[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.

[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

[ninty9er]

Originally Posted by cambo_gueno

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

[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%...Submission.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.

[kbannon]

Originally Posted by ninty9er

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?

[ninty9er]

Originally Posted by kbannon

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

Originally Posted by kbannon

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.

Originally Posted by kbannon

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

Originally Posted by kbannon

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

Originally Posted by kbannon

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.

Originally Posted by kbannon

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


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

[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.

Have a look at;
www.acea.be/euro5_and_co2
http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport...-133325?_print

[E92]

Originally Posted by Meister

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_ne...ifications.asp

[smash]

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

[kbannon]

Originally Posted by ninty9er

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?

[ninty9er]

Originally Posted by kbannon

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

[smash]

Originally Posted by kbannon

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!

[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.............

[kbannon]

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!

[PaulieC]

Originally Posted by ninty9er

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