode To The Motorist

    “And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, generates funds to the exchequer. You don't want to acknowledge that as truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at the Green Party, you want me on that road, you need me on that road. We use words like freedom, enjoyment, sport and community. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent instilling those values in our families and loved ones. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the tax revenue and the very freedom to spend it that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a bus pass and get the ********* ********* off the road” 



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The engine is different from standard engines where the pistons go up and down. The rotary engine has pistons that go around. Still, its a 1.3!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,171 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    ninty9er wrote:
    Yeah, we struggled a bit with where to put the limit on what's luxury and what's not, I'm sure it'd be open to tweaking and could be a bargaining tool in closing a sale below the limit...but the Department need to be sure of revenues...so we've given them a bit of carrot on that. Civil servants don't take stick too well

    However....a Saab 9-3 is Currently mid €30k with VRT so it'd be early to mid €20ks in relation to the pre-tax price as outlined and most likely subject to Top rate + 4% rather than top rate + 10% unless it's an Aero

    edit: sorry didn't answer the question...luxury cars are bought by people who can pay more, like having a higher rate of income tax...wealth redistribution of a kind...not perfect...far from it...but necessary to buoy the revenues

    If this calibration of VRT is supposed to be on an eco basis, how can you justify increasing VAT for no other reason other than 'if they have it, they can afford it'? Typical FF nonsense this I think


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 593 ✭✭✭McSandwich


    Here's mine (see attached). It was a bit rushed as I was away for the weekend and this stuff isn't my idea of how to spend time off!

    The idea is to tax vehicles based on their full environmental impact so I've used safety ratings in addition to emissions to calculate tax.

    I'm still of the opinion that a pollution tax on fuel is the best way to cut down CO2. Realistically I don't think the dept. of finance are going to go for that as it might reduce their €1bn revenue. In my submission, I proposed an emissions tax based on CO2 g/Km per person (i.e. Rated CO2 / car occupants) so as not to unfairly penalise large families etc. who need 7 seaters and therefore bigger engines.


    Looking forward to your opinions... oh, and well done galwaytt for doing something about this


Advertisement