VRT as environmental tax?

peasant

We're all ranting and raving against VRT as it makes buying a car so much dearer in comparison to other countries, especially so for high end cars.

On the other hand most of us seem to realize that VRT won't in all likelyhood be abolished (or if so, only to be replaced by something else) because the governement won't be able to afford that massive loss of revenue.

So I was thinking ...why not use VRT as an instrument to lower emmissions?

Link the VRT to the CO2 emmissions on every car (the data is readily available), punish polluters and make "green" cars cheaper.

Some incentives for hybrids and multi fuel cars are already out there, but the system could be much more refined.

For example, it should be cheaper to buy a diesel with particulate filter than the same car without the filter. It should also be cheaper to buy a 1.6 with the latest clean engine technolgy than a 1.4 of the same car with a 20 year old stinker of an engine design.

Any potential loss in overall revenue should be offset by less off a penalty that Ireland has to pay because it should be coming closer to the Kyoto targets.


What do ye think?

Seth Brundle

Presumably something like that would encourage the buying of new cars and scrapping older ones (for the sake of it) which is itself not environmentally friendly.

overdriver

I think cars like the Prius have a reduced rate of VRT.

The fact the Government have been used to money from an illegal tax does not excuse it, and it's tough that they can't afford to lose it. If Brussels has their way, they WILL lose it. And rightly so.

It's indicative of what sheep we've become that we accept they'll try to wriggle out of scrapping it and / or rename it or replace it with something equally illegal.

Remember it's election time soon, folks.

mike65

Someone (I forget who) have had thier thinking hats on and reckon VRT, Road Tax etc should be abolished and a brand new Carbon tax introduced which will hammer those who drive alot. It was briefly discussed on Newstalk this lunchtime.

Mike.

peasant

mike65 wrote:

Someone (I forget who) have had thier thinking hats on and reckon VRT, Road Tax etc should be abolished and a brand new Carbon tax introduced which will hammer those who drive alot. It was briefly discussed on Newstalk this lunchtime.

Mike.

So will you get an annual visit by the revenue mileage-reader?

Ah yeah ...the clocking business will be booming


As an aside ...Uk road tax is emmissions based, isn't it?

mike65

Nah it'll be called a fuel tax! Can't avoid that!

Mike.

Tipsy Mac

I burn roughly 1500 litres of fuel a year on a 1.4 litre car doing about 12,000 miles a year. I pay the guts of €300 a year in road tax plus the excise duty on the fuel. My car new would have cost roughly €22,000 and out of this about €6,000 would be VRT so say your average car lasts 10 years thats €600 a year the government takes off the car over it's life. Basically thats €600 in VRT + €300 road tax a year so 900 in total they take off me a year.

A much farer system would be to abolish VRT and road tax and instead put 60 cent onto the price of a litre of petrol which would bring in €900 a year from the car which should suit the average person. If someone on the other hand wants to drive a 15mpg SUV they burn alot more fuel so they pay alot more money and it's all milage based as the tax is on the fuel so people either drive less or get more fuel efficient cars if they want to reduce costs. This will also give a level playing field for all road users, at the moment someone could do 2k miles a year in a 3 litre car and he is paying nearly 10 times the road tax as someone with a 1 litre car doing 50k miles a year.

VRT also costs lives as most cars coming into Ireland come with poverty spec and are as cheaply equipt as EU law permits so they can avoid having to add on VRT to the final price of the extras which would save drivers in a crash.

unkel

Tipsy Mac wrote:

A much farer system would be to abolish VRT and road tax and instead put 60 cent onto the price of a litre of petrol

I totally agree with your principle, Tipsy Mac. The polluter should pay thus all taxes should be in the fuel. Politically achievable? Dunno...

At the moment, petrol guzzling cars like Lexus hybrids get VRT rebates. Sickening that and even more so that government ministers think they can convey the message to us that they are environmentally responsible by choosing those yokes over equally suitable diesel cars

cantdecide

Tipsy Mac wrote:

, at the moment someone could do 2k miles a year in a 3 litre car and he is paying nearly 10 times the road tax as someone with a 1 litre car doing 50k miles a year.

i have a 2.5 car and do approx 5k a year, and i'm a little bit environmentally. i would be deeply aggrieved if i were punished for polluting the planet, when i'm clearly not. i carpool the 60 mile roundtrip to work and my car also returns respectable mpg figures. tax should be on the fuel IMO, not on the purchase price, road tax or carbon emmissions. i really believe this is fair to everyone.

junkyard

Tbh I think global warming is a myth and all this hype about it is just another means of generating more taxes This planet has been warming up for the thousands of years and I really don't believe that its all our fault in the space of 100 years or so. The records only go back 100 years or so any way. If they bring in another tax regarding the environment you can be sure its just another scam. If you look up at the sky early on a clear morning just look at all the emissions left by planes but you won't catch them paying through the nose with environment taxes its just left to us suckers here to pay dearly for the pleasure of owning a car.

overdriver

We pay for pleasures and freedoms. It's only of late that they make out it's for our own good.

Bin charges - they're for the environment, right? The building industry's the biggest polluter in the world. But WE pay.

Driving is a freedom, so every litre of fuel you use they tax. But that makes the planet better.

:rolleyes:

bazz26

unkel wrote:

I totally agree with your principle, Tipsy Mac. The polluter should pay thus all taxes should be in the fuel. Politically achievable? Dunno...

At the moment, petrol guzzling cars like Lexus hybrids get VRT rebates. Sickening that and even more so that government ministers think they can convey the message to us that they are environmentally responsible by choosing those yokes over equally suitable diesel cars

According to this link the Lexus GS450H is not that bad on fuel and Co2 emmissions are lower than a BMW 535D:

http://www.ecotravel.org.uk/roadtests.asp

"In terms of CO2 emissions despite the very similar combined fuel consumption figures, the BMW emits 211 g/km whilst the Lexus emits 186 g/km. This is because of the little reported fact that combusting diesel emits 13% more CO2 than combusting petrol, so the diesel cannot achieve the same CO2 emissions as the hybrid. In addition when the emissions that lead to poor air quality are also taken into consideration the diesel is trounced. Despite the fact that the BMW has a diesel particulate filter, which is a good thing, the emissions of NOx are over 200 times higher. In fact the Lexus doesn’t produce any NOx which is an incredible achievement."

junkyard

overdriver wrote:

We pay for pleasures and freedoms. It's only of late that they make out it's for our own good.

Bin charges - they're for the environment, right? The building industry's the biggest polluter in the world. But WE pay.

Driving is a freedon, so every litre of fuel you use they tax. But that makes the planet better.

:rolleyes:

Your the first person that has agreed with me regarding this tax scam on the environment...I can't believe it! I remember airing my views on After Hours and I was nearly slaughtered by the the geniuses there. But seriously we're being led up the garden path with all these taxes...and remember when things slow down in our economy all these taxes will be here to stay so I think we should make a stand on it now before its too late.

Rabies

Tipsy Mac wrote:

A much farer system would be to abolish VRT and road tax and instead put 60 cent onto the price of a litre of petrol which would bring in €900 a year from the car which should suit the average person.

Jesus christ. That would be a crazy increase. May suit you but not tens of thousands more like me. I often do about 1000 miles a week. Argh, metric system, 1600 Kilometers a week.
In an average year it works out at about 40k miles at least driving for me. That doesn't include the other main 5 drivers in the company. 60c would cripple the company.
What ever about us, the truck drivers would have heart failure with an increase like that.

I'm all for getting rid of VRT. Have tax incentives for greener cars and maybe have a special rate of tax for polluting non-commerical vehicals.

Let every one else take the bus and Luas, we need our big 4x4s

overdriver

What can't you believe?

The whole thing is a joke. They now paint taxes green, and the Irish sheep pay them and feel good about it. Unbelieveable.

This Govt is out of control. Did you know that the city manager, who is appointed, not elected, has the right under a law they introduced, to disband a legally, democratically elected council, and force an election if they disagree with a bin-charge hike?


Unbelieveable again.

junkyard

....but then again see how many people swallow this crap hook line and sinker, it seems to be trendy these days to be environmentally friendly and be blinkered by all the taxes. Has anyone else noticed how pushy refuse collectors are getting these days? I'm genuinely getting sh*t sick of all this bullying.:mad:

overdriver

They will leave bins behind if the lid isn't 100% closed etc. Has everyone forgotten about the levy we already were paying since 1977 for bins, water and sewage?

It's so lucrative that the UK councils are bringing it in " to encourage recycling" even though the Brits pay council tax so thay don't have to pay these charges.

Tell me, if it's just about the environment, how come they don't insist all new diesels can run on SVO?

Because there's no money in that for them.

unkel

bazz26 wrote:

According to this link the Lexus GS450H is not that bad on fuel and Co2 emmissions are lower than a BMW 535D:

http://www.ecotravel.org.uk/roadtests.asp

"In terms of CO2 emissions despite the very similar combined fuel consumption figures, the BMW emits 211 g/km whilst the Lexus emits 186 g/km. This is because of the little reported fact that combusting diesel emits 13% more CO2 than combusting petrol, so the diesel cannot achieve the same CO2 emissions as the hybrid. In addition when the emissions that lead to poor air quality are also taken into consideration the diesel is trounced. Despite the fact that the BMW has a diesel particulate filter, which is a good thing, the emissions of NOx are over 200 times higher. In fact the Lexus doesn’t produce any NOx which is an incredible achievement."

But why compare it to a performance car like a 535d? A 520d would be more than adequate as a ministerial chauffeur driven car imho

Apart from all that CO2 and NOx stuff, the Lexus GS450H is a serious gas guzzler even compared with a sports saloon like a 535d

Seth Brundle

cantdecide wrote:

i would be deeply aggrieved if i were punished for polluting the planet, when i'm clearly not.

Everyone who drives, smokes, farts, etc. is polluting the planet.

maidhc

In fairness the best way to get people to do environmentally friendly things is to tax environmentally damaging activitities, and provide reasonable alternatives.

People are doing more recycling now, because recycling is cheaper than waste disposal. People bring reusable shops to Tesco because it is cheaper than getting plastic bags.

However if they double the price of petrol/diesel people really will just have to pay the extra, particularly in Ireland where the patterns of development have meant that car is the only mode of transport available. It is too late to say we need decent public transport... it just isn't viable in most of semi-rural ireland. You cannot have a metro running from a town to each one off bungalow.

overdriver wrote:

Tell me, if it's just about the environment, how come they don't insist all new diesels can run on SVO?

Because there's no money in that for them.

A mandatory 10% mix would be a great way of getting the biofuels industry off the ground. It would mean 10% less take on diesel duty, a hit which I suspect they are unwilling to take

unkel wrote:

But why compare it to a performance car like a 535d? A 520d would be more than adequate as a ministerial chauffeur driven car imho

It would. Many "green" types have a problem with diesels though, and like to make them appear as polluting as possible. Don't ask why.

bazz26

unkel wrote:

But why compare it to a performance car like a 535d? A 520d would be more than adequate as a ministerial chauffeur driven car imho

Lexus don't sell a GS with a diesel engine, as a rival to the BMW 535D they offer the hybrid GS450H. Lexus offer hybrid technology instead of diesel technology in this class.

unkel wrote:

Apart from all that CO2 and NOx stuff, the Lexus GS450H is a serious gas guzzler even compared with a sports saloon like a 535d

From the link:

"According to the official figures both cars have a combined fuel consumption of around 35 mpg. On the extra urban cycle the BMW is around 5 mpg better than the Lexus. On the urban cycle the Lexus is around 5 mpg better than the BMW. Both cars will use significantly more fuel if you drive them hard. So what does this mean? If you spend all your time driving at a steady speed on the motorway, drive in a very fuel efficient manner, never meet any traffic and never start or finish a journey in an urban environment, you may get better fuel consumption from the BMW. However if you live in the real world where we have traffic and people do drive in urban areas, the Lexus will save you fuel. At the end of our test route we spent 30 minutes in stop start traffic. For 20 of these minutes we were achieving over 40 mpg with the Lexus doing long stints in electric only mode."

Swings and roundabouts.

maidhc

bazz26 wrote:

From the link:

"]At the end of our test route we spent 30 minutes in stop start traffic. For 20 of these minutes we were achieving over 40 mpg with the Lexus doing long stints in electric only mode."

Swings and roundabouts.

That is completely misleading though. Doing "long stints" in electric only mode only means you are not taking account of the petrol burned to generate that electricty in the first place. (unless you live on that street where the Miller guy cycles).

A large car like the GS will spend most of its life on the open road anyway. That is what it is for.

bazz26

maidhc wrote:

That is completely misleading though. Doing "long stints" in electric only mode only means you are not taking account of the petrol burned to generate that electricty in the first place. (unless you live on that street where the Miller guy cycles).

A large car like the GS will spend most of its life on the open road anyway. That is what it is for.

True but the main point being that the GS450H is not that much more of a fuel guzzler than a 535D with both manufacturers claiming offical figures of around 35mpg. How these figures are achieved is another topic.

unkel

bazz26 wrote:

True but the main point being that the GS450H is not that much more of a fuel guzzler than a 535D with both manufacturers claiming offical figures of around 35mpg. How these figures are achieved is another topic.

I don't believe for a moment the GS450H uses similar fuel as a 535d. That aside, my point (and maidhc's I gather) is that a GS450H gets a VRT exemption and the much more environmentally friendly 520d (or any modern diesel with a current generation particulate filter for that matter) doesn't

bazz26

unkel wrote:

I don't believe for a moment the GS450H uses similar fuel as a 535d.

I am quite happy to concede the point if someone can find the offical mpg figures to prove otherwise.

From http://www.honestjohn.co.uk:

535d from £36,575 for the Saloon in UK from October 2004. EU4 compliant. 272bhp and 560Nm of torque from sequential twin turbo 3.0 six with small turbo giving maximum performance from idle to low engine speeds – 500Nm of torque at 1,500rpm, then, as the revs build, a larger turbo helps to further compress the air for a second, seamless boost of power. The result is a continuous surge of acceleration making for a zero to 62mph time of 6.5 seconds yet a combined fuel consumption 35.3mpg.

Lexus GS450H System combines 3.5-litre V6 petrol engine and high-output electric motor
# Performance matches conventional V8 petrol competitors, but with significantly lower fuel consumption (35.8mpg combined cycle) and CO2 emissions (186g/km)

These are similar figures to what is being quoted in my first link for both cars.

Unkel wrote:

That aside, my point (and maidhc's I gather) is that a GS450H gets a VRT exemption and the much more environmentally friendly 520d (or any modern diesel with a current generation particulate filter for that matter) doesn't

Point taken.

unkel

bazz26 wrote:

I am quite happy to concede the point if someone can find the offical mpg figures to prove otherwise

You won't have to concede so

I've no proof whatsoever, but we all know the Prius doesn't get anywhere near the official figures resulting in a lot of upset owners. I'm simply extrapolating to the GS450H...

fits

junkyard wrote:

Tbh I think global warming is a myth and all this hype about it is just another means of generating more taxes This planet has been warming up for the thousands of years and I really don't believe that its all our fault in the space of 100 years or so. The records only go back 100 years or so any way. If they bring in another tax regarding the environment you can be sure its just another scam.

This is the most misinformed post I have read in a long time. I'm not going to disagree with you about the hype, and its true that the planet's climate is continuosly changing, so we shouldnt be so surprised about that. But we have records going back tens of thousands of years, its called rock and ice. So much research has been conducted on this, and do you honestly believe we can alter the concentrations of gases in the atmosphere without influencing climate? The idea of climate change being invented so that governments can charge more tax is just laughable.

Agree with others about taxing fuel, it definitely makes the most sense, and in turn it will lead to better public transport, and less urban sprawl.. Everyone would be a winner (and I could afford a nicer car).

overdriver

...but not to run it.

Anan1

overdriver wrote:

...but not to run it.

The main problem with our current taxation system is that, having paid VAT, VRT, road tax etc, the actual cost of using the car is not that high. In order to save a significant amount of money, one would have to sell the car, which is clearly not an option for many people. If we tax usage as suggested, then drivers have the option to save real money on every journey they elect to make by other means. This benefits everyone - the environment, car owners, and indeed society at large.

peasant

Yes, indeed, I also think taxing usage would be the fairest option ...in theory.

In practise the hundreds of thousands who had to move into Dublin's commuter belt would be very hard hit indeed. They were left stranded out there, 50 to 80 kms away from their workplace in little cardboard houses with no infrastructure and no other way of getting to work but by car. They have to work two jobs and run two cars to afford their mortgage and the childcare. A doubling of fuel prices would leave these people without house, job and car :eek:

The damage is done and irreversible ...Ireland is a totally car dependent society. No number of new buses and train lines (not that they're ever going to happen) would be able to cope with the sprawl. The movement patterns are just to diverse to be channelled into public transport.

maidhc

peasant wrote:

Yes, indeed, I also think taxing usage would be the fairest option ...in theory.

In practise the hundreds of thousands who had to move into Dublin's commuter belt would be very hard hit indeed. They were left stranded out there, 50 to 80 kms away from their workplace in little cardboard houses with no infrastructure and no other way of getting to work but by car. They have to work two jobs and run two cars to afford their mortgage and the childcare. A doubling of fuel prices would leave these people without house, job and car :eek:

The damage is done and irreversible ...Ireland is a totally car dependent society. No number of new buses and train lines (not that they're ever going to happen) would be able to cope with the sprawl. The movement patterns are just to diverse to be channelled into public transport.

Exactly.

junkyard

fits wrote:

This is the most misinformed post I have read in a long time. I'm not going to disagree with you about the hype, and its true that the planet's climate is continuosly changing, so we shouldnt be so surprised about that. But we have records going back tens of thousands of years, its called rock and ice. So much research has been conducted on this, and do you honestly believe we can alter the concentrations of gases in the atmosphere without influencing climate? The idea of climate change being invented so that governments can charge more tax is just laughable.

Agree with others about taxing fuel, it definitely makes the most sense, and in turn it will lead to better public transport, and less urban sprawl.. Everyone would be a winner (and I could afford a nicer car).

It mightn't be as misinformed as you'd like to think, I know many people in the engineering profession and they will confirm to you that a lot of the facts and figures just don't add up as regards global warming. I'll say no more here as its going off topic but, I have to say, do you always believe what our governments tell us? I know I don't.

maidhc

junkyard wrote:

It mightn't be as misinformed as you'd like to think, I know many people in the engineering profession and they will confirm to you that a lot of the facts and figures just don't add up as regards global warming. I'll say no more here as its going off topic but, I have to say, do you always believe what our governments tell us? I know I don't.

I don't think governments would invent global warming just as a means of justifying tax. Governments rarely try justifying any of their actions, least of all taxes.

bazz26

Plus most governments are not that creative.

junkyard

Look at the bigger picture, our governments are being told what to do and in turn tell us. Its a lot bigger than you might think.

overdriver

maidhc wrote:

I don't think governments would invent global warming just as a means of justifying tax. Governments rarely try justifying any of their actions, least of all taxes.

Really?
The bin tax lesson has not been learned, then.

maidhc

junkyard wrote:

Look at the bigger picture, our governments are being told what to do and in turn tell us. Its a lot bigger than you might think.

I'm afraid the conspiracy theory is lost on me, but then again I have a subscription to the national geographic!

(btw the "bin tax" has resulted in Ireland becoming very good at recycling. And has made Ireland a more equitable place when some of us have always had to pay €450 a year for private bin collection.)

Anyway, very OT, but I do think taxes aimed to regulate consumption are an extremely good idea provided realistic alternatives exist. For the moment, there no realistic alternative to fossil fuels and the motor car.

overdriver

Correct, it has. however, it also places the blame - and guilt - for pollution on the ordinary householder. The councils have reacted to our great recycling intiative by tripling the price of a bin tag. That's because the money is not used to cover the cost of proper waste disposal, but to fund local Govt.



The point being made is that the Government does, in fact, justify a tax when it suits them.

A fuel tax based on use would be similarly abused.

maidhc

overdriver wrote:

The point being made is that the Government does, in fact, justify a tax when it suits them.

My point was that Governments often introduce taxes without bothering to justify them... e.g. VRT, stamp duty.