Will Car Tax System Change in 5 years?

AlanD

Anyone have any opinions or knowledge on how likely our car tax system is to change over the next 5 years?

Is it possible that within 5 years we could move to a UK type system, where carbon emmissions are the basis for how much tax you pay or for diesels, there's a different rate depending on whether it's Euro III or Euro IV compliant?

Or will our current system stay in place, but just get more expensive over the next 5 years?

prospect

AlanD wrote:

Anyone have any opinions or knowledge on how likely our car tax system is to change over the next 5 years?

Is it possible that within 5 years we could move to a UK type system, where carbon emmissions are the basis for how much tax you pay or for diesels, there's a different rate depending on whether it's Euro III or Euro IV compliant?

Or will our current system stay in place, but just get more expensive over the next 5 years?

Depends on what is most profitable for the government.

peasant

Havent researched this ...but AFAIK the emission based system is actually EU law now ... should be only a matter of time until the governement will have to re-think the current tax system.

Seth Brundle

Ireland has not got a great record at implementing EU law in a timely manner. In reality the government can and will drag this out as long as they can as it is convienent and any changes could be percieved negatively by the electorate (the 'why am I paying more than my neighbour' syndrome)

ninty9er

Has the EU really done any good for the consumer???? I'm currently thinking along the lines of the government should think about doing a Swiss job on it and just remain in the EEA

maidhc

ninty9er wrote:

Has the EU really done any good for the consumer????

For a multitude of reasons, yes.

knifey_spoonie

The irish motor tax system will not be changed unless the EU issue some crazy fine to the government.

To put it simply if the Gov. abolish Vrt they have two choices, Increase imcome tax by 2.5-3%, now i cant really see any government doing that can you.The other option would be to stop spending on Education, this is another definite no-no.So i find it very hard to see a change in the irish motor taxation system.

Savman

knife_fighter wrote:

To put it simply if the Gov. abolish Vrt they have two choices

I think it's fair to say the powers that be have more than 2 measly ways of bleeding money from us :rolleyes:

AlanD

interesting opinions guys and just to keep it on topic, I'm NOT talking about VRT. I'm talking about simple road tax, the little disc in your window.

There has been talk of introducing a carbon based tax like the UK, but I wonder when that would happen

mike65

I'd just be happy with the cost lumped onto fuel which is a carbon tax without paperwork.

Mike.

AlanD

actually, so would I. It would be a more proportional tax. But then, that may shift the economy in the wrong way. What effect would that have on business drivers? Reps on the road all day, hauliers on the road all day. I don't drive to work, so I'd love it, but I reckon the cost to the economy would be devastating if a fuel surcharge to replace road tax was put in place.

Seth Brundle

presumably they would be granted relief on fuel charges

maidhc

It probably is necessary to have some fixed level of tax alright. Although there is merit in the pay-per-use theory, I think it is reasonable that people should expect to have a certain minimum to pay to keep the road network maintained.... similar to line rental on a telephone

Definately hauliers should get some rebate from any fuel excess.

mike65

If you were registered as a buisness then you'd be able to pay a levy.

Mike.

Savman

What exactly is wrong with the current system? Just curious...

Or is it that those of us with engines above 1.8L don't like being penalised for having powerful cars. Y'know if ye drove a 1L your Tax would be fairly low...

Food for thought

Eoin

Savman wrote:

What exactly is wrong with the current system? Just curious...

Or is it that those of us with engines above 1.8L don't like being penalised for having powerful cars. Y'know if ye drove a 1L your Tax would be fairly low...

Food for thought

Because some 2 litre cars may be "greener" than others, yet pay the same tax. I don't know what diesel is like on emissions; the fuel economy is what attacted me to it, but I don't know if these two are mutually exclusive?

Anyhow, if my 2 litre diesel is a lot greener than a 2 litre sports car, should they not be taxed differently?

AlanD

in fairness the current tax system isn't bad. 500 or so a year for a 2 litre car is pretty alright. Even for those with large capacity engines, 1300 isn't bad either. So financially, there isn't much wrong with it.

I guess there are more appropriate ways to tax the use of a car though. I like the carbon based tax system, where if you have an ultra clean car you are taxed accordingly, but it you have a soot bucket, you'll get taxed to the gills.

Better for the environment and the Government would probably take in an equivalent amount of money.

Savman

eoin_s wrote:

Anyhow, if my 2 litre diesel is a lot greener than a 2 litre sports car, should they not be taxed differently?

I understand that argument, but both you and the sports car driver chose to buy 2L cars, the govt. reckons this is a luxury you should pay for and it makes sense.

I'm not so sure about the whole cheaper tax for environmentally friendly cars, that would just encourage the sheep to go buy the latest european banger to keep up with the Jones' next door. Also, shouldn't safety come into the equation? You're basically saying you should pay less tax than the Sports car driver simply because you drive a greener car, but you're still in a monsterously powerful vehicle and if you hit a Micra or Punto you'd probably be alright whereas they'd be fooked being in a weaker & less powerful car. I think there's more to the motor tax issue than just going green...

Eoin

Savman wrote:

I understand that argument, but both you and the sports car driver chose to buy 2L cars, the govt. reckons this is a luxury you should pay for and it makes sense.

I'm not so sure about the whole cheaper tax for environmentally friendly cars, that would just encourage the sheep to go buy the latest european banger to keep up with the Jones' next door. Also, shouldn't safety come into the equasion? You're basically saying you should pay less tax than the Sports car driver simply because you drive a greener car, but you're still in a monsterously powerful vehicle and if you hit a Micra or Punto you'd probably be alright whereas they'd be fooked being in a weaker & less powerful car. I think there's more to the motor tax issue than just going green...

Well, it's hardly a monstrously powerful car now - a pretty standard saloon (136BHP). A 1.6 litre MPV could well do the same damage in a crash. I don't think that's a consideration, otherwise the tax rates would be based on the car's safety ratings as well.

And yes, I did choose to get the car, and I do admit that I should be loaded to some degree for that. What's the smallest car engine on the market at the moment - maybe a smart car with less than 1000CC? That means everyone who has gotten a larger engine than this has also made the same choice as me - just to a varying extent.

The question is how you load people for that choice. Purely basing it on engine size does not seem to be an equitable way of doing this, basing it on the emissions does.

For the record, I am happy enough paying the €600 odd road tax a year - I don't think it's a particulary unfair amount to pay, it's just that I think the single criterion of the engine size is not the most relevant way of determining the prices.

I still don't know if my car does output lower or higher emissions though, so I could be well off course. I do know it's more fuel efficient, but as I said earlier, that may be a totally different issue.

Carb

Savman wrote:

I understand that argument, but both you and the sports car driver chose to buy 2L cars, the govt. reckons this is a luxury you should pay for and it makes sense.

I'm not so sure about the whole cheaper tax for environmentally friendly cars, that would just encourage the sheep to go buy the latest european banger to keep up with the Jones' next door. Also, shouldn't safety come into the equation? You're basically saying you should pay less tax than the Sports car driver simply because you drive a greener car, but you're still in a monsterously powerful vehicle and if you hit a Micra or Punto you'd probably be alright whereas they'd be fooked being in a weaker & less powerful car. I think there's more to the motor tax issue than just going green...

Somebody, somewhere needs to reassess their definition of luxury. What would be more luxurious, a 10 year old 2 litre diesel car or a brand new 1.6 petrol Focus, and what exactly has this got to do with road tax.

You also make the point about a more powerful car hitting a smaller car. Power has got nothing to do with. The size, strength, safety features may have. I wonder would many more lives be saved if a lot of people weren't drving around in motorised tin cans, because the tax system, both VRT and motor tax encourage this.

Guy:Incognito

If we were all driving new 5 star ncap cars (which high insurance, vrt and tax discourages) rather than the amount of 10 -15 year old bangers on the road then surely deaths would be lower.

gurramok

Pay as you use tax is more fair imho.

I maybe clock about 6k annually in contrast to a driver commuting 60m to the city return 5 days a week hence clocking 31k a yr, this driver should pay more than the likes of me to maintain that spanking new toll-free motorway.

maidhc

Stekelly wrote:

If we were all driving new 5 star ncap cars (which high insurance, vrt and tax discourages) rather than the amount of 10 -15 year old bangers on the road then surely deaths would be lower.

Not as low as if we were all driving Morris Minors incapable of breaking 40mph!

I don't think there are many 10-15yr old bangers on the road anyway. I was crossing the Shannon recently in Tarbert, and my 1995 mondeo was the oldest on the boat, and almost everything was post 2000.

The current system isn't perfect, but it isnt bad. As people repeatedly point out, neither the road tax, nor tax on fuel is excessive.

Eoin

Stekelly wrote:

If we were all driving new 5 star ncap cars (which high insurance, vrt and tax discourages) rather than the amount of 10 -15 year old bangers on the road then surely deaths would be lower.

Maybe a little lower, but I don't think it's the quality of older cars that's killing people on the roads. One for a different thread anyway!

Savman

eoin_s wrote:

For the record, I am happy enough paying the €600 odd road tax a year - I don't think it's a particulary unfair amount to pay, it's just that I think the single criterion of the engine size is not the most relevant way of determining the prices.

Yeah, I'd possibly agree somewhat.

Carb wrote:

What would be more luxurious, a 10 year old 2 litre diesel car or a brand new 1.6 petrol Focus,

How long is a piece of string? I would say it is still a luxury to have such powerful engines, it's amazing how many people think 2l isn't powerful :eek: do people really need that extra engine kick getting to work? A speedy, poky, torque-y engine is nice, but it is a luxury.

Carb wrote:

I wonder would many more lives be saved if a lot of people weren't drving around in motorised tin cans, because the tax system, both VRT and motor tax encourage this.

Maybe so. But I've driven a few tin cans and I know I'm a lot less likely to try something silly in them. Straight away that makes me 0.5% safer on the road so in a lot of cases power has everything to do with it...

The fact remains all of us who complain at the annual road tax can save a couple of hundred simply by getting a vehicle with a smaller engine. It's not a perfect system, but there is some kind of fairness and logic behind it.

Mayshine

It amazes me to see how many people say they are happy to pay 500-1000 a year in road tax.

What value do you guys feel you receive from this tax. From driving around Ireland in the last month or so, all I can say is that it ain't spent on any of the non-tolled roads which are pretty rubbish in comparision to the roads I have been driving in Scotland. Potholes, unmarked roads, roads still paved with the loose chipping method (near blessington yestderday)

AlanD

Mayshine wrote:

It amazes me to see how many people say they are happy to pay 500-1000 a year in road tax.

What value do you guys feel you receive from this tax. From driving around Ireland in the last month or so, all I can say is that it ain't spent on any of the non-tolled roads which are pretty rubbish in comparision to the roads I have been driving in Scotland. Potholes, unmarked roads, roads still paved with the loose chipping method (near blessington yestderday)

I do about 20k a year and it's rare enough I'll come across a bad road. The worst of the roads are generally upgraded in due course then. So in my view, I get decent enough value from the roads I drive on.

The downside is, for the 722 I pay for my 2.2 litre car, I don't get to drive on roads that are any better than the little girl down the road driving here 1.0 litre tin box. That, however, is irrelevant.

Levying a cost based on emmissions would mean that a more fair system is in place. No misconceptions on engine size counting for anything would exist then.

As for safety, VRT is the culprit there. Traction control not as standard on every new car is a travisty.

Anan1

Mayshine wrote:

It amazes me to see how many people say they are happy to pay 500-1000 a year in road tax.

What value do you guys feel you receive from this tax. From driving around Ireland in the last month or so, all I can say is that it ain't spent on any of the non-tolled roads which are pretty rubbish in comparision to the roads I have been driving in Scotland. Potholes, unmarked roads, roads still paved with the loose chipping method (near blessington yestderday)

I don't particularly expect all my road tax to be spent on roads, TBH. Tax doesn't work that way.

AlanD

gurramok wrote:

Pay as you use tax is more fair imho.

I maybe clock about 6k annually in contrast to a driver commuting 60m to the city return 5 days a week hence clocking 31k a yr, this driver should pay more than the likes of me to maintain that spanking new toll-free motorway.

This was about to go on trial in the UK and was canned or it is being planned. They would use satellite technology to charge you for driving certain distances.

The problems with such a system of taxation are so wide reaching I don't think you could begin to cover the lot of them.

But basically, what about:

1) the guy who does live 60 miles away and commutes to work each day. He could live that far out because it's more affordable. So now he has to pay more than if he bought where he worked in the first place. The economy would suffer and become off balanced
2) taxing in such a way would suggest that all the money collected should be spent on the roads collected from. This would never be the case creating a big headache for government.
3) In may infringe on people's freedom of movement rights?
4) The big wig with all the dosh who drives the same distance in his 100k car pays the same as the little girl down the road on her L plate in the 2k car. Her car could cause less environmental damage, his more. Her's could be a real killer in a crash, his not.

Basically, the system wouldn't be fair.

Carbon based tax is the way to go I reckon. It sends out the right message too.

Or keep it as it is.

maidhc

AlanD wrote:

This was about to go on trial in the UK and was canned or it is being planned. They would use satellite technology to charge you for driving certain distances.

That was just stupid though, and a case of civil servants playing with machines that go "bing".

If PAYG taxation is to be introduced the simple way is a levy on fuel. For most of the reasons you suggest though, it probably won't be.

jimmycrackcorm

Regardless of whether emissions tax comes in we'll still have enough VRT to make up the huge whack that is currently paid.

Seth Brundle

Savman wrote:

How long is a piece of string? I would say it is still a luxury to have such powerful engines, it's amazing how many people think 2l isn't powerful :eek: do people really need that extra engine kick getting to work? A speedy, poky, torque-y engine is nice, but it is a luxury.

I read an article recently (by the Chairman of BMW GB) who referred to the fact that the current 320d gave better economy over the Toyota Prius over a period of a year.
I believe the original test was done by which car or something - I will dig out the source later.

Carb

Savman wrote:

How long is a piece of string? I would say it is still a luxury to have such powerful engines, it's amazing how many people think 2l isn't powerful :eek: do people really need that extra engine kick getting to work? A speedy, poky, torque-y engine is nice, but it is a luxury.

Well I don't consider been able to overtake safely and quickly a luxury. The fact is some people can use small cars, and some people need big cars. Big cars need bigger engines. I don't see the benefit in trying to put people into a 1.6l Avensis. A 2l might be powerful in a small hatchback, but its just about sufficient in a family saloon.

Savman

Carb wrote:

A 2l might be powerful in a small hatchback, but its just about sufficient in a family saloon.

Come on ffs! "just about sufficient"?!?! You have to be kidding chief, a 2L is a powerful car by any stretch of the imagination, there's no amount of kids toys and tesco shopping bags that can justify an engine that size for a normal 2.4 children family imo

Carb

Savman wrote:

Come on ffs! "just about sufficient"?!?! You have to be kidding chief, a 2L is a powerful car by any stretch of the imagination, there's no amount of kids toys and tesco shopping bags that can justify an engine that size for a normal 2.4 children family imo

So you think a 1.9 or 2l diesel is powerful, and therefore a luxury. I think the only one kidding here is you. There is nothing luxurious about having a round trip of 120 miles a day in a 1.2/1.4 car, especially on a motorway, which I've had to do.. What size of engine/car would you suggest for a family with 4/5 children then.

AlanD

Lads, keep it topic or start your own thread to discuss the ins and outs of luxury cars and their associated engine sizes.

Carb

AlanD wrote:

Lads, keep it topic or start your own thread to discuss the ins and outs of luxury cars and their associated engine sizes.

You're actually the first person to mention luxury cars. the discussion was about whether a 2l engine is a luxury, and therefore people who have a 2 litre engine etc should pay through the nose for this luxury. On an emission based system, it is feasible that a person who drives a 1.8l could pay the same tax as a 2.2. Reason been that the 1.8 could be underpowered and then uses just as much fuel. Equally a 2l diesel could be (probably is) more efficient than a 1.4 petrol. Road tax is not about whether something is a luxury or not. You already pay for this luxury through the nose when you buy the car.

The point I was trying to make was that somebody who needs a bigger car, thus a bigger engine, gets penalised even though they do no more harm to the enviroment or the roads.

Dilbert75

To get back to the topic - the most useful feature of taxation, other than revenue generation, is to change habits: eg. plastic bag taxes, cigarette taxes (still not high enough but that's another thread).

It is, or should be, our government's objective to reduce the impact of transportation on the environment, in the generation of greenhouse gases as much as other pollutants. So its likely that the method used will be taxation.

The most likely vehicle (excuse the pun) is road tax being assessed based on the CO2 output of a car. I cannot understand why it hasn't happened yet. Even from a PR point of view, its a winner for them. It doesn't have to generate less money - you can generate the same or more money as with engine-size ratings, but you're appearing to do it with environmental concern. (On the same basis it baffles me why they continue to charge VAT on top of VRT - why not increase the VRT rate by 21% and charge it on the pre-tax price?). To me its a no-brainer - unfortunately that makes it much like our Transport Minister and the rest of our current administration.

The reason I expect that Governments would be less inclined towards a pay per use system (fuel tax) is that its unpredictable. People don't change their cars so regularly so any shifts in trends would be slower and more predictable and revenue streams could be adjusted as necessary.

Guy:Incognito

Savman wrote:

Come on ffs! "just about sufficient"?!?! You have to be kidding chief, a 2L is a powerful car by any stretch of the imagination, there's no amount of kids toys and tesco shopping bags that can justify an engine that size for a normal 2.4 children family imo

My car weighs 1635kg. I used to have the 2l version of it that was horribly underpowered. I now drive the 2.5 l one that moves the car properly abd doesnt feel like a lumbering lump taking off. I get the very same mpg due to the fact that the weight is being pulled much easier.

It's a bloody disgrace that a car like the scenic is sold as a 1.4. It wouldnt pull the socks off a dead man. The car is just far too big and heavy for the engine. This problem is the same through most manufacturers range with their entry level engines. This was talked about in the "special models for Ireland" thread. I put my toolbox in the boot of the missus scenic along with a skillsaw and a couple of other bits. The car nearly had a heart attack with the extra weight. It just should not be sold as a 1.4.