Another idea for taking a stand on VRT

Mayshine

Hmmm.

Imagine if all dealers were to include a small tax brakdown (base + tax + final price) on all published prices, either in a sales list, on the price place on the car or elsewhere.

Cannot think of a more eloquent way of making everyone aware of how much tax is being taken from them as they hand over their cash for their new car....

Seth Brundle

I think most people know, especially since Mr. E. Hobbes told them, but are happy paying it as they want this shiny new car to impress their neighbours.


I actually emailed this idea to the SIMI years ago and never recieved a response.

ubu

Good idea, i dont think alot of people realise how much VRT they are actually paying on a new car, although the only reason i can think of as to why they wouldnt do it would be that the dealers might fear a demand for a further break down of the price.

ambro25

Sounds good - until you realise that you'd need some form of legal instrument (Law or Decree or Amendment to Sale of Goods Act or...) to get that going, and who do you need to do this? Erm... the very people who decide what to do with the huge sums VRT racks in.

Am I getting too cynical yet?

If they scrapped VRT they'd probably just throw it on Fuel.

so meh..

CorporalCarrot

Just for information, BMW already do this in their price lists, breaking down the pre tax price, vrt then VAT.

C

unkel

I'd sure be in favour of that. I don't think most people are fully aware how bad the figures would look

ambro25 wrote:

you'd need some form of legal instrument (Law or Decree or Amendment to Sale of Goods Act or...)

Can't see why. Even McDonalds can print out a VAT receipt these days

Anan1

I don't mean to be rude, but what is it with everyone always whining on for the abolition of VRT? Where do you all expect the lost revenue to come from? Higher PAYE? Cuts in health? Education? Structural investment? The money paid in VRT doesn't just disappear, you know.

Seth Brundle

@ Anan1 - maybe a start would be to close many of the tax loopholes and dodges designed to favour the wealthy.

Anan1

That may well be a good point in its own right, but it has nothing to do with VRT.

Seth Brundle

Anan1 wrote:

That may well be a good point in its own right, but it has nothing to do with VRT.

You asked a question and I answered it!

Anan1

The point I'm making is that any tax cut requires either for the lost revenue to be regained somewhere else or for expenditure to be reduced. I get the feeling that this hasn't occurred to those shouting loudest about "rip-off VRT". Even if we do raise money by implementing your idea, I'd prefer to see it back in the form of reduced PAYE or increased services, rather than the abolition of VRT. Put simply, abolishing VRT benefits people buying new cars at the expense of the rest of the population.

Seth Brundle

Im lost. What is wrong with making these tax dodging millionaires pay some tax. Wasn't it said recently that 21 millionaires paid absolutely no tax in the 2004 tax year?

Anan1

I never said there was anything wrong with it. I'm just talking about VRT here!

junkyard

The whole tax system in this country is a rip-off any way, just look at the price of a house, I remember reading somewhere that our government gets 52% of the price of a new house in taxes and hidden charges so VAT and VRT is no big deal to them. The price of petrol and diesel is another con job and what about roads? we already pay scandalous road tax and now we're seeing the introduction of toll roads, they just don't know where to stop. But my real gripe is the way the government squander our money on f**k-ups like the Dublin port tunnel and their simple solution was to ban super-trucks. The guy who designed that tunnel should be made to rectify the problem at his companies cost not the taxpayers. It just amazes me how we as a nation just take all of this s***e and shrug our shoulders and keep on working like ants paying scandalous taxes. I think the trick in this country is to sit back and let the state provide your house and everything else because we'll achieve very little by working our butts off by the time the tax man is finished with us. :mad:

Litcagral

junkyard wrote:

But my real gripe is the way the government squander our money on f**k-ups like the Dublin port tunnel and their simple solution was to ban super-trucks. The guy who designed that tunnel should be made to rectify the problem at his companies cost not the taxpayers. QUOTE]

junkyard in fairness to it's designers, the Dublin port tunnel has the same standard height as all other such tunnels in most of Europe including all the Alpine tunnels. It was probably planned before the lifting of the ban on maximum volume trucks. These trucks comprised of a small percentage of all trucks anyway and are unable to fit under many of our existing bridges anyway. (I was behind one when it struck a railway bridge in Gorey last Friday). Otherwise I agree with your other sentiments.

junkyard

Maybe so but I know if I was building tunnels for a living I'd be checking out the future plans to see what was on the cards. They seem to be having build quality problems too. What about the Luas? look at the extra cost there. I know if someone brought their car into my garage to get it repainted, I quoted them 1500 euro and said I'll have it ready in a week, they come in to collect their car a week later and I say to them that its going to cost 15000 euro now and I need to keep the car for three months, can you imagine the reply I'd get? This is what our government do with our money but they just say "Carry on there lads yer doing a great job send us the bill when ever yer ready" Its no wonder there are so many Bentley's and Aston Martin's flying around the place, I know a few of these guys have made their money from robbing us with their incompetence and letting us taxpayers foot the bill.

alias no.9

Anan1 wrote:

I don't mean to be rude, but what is it with everyone always whining on for the abolition of VRT? Where do you all expect the lost revenue to come from? Higher PAYE? Cuts in health? Education? Structural investment? The money paid in VRT doesn't just disappear, you know.

Have you considered the fact that the reduced retail price would stimulate demand for new cars? Taking a smaller percentage from more people can result in a bigger overall sum. Add to this the fact that people will feel that thier spending power has been increased and may decide to buy bigger more expensive (pre tax) cars, resulting in an increased take on VAT, road tax and both excise duty and VAT on petrol. When capital gains tax was cut from 40% to 20% the take from capital gains actually increased.

Maybe these things alone would not fully compensate for the loss of VRT revenue. I for one would be in favour of a carbon tax on fuel to make up the difference.

ciarsd

A friend of mine has recently ordered an 06 Skoda Octavia vRS - €33K ish and of that €33K, €12.5K is tax - it's disgusting.

We need to take the french approach to the government with stuff like this

ambro25

Anan1 wrote:

The point I'm making is that any tax cut requires either for the lost revenue to be regained somewhere else or for expenditure to be reduced. I get the feeling that this hasn't occurred to those shouting loudest about "rip-off VRT". Even if we do raise money by implementing your idea, I'd prefer to see it back in the form of reduced PAYE or increased services, rather than the abolition of VRT. Put simply, abolishing VRT benefits people buying new cars at the expense of the rest of the population.

Can I take it, from your posts, that you do not own a car and this therefore is the reason why you consider the potential abolition of VRT so negatively?

As alluded to before in the thread, how about reducing the waste of revenue (not only VRT-generated, but across the board) - I'd bet a cent to a tenner that if the GVT's various departments were using (and held accountable in respect of-) benchmarks for any kind of public spending (services/infrastructures/capital/etc.), that the €s save would quickly outstrip VRT revenue... and that's to begin with

... and a nice post on the topic by alias no.9, btw.

dahamsta

Anan1 wrote:

I never said there was anything wrong with it. I'm just talking about VRT here!

You asked a question, namely:

Anan1 wrote:

Where do you all expect the lost revenue to come from?

kbannon answered it. Twice. What are you having difficulty with exactly?

Anan1

Ambro25 - "Can I take it, from your posts, that you do not own a car and this therefore is the reason why you consider the potential abolition of VRT so negatively?"

No, you can't. I drive a Mercedes C280 and a Beetle 1.8T, and I have a Delta integrale in the garage. Not that it makes any difference to my point, but there you go.

Kbannon & kenshabby - "Where do you expect the lost revenue to come from?" was a rhetorical question, not a literal one. The point I was trying to make was that any reduction in VRT would have to be accompanied by either a raise in other taxes or a reduction in services. I see no reason why those who elect to buy new cars should be given tax breaks at the expense of those who do not.

alias no.9

Anan1, I'd hardly call the moderation of punative taxation 'tax breaks'. If people were being allowed to write off money spent on new cars against income tax, then yes that would be a tax break. Have you any response to my earlier post about how the revenue might be replaced?

fatboypee

Anan1 wrote:

The point I was trying to make was that any reduction in VRT would have to be accompanied by either a raise in other taxes or a reduction in services. I see no reason why those who elect to buy new cars should be given tax breaks at the expense of those who do not.

I'd like to make a wee comment here. It's a moral one and not pointed at anyone in particular. The point is simply that we are 'supposed' to be in the EU. The VRT was introduced by the government in pre-European days to support the irish motor traders in times of crisis. Those times are long gone and this tax really has no justification for its existence any longer as we pay VAT and other related charges on new and second hand cars anyway. Why do we pay VRT on seconhand cars imported ? Duties have already been paid in another EU country, so what the fk is VRT all about then ?? (cue naieve smile..)

To the point "Where will the tax come from if we scrap VRT", more to the point, tell me, where's it spent ?? Why should we pay this tax simply because we NEED to be taxed this amount ? err, should'nt the government get its effing act together on tax policy and tax fairly and appropriately ??

Points of order:


1. Road Tax - still crap roads
2. General taxation inordinate amounts spent on hospitals but most people pay thru bupa, VHI etc. (with a population less than that of London, why the billions spent ? (and therefore Taxed)....

I could rant on... but my point is simply, monies raised under illegal/immoral taxation should not be allowed and more to the point, perhaps our taxes raised from certain sources should primarilly used for support of those things...



FBP.

ambro25

Anan1 wrote:

No, you can't. I drive (etc.)

Crap choice of motors, aside from (obviously) the Lancia , but fair enough.

Anan1 wrote:

The point I was trying to make was that any reduction in VRT would have to be accompanied by either a raise in other taxes or a reduction in services.

Goes without saying. I very much doubt that anyone who has posted herein about the VRT issue doesn't know that the principle of communicating vases applies to public finances.

Anan1 wrote:

I see no reason why those who elect to buy new cars should be given tax breaks at the expense of those who do not.

You are overlooking the fact that whilst those who elect to buy new cars may indeed be paying VRT full-on (as in: calculated on list price with delivery miles or thereabouts), such high taxation maintains 2nd-hand prices artificially high as the VRT follows the car value throughout its life (which is why you'd be asked to pay VRT pro-rata when importing a 2nd-hand car), until the car eventually reaches the utilitarian value threshold (but you'd still pay base rate/amount VRT for that if imported).

In that respect, everyone pays VRT, not just the buyers of new cars. To the risk of offending (not calling anyone a moron or whatnot, but to be clear-), let's make it simple:

Ireland:
A buys new car €10k + €2k VRT
car gets used and depreciates €2k
B buys car from A value €10k (€12k - €2k)

UK:
A buys new car €10k
car gets used same and depreciates same €2k
B buys car from A value €8k

and alternative:
A (Brit) buys new car €10k in UK
car gets used same and depreciates same €2k
B (Irish) buys car from A value €8k in UK
B imports car back to Ireland, asked to pay €1.5k VRT = €9.5k

(and please let's not be anal about VAT, it's applied in both cases so not relevant to as large an extent as VRT, so not put in)

BTW, VRT is illegal under any acceptable interpretation of EU Statutes. Any other EU Member countries still using such artifical taxation notwithstanding.

Anan1

Hi Ambro,

"Goes without saying. I very much doubt that anyone who has posted herein about the VRT issue doesn't know that the principle of communicating vases applies to public finances."

That's all I'm saying, really. Sure, we could save money by overhauling our taxation system in general, reducing wasteful spending etc. All good ideas. The fact remains, however, that even if we did all this, reducing VRT would still cut into the funds available to the exchequer, ie us. This is the point that I feel a lot of people don't get, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If someone were to say "I'd rather see it on petrol" or PAYE, or children's clothes, or whatever, then that's fair enough. But "We could save money elsewhere..." is a spurious argument. We should be doing that anyway.

Oh and by the way, a C280 is just the thing for when integrale drivers grow up.;)

dahamsta

Anan1 wrote:

Kbannon & kenshabby - "Where do you expect the lost revenue to come from?" was a rhetorical question, not a literal one.

Took you a while to come up with that. Is that your final answer?

Anan1 wrote:

Oh and by the way, a C280 is just the thing for when integrale drivers grow up.

Your debating skills suggest that you don't speak from experience.

Carb

Anan1 wrote:

This is the point that I feel a lot of people don't get, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If someone were to say "I'd rather see it on petrol" or PAYE, or children's clothes, or whatever, then that's fair enough..;)

To me VRT seems to imply that owning a car is a luxury. If I could jump on a bus in the morning to go to work that would great, but I can't. I have to have a car, so I don't appreciate having to pay more tax than the person who can jump on a bus everday, which is something all tax payers subsidise anyway.

On your point regarding putting tax on something else, if the revenue has to be generated from motorists, well then it should be on petrol. At least that way your getting taxed for using something rather than just owning it.

alias no.9

Anan1 wrote:

That's all I'm saying, really. Sure, we could save money by overhauling our taxation system in general, reducing wasteful spending etc. All good ideas. The fact remains, however, that even if we did all this, reducing VRT would still cut into the funds available to the exchequer, ie us. This is the point that I feel a lot of people don't get, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If someone were to say "I'd rather see it on petrol" or PAYE, or children's clothes, or whatever, then that's fair enough. But "We could save money elsewhere..." is a spurious argument. We should be doing that anyway.

I'll try one last time, maybe it will be third time lucky. Your assertion that a reduction in VRT will require changes to other taxation is based on the presumption that the number of new cars sold will not change. However, there are knock on effects of the reduction or abolishion of VRT...

1. Lower prices will stimulate demand for new cars with greater numbers of people deciding to buy new, resulting in an increased VAT take without making any changes to tax rates.

2. Lower prices will result in those people who buy new anyway, deciding to buy bigger / more powerful / better specified cars resulting in increased VAT returns (more expensive pre tax price), increased road tax take (bigger engines) and increased VAT and Excise on fuel (more powerful cars).

Even if you were to say that there would be no change in the numbers of new cars sold, if new car buyers were to continue buying at the same price point, post VRT rip off, 21% of the losses are immediately made up in VAT alone.

Back to the previous earlier point I made, do you remember what happened when capital gains tax was slashed from 40% to 20%? That's right, the overall tax take from capital gains went up. Proof if you need it, that when a tax cut stimulates economic activity, revenue can increase instead of decreasing.

michaelanthony

BMW do.

ambro25

Anan1 wrote:

Oh and by the way, a C280 is just the thing for when integrale drivers grow up.;)

Erm...no: a Scoob STi is just the thing for when integrale drivers grow up, and a Legacy (TTurbs) is just the thing for when integrale drivers grow old with kids

On all other points...well on the point of VRT...we'll have to agree to disagree: I accept your last (and earlier) comment(s), namely to the effect that scuppering VRT will have to be offset elsewhere, but I stand by the argument that this "offsetting elsewhere" will be of greater benefit (generally) than maintaining the status quo, prevalent VRT situation.

As alluded to earlier, offsetting on usage factors (miles driven/petrol consumed/road surface 'used') rather ownership factors (car price) appears a viable and fair solution: if I only drive 5,000 k/year but in the process can thusly afford a nice family saloon with all the security gubbins for my family, 'tis better than same (or more likely less, i.e. not so 'nice') minus all the security gubbins because VRT out-stretches my budget, and it's fair compared to the exec travelling 50,000 k/year in a company-paid-for-and-expensed 'luxury' car.

unkel

michaelanthony wrote:

BMW do.

Do what?

CorporalCarrot

Anan1 wrote:

The point I'm making is that any tax cut requires either for the lost revenue to be regained somewhere else or for expenditure to be reduced. I get the feeling that this hasn't occurred to those shouting loudest about "rip-off VRT". Even if we do raise money by implementing your idea, I'd prefer to see it back in the form of reduced PAYE or increased services, rather than the abolition of VRT. Put simply, abolishing VRT benefits people buying new cars at the expense of the rest of the population.

This is such a specious argument. It might make sense if the government was actually spending its entire tax take from motorists on roads and public transport, so that a reduction in VRT would lead to non motorists having to subsidise motorists. But as most reasonable people know, the reality is the exact opposite situation. For the last 10 years the government has spent an average of just one third of the total tax tax from motorists on roads/PT, with the 2004 figure running at €4.6bn total tax, €1.6bn expenditure. Thus motorists are actually heavily subsidising the rest of the population.

Your final sentence could just as easily have been reworded "Put simply, abolishing VRT stops penalising people buying new cars and removes an unfair subsidy that the rest of the population has been receiving".

Why motorists? Why are we singled out? Why not televisions or something? Well, its obviously because necessities such as cars tend to be price inelastic, making motorists an easy target.

The problem with the structure of the governments finances, is that that it has grown public service numbers and core expenditure artificially based on two extremely cyclical components that could be said to be in a bubble; i.e. stamp duty and vrt. Its spending this money as if its always going to be there. Which is going to make the inevitable adjustment all the more painful when finally it comes.

C

Anan1

Carb -
"To me VRT seems to imply that owning a car is a luxury. If I could jump on a bus in the morning to go to work that would great, but I can't. I have to have a car, so I don't appreciate having to pay more tax than the person who can jump on a bus everday, which is something all tax payers subsidise anyway." - Fair point. Bit chicken & egg though.

"On your point regarding putting tax on something else, if the revenue has to be generated from motorists, well then it should be on petrol. At least that way your getting taxed for using something rather than just owning it." - This I agree with, although in addition to, rather than instead of, VRT. There are many environmental arguments in favour of VRT, although this thread is complicated enough already without going down that road.;)

Ambro/Alias No9 -
I'm not sure about your argument, it would be a lot stronger if almost all of the people who want cars didn't actually have one already. And even if every car owner did go out and upgrade to a new car, or spent more money on their new car than they would otherwise have, there are financial implications in that for our balance of payments. A further argument is that, in lower car tax regimes, much of the slack is inevitably absorbed into higher profit margins for dealers & importers. See below also.

CorporalCarrot -
"Why motorists? Why are we singled out? Why not televisions or something? Well, its obviously because necessities such as cars tend to be price inelastic, making motorists an easy target." - Doesn't this eas into Ambro's argument? I thought you guys were supposed to be on the same team!;)
"For the last 10 years the government has spent an average of just one third of the total tax tax from motorists on roads/PT, with the 2004 figure running at €4.6bn total tax, €1.6bn expenditure. Thus motorists are actually heavily subsidising the rest of the population." - So are drinkers. And we subsidise the sick and the young. So it goes..

Ken Shabby -
If you actually have anything to contribute, i'd be delighted to hear it..

MrPudding

Abolishing VRT may also reduce road deaths. If there was no VRT the Irish poverty spec in cars would end. This would mean more cars with traction control and ESP as standard as well as additional airbags in some cases. All these "luxury items" are left off some Irish cars in order to keep the price as low as possible.

VRT costs lives, yet another way the government kills Irish people on our road through action or inaction.

MrP

Anan1

Actually, and I know this is a bit off topic, there is a growing body of evidence to show that active safety aids do nothing to improve safety. It would seem that, on the contrary, they give us the confidence to go faster...

Carb

Anan1 wrote:

On your point regarding putting tax on something else, if the revenue has to be generated from motorists, well then it should be on petrol. At least that way your getting taxed for using something rather than just owning it." - This I agree with, although in addition to, rather than instead of, VRT. There are many environmental arguments in favour of VRT, although this thread is complicated enough already without going down that road.;)
.

You quote above contradicts the point that you've made the whole way through this thread. Not only do you want VRT to maintained, you want additional tax on the motorist. I wouldn't be so sure about the enviromental factors either. Higher new car costs mean older less economical cars on the roads, not to mention that there are many other things a lot more damaging to the enviroment than private cars.

Also, I can choose to drink, I can't choose to own a car.

alias no.9

Anan1 wrote:

Ambro/Alias No9 -
I'm not sure about your argument, it would be a lot stronger if almost all of the people who want cars didn't actually have one already. And even if every car owner did go out and upgrade to a new car, or spent more money on their new car than they would otherwise have, there are financial implications in that for our balance of payments. A further argument is that, in lower car tax regimes, much of the slack is inevitably absorbed into higher profit margins for dealers & importers. See below also.

I'm not arguing that they'd spend more on the car, I'm arguing that they'd get more car for their money. Money that may only have got the buyer a second hand car in the past will be spent on new cars with consequential revenue in the form of VAT. Money that would have previously bought a modest new car in the past will buy a bigger / better specced / more powerful car for the same price with consequential additional revenue in the form of VAT, Road Tax and VAT & Excise on fuel. I'm not saying it will completely replace the VRT revenue, but it will go a long way to plugging the gap. I would be in favour of a carbon tax on fuel to make up the remainder.

CorporalCarrot

Anan1 wrote:

CorporalCarrot -
"Why motorists? Why are we singled out? Why not televisions or something? Well, its obviously because necessities such as cars tend to be price inelastic, making motorists an easy target." - Doesn't this eas into Ambro's argument? I thought you guys were supposed to be on the same team!;)
"For the last 10 years the government has spent an average of just one third of the total tax tax from motorists on roads/PT, with the 2004 figure running at €4.6bn total tax, €1.6bn expenditure. Thus motorists are actually heavily subsidising the rest of the population." - So are drinkers. And we subsidise the sick and the young. So it goes..

Anan

Re1; my statement was obviously a rhetorical one. Obviously I don't believe that it should go on any other form of goods. The most obvious way to recover the lost revenue would be to increase direct taxes. This would be the fairest way to do it.

re2; this is an unfair comparison. People can choose not to drink. Most people in this country cannot choose not to have a car.

C

MrPudding

Anan1 wrote:

Actually, and I know this is a bit off topic, there is a growing body of evidence to show that active safety aids do nothing to improve safety. It would seem that, on the contrary, they give us the confidence to go faster...

Not in all cases. Driver aids do not cause me to speed up for example.

What about in cases where a person meets some prick overtaking on a blind corner? In this case the likelyhood of survival of the the person who has done nothing wrong is increased by ABS (I know this is now standard,) traction control, ESP and as a last resort additional airbags.

Besides, I think this is a bit of a cop out. Can you provide the evidence to show this? I have heard it before, normally in the same paragraph as they say that making roads safer is also negated by driver going faster. Whilst I would think that some drivers will increase their speed I think most people would accept that there would be an increase in safety.

MrP

Anan1

CorporalCarrot -
"The most obvious way to recover the lost revenue would be to increase direct taxes. This would be the fairest way to do it." - This is the core of our disagreement, and fair play to you for saying it out straight. I'd prefer to keep VRT. And true, my drink comparison was an unfair one. The one about the sick & the young wasn't, though.

Alias No9 -
I do see your point here, but I don't really see that it counterbalances mine. (Sorry, that wasn't meant to sound patronizing!) There's also the environmental downside that your idea involves, by your own admission, more new cars being produced & more fuel being used.

Carb -
The myth that older cars are less economical is just that - a myth. Newer cars may have marginally more efficient powerplants, but they are also heavier & more powerful. Also, roughly half of the pollution caused by a car is produced during manufacture.

MrPudding -
Of course I can't show you evidence - who do you think I am?:D What I can tell you is that I personally would be inclined to take it much easier in the wet in a car without either ABS or ESP. Maybe that's just me, maybe it isn't!

Carb

Anan1 wrote:

Carb -
The myth that older cars are less economical is just that - a myth. Newer cars may have marginally more efficient powerplants, but they are also heavier & more powerful. Also, roughly half of the pollution caused by a car is produced during manufacture.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but every year I hear of new cars coming out that achieve a higher MPG. Now you can get mid size engines doing 55/60 mpg, I don't recall there been many of these in the mid 90s, not to mention the newer technologies.

As for the pollution casued during manufacture, what on earth has this got to do with VRT. Are you trying to say the government here are perfectly justified adding on 30% to the price of a car, because a factory thousands of miles ways is causing pollution. Does the VRT secretly get paid out of Ireland to some envriomental group in South Korea?

Anan1

"As for the pollution casued during manufacture, what on earth has this got to do with VRT. Are you trying to say the government here are perfectly justified adding on 30% to the price of a car, because a factory thousands of miles ways is causing pollution. Does the VRT secretly get paid out of Ireland to some envriomental group in South Korea?"

- No. What I'm saying is that the argument that reducing VRT will increase demand for new cars has its downside in terms of increased pollution.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but every year I hear of new cars coming out that achieve a higher MPG. Now you can get mid size engines doing 55/60 mpg, I don't recall there been many of these in the mid 90s, not to mention the newer technologies."

-Again, I'm no expert. That said, with the exception of hybrids, my distinct impression is that cars are less economical than they used to be.

maidhc

To say motorists are subsidising the rest of the population is a curious argument when most people have cars. Those that dont tend to be less well off, who in any case pay less tax that those more fortunate. Likeswise people with lots of money pay more on VRT since they buy newer/bigger cars.

It seems equitable enough to me.

I do think owning a car is too expensive in Ireland though.If anything was to happen I would like to see the VRT lowered substantially on sub 1.4 litre cars, and it raised in 2.0 plus cars.

ambro25

Anan1 wrote:

Ambro/Alias No9 -
And even if every car owner did go out and upgrade to a new car, or spent more money on their new car than they would otherwise have, there are financial implications in that for our balance of payments.

A further argument is that, in lower car tax regimes, much of the slack is inevitably absorbed into higher profit margins for dealers & importers.

But then you'd be going back to what (I'm surmising) most anti-VRT proponents are after: the opportunity to avail of a supposedly-free market economy distributed amongst 15 countries or so, without penalty for doing so.

For instance, inasmuch as possible, I would like to be able to make my own decisions as to the wisdom of importing a new/used car myself or buying a new/used car from a local or foreign dealer, and favorise EU-wide competition as opposed to entertain an artificially-isolated market that benefits the dealers and GVT the most and the motorists the less.

MrPudding

Anan1 wrote:

MrPudding -
Of course I can't show you evidence - who do you think I am?:D What I can tell you is that I personally would be inclined to take it much easier in the wet in a car without either ABS or ESP. Maybe that's just me, maybe it isn't!

Oh, I'm sorry, it's just when you say:

Anan1 wrote:

.........there is a growing body of evidence to show that active safety aids do nothing to improve safety. It would seem that, on the contrary, they give us the confidence to go faster...

I think you have access to the evidence you speak of. My bad:rolleyes:

MrP

MrPudding

[quote=Anan1
-Again, I'm no expert. That said, with the exception of hybrids, my distinct impression is that cars are less economical than they used to be.[/quote]

Are you saying that sh1tty old bangers, in addition to being safer than new cars, are also better for the environment?

Do you work work the gov?

MrP

Anan1

Ambro25 -

"But then you'd be going back to what (I'm surmising) most anti-VRT proponents are after: the opportunity to avail of a supposedly-free market economy distributed amongst 15 countries or so, without penalty for doing so."

I think we're all in favour of that. VRT effects our competitiveness as an exporter of used cars, not as an importer. Our big problem here is not VRT but the fact that we drive on the wrong side of the road.

"Oh, I'm sorry, it's just when you say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anan1
.........there is a growing body of evidence to show that active safety aids do nothing to improve safety. It would seem that, on the contrary, they give us the confidence to go faster...


I think you have access to the evidence you speak of. My bad

MrP"

Come on, Mr P. We're having a debate on a chat board here, we're not in a court of law.

"Are you saying that sh1tty old bangers, in addition to being safer than new cars, are also better for the environment?"

-Did I say this? Anywhere?

maidhc

MrPudding wrote:

Are you saying that sh1tty old bangers, in addition to being safer than new cars, are also better for the environment?

This thread is going nowhere, but interestingly to conform with Tier III emissions some engines are actually less fuel efficient than the Tier II versions of the same engine.

Driving aids dont change the laws of physics... VW say that in the 06 Passat brochure...

MrPudding

maidhc wrote:

This thread is going nowhere, but interestingly to conform with Tier III emissions some engines are actually less fuel efficient than the Tier II versions of the same engine.

Fuel economy is different from levels of emmissions. A car that uses more fuel does not automatically release more harmful gases.

maidhc wrote:

Driving aids dont change the laws of physics... VW say that in the 06 Passat brochure...

No they don't, but they do react faster than a human can. Are you saying that they do not help people to avoid accidents?

MrP

maidhc

MrPudding wrote:

No they don't, but they do react faster than a human can. Are you saying that they do not help people to avoid accidents?

I am sure they help to some very limited degree. Personally I would rather a car with good dynamics and surefooted to drive than an A-Class/4x4 with every three letter acronym under the sun.

My car doesnt have ABS, ESC, EBD, ABC or XZY, but thankfully I have never had an accident or lost control.. and to be honest I have done a share of stupid things in my driving career.