General Election..whats in it for the motorist?

Anan1

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

Stick up a poll asking people if they want VRT reduced, to remain the same or increased then and prove me wrong.

Surely you've noticed that people posting here are hardly representative of the average Irish car owner?

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

In any case, you disagree with me, I disagree with you. End of discussion really.

The point I have been making all along is that just because someone owns a car does not mean that they are in favour of getting the best deal for motorists. You appear curiously resistant to this notion. Why don't you set up a motorists organisation, see how much support you get?

Anan1

I've noticed that many people here are in favour of taxing fuel on the basis that it's a tax on pollution, but are opposed to VRT on the basis that 'it's a tax on ownership, not pollution'. I hate to break it to you all, but VRT IS A TAX ON POLLUTION TOO. Brand new cars don't just grow on trees, you know.;)

I.S.T.

Anan1 wrote:

The point I have been making all along is that just because someone owns a car does not mean that they are in favour of getting the best deal for motorists.

And you keep making it, and I acknowledge it is true. Some people couldnt give a toss about motoring issues, including the cost of petrol and VRT.

Anan1 wrote:

You appear curiously resistant to this notion.

No I'm not. I do think they are in the minority though.

Anan1 wrote:

Why don't you set up a motorists organisation, see how much support you get?

I'm way too busy for that.

I.S.T.

Anan1 wrote:

I've noticed that many people here are in favour of taxing fuel on the basis that it's a tax on pollution, but are opposed to VRT on the basis that 'it's a tax on ownership, not pollution'. I hate to break it to you all, but VRT IS A TAX ON POLLUTION TOO. Brand new cars don't just grow on trees, you know.;)

An ILLEGAL tax at that, as far as the EU are concerned.

Anan1

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

An ILLEGAL tax at that, as far as the EU are concerned.

Coming from someone whose website endorses breaking the speed limit this really is a bit rich, don't you think?

astraboy

Anan1 wrote:

I've noticed that many people here are in favour of taxing fuel on the basis that it's a tax on pollution, but are opposed to VRT on the basis that 'it's a tax on ownership, not pollution'. I hate to break it to you all, but VRT IS A TAX ON POLLUTION TOO. Brand new cars don't just grow on trees, you know.;)

RIIIIIIIIIIIGH, keep believing its a tax on "pollution". If so, why is a regular family car, say 1.8L engine, taxed at something like 20% of the price, and this has little to do with emissions. A person can then go away and buy a "commercial" landcruiser, a regular land cruiser with the seats ripped from the back pointlessly to avoid VRT. VRT on this "commercial" is 50 euro. So keep believing its a tax on pollution ya muppet. Its a money making scam to fla the motorist, plain and simple. And leave Irishspeedtraps alone, he does good work.

The tax man

Anan1 wrote:

Coming from someone whose website endorses breaking the speed limit this really is a bit rich, don't you think?

Eh where on that site does it endorse breaking the speed limit. It's a helpful site to warn motorists of what's out there. Nothing illegal just information.
VRT is a load of crap in this country. You know it and so does everyone else.
It's blown apart with the commercial vehicle issue.

Hotblack Desiato

IrishSpeedTraps wrote:

An ILLEGAL tax at that, as far as the EU are concerned.

That's a myth often repeated, but still a myth.

The tax man

Anan1 wrote:

Coming from someone whose website endorses breaking the speed limit this really is a bit rich, don't you think?

So do you also think the AA in the UK also endorse speeding by printing the locations of speed cameras in their UK road atlas?? I don't think so.
I got done for doing 8km over the limit in a 60km zone. 3 lanes but still 60km, go figure,limits in this country are laughable.No problem taking my points but I'll do my best to make sure others know about these sly speed check points so they don't get done on cash making roads like I did.

The tax man

ninja900 wrote:

That's a myth often repeated, but still a myth.

Well then how come I can buy anything(apart from a car) from the likes of the UK or Germany and not get taxed on my purchase. It's the only item that we in Ireland are punished for when buying outside of this country. Anyone else has a field day when it comes to buying car outside their own country.
Forget about safety items and just look at the different specs on cars between Ireland and the UK. We get screwed plan and simple. It even affects the manufactures and what they offer us here. And yet we're one of the cheapest countries to import a car from if you live within the EU.

dbtd

This is an interesting debate. I'm glad to see it's not being conducted on simplistic terms. The Greens proposals on VRT would see the abolishing of the tax and its replacement with an environmental charge base on emission standards, fuel efficiency and size and weight of a vehicle, rather than the current crude system of engine capacity. We believe that most new cars would be exempt from this new charge.
While it is true that other countries do not have VRT they do have higher taxes on fuel and this is a choice3 we would have to make as well.
I'd have that pint anytime in The Gables but I think you are wrong about rural transport and rural areas. It can and it should be done.

Anan1

astraboy wrote:

RIIIIIIIIIIIGH, keep believing its a tax on "pollution". If so, why is a regular family car, say 1.8L engine, taxed at something like 20% of the price, and this has little to do with emissions. A person can then go away and buy a "commercial" landcruiser, a regular land cruiser with the seats ripped from the back pointlessly to avoid VRT. VRT on this "commercial" is 50 euro. So keep believing its a tax on pollution ya muppet. Its a money making scam to fla the motorist, plain and simple. And leave Irishspeedtraps alone, he does good work.

Any chance you could translate (or maybe have your teacher translate) the above into English for me?

The tax man wrote:

Eh where on that site does it endorse breaking the speed limit. It's a helpful site to warn motorists of what's out there. Nothing illegal just information.

Surely I don't have to explain to you that nobody would look at the site if they didn't intend on breaking the speed limit?

The tax man wrote:

VRT is a load of crap in this country. You know it and so does everyone else.

I don't know it. I've already said why I am in favour of VRT. Would you care to address that?

The tax man wrote:

It's blown apart with the commercial vehicle issue.

How?

I.S.T.

Anan1 wrote:

Coming from someone whose website endorses breaking the speed limit this really is a bit rich, don't you think?

irishspeedtraps.com does not endorse breaking the speed limit. The site's focus is on highlighting how the current speed trap locations are based on generating revenue for the Government and have very little to do with improving road safety. There is nothing on irishspeedtraps.com that is illegal, as was confirmed by the Gardaí themselves. As one previous poster mentioned, the AA publish speed trap locations in the UK. Some of the UK police forces also publish the locations themselves on their own web sites.

Higgsy

There is not a snowball in hells chance that any of the partties will reduce motor related taxes, why? MONEY, plus they can justify it on the EU Carbon Emmissions directive.

We are getting ripped off in this country, the Irish government is being fined by the EU for the VRT?

I am Irish myself but I do think that we are great people for talking about things and not so great at actually living up to what we talk about. I have jarred customs men and local politicians about the issue of VRT to get the same old standard line.

This country leaves me disillussioned sometimes

Higgsy

Check this thread out:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53296979#post53296979

Mc-BigE

dbtd wrote:

This is an interesting debate. I'm glad to see it's not being conducted on simplistic terms. The Greens proposals on VRT would see the abolishing of the tax and its replacement with an environmental charge base on emission standards, fuel efficiency and size and weight of a vehicle, rather than the current crude system of engine capacity. We believe that most new cars would be exempt from this new charge.
While it is true that other countries do not have VRT they do have higher taxes on fuel and this is a choice3 we would have to make as well.
I'd have that pint anytime in The Gables but I think you are wrong about rural transport and rural areas. It can and it should be done.

This all sounds wonderful Dan, but if your party is a minority member of an alternative Government (if elected) i.e. F.G/Labour/Green, how are you going to convince the other 2 parties to give up the "Golden VRT goose" ? After all it’s a lot of money for the incoming government to turn down, it’s going to be needed to pay for all the election promises like free healthcare for the young, and for all those hospital beds and Gardai promised? I don't see in F.G contract any mention of VRT? Actually the only discussion I’ve seen/heard about VRT in this election is this thread.

Edited: OK F.G. do mention reducing taxes on Bio-fuel and low CO2 cars, but it doesn't say scrap VRT. Building new cars and scrapping perfectly good 2nd hand cars is adding to the carbon footprint. Maybe in the long term there will be benefits due to cars technology which will produce 0% emissions, but until then the car, new and old is a polluter.

AlanD

dbtd wrote:

This is an interesting debate. I'm glad to see it's not being conducted on simplistic terms. The Greens proposals on VRT would see the abolishing of the tax and its replacement with an environmental charge base on emission standards, fuel efficiency and size and weight of a vehicle, rather than the current crude system of engine capacity. We believe that most new cars would be exempt from this new charge.
While it is true that other countries do not have VRT they do have higher taxes on fuel and this is a choice3 we would have to make as well.
I'd have that pint anytime in The Gables but I think you are wrong about rural transport and rural areas. It can and it should be done.

Dan, although I would applaud the Green Party's intention on dropping VRT and replacing it over a period of time with a more use-appropriate tax, I could not ever condone your plans to scrap certain road schemes. As Brian Cowen said on Cooper/Hobbs last night, "it's just nuts". There isn't a government anyone could put together who would condone that. There isn't a majority mandate from the public who would condone it.

My circumstances, and I'm very much not alone, mean that every now and then I drive from Limerick to Letterkenny. I am a teleworker, so I don't burden the system in the same way most other people do. I don't drive to work. But about once a month I do. I leave Limerick after work to drive the 220 miles to Letterkenny. There's isn't a hope in hell I would ever consider using public transport to get there. No bus would make it to Letterkenny from Limerick in 4.5 or 5 hours. There will never be a direct train route and my only choice, short of hiring a helicoptor is to drive. If the Green's stop certain road projects, the people will not be happy. Roads are paramount to Ireland's success. Once built, then fill them with buses but don't scrap the roads first and fill our creaking infrastructure with buses.

Remember, business is what drives our economy and businesses need roads, not buses. Public transport will not take the huge numbers of reps and trucks off the roads.

And don't get me started on the ill conceived anti-capitalist idea of CO2 emmissions being the cause of global warming. The sun is the cause and always has been.

astraboy

Since you clearly entered the debate knowing **** all about VRT, and failing to understand my previous post with your sarcastic comment, let me spell it out for you.

VRT is placed on what is known as the "open market selling price" OMSP of the car. This is the car price plus vat. So you are in effect paying VRT on the VAT of 21% you already paid! Thats problem no. 1.

VRT is put on the car in 3 catogeries. 22.5% of OMSP for cars under 1.4L

25% for cars 1.4-1.9L and 30% for cars over 1.9L. Now a family car of 1.8 liters has a tax of 25% put on it, ie approx 5K on a 20,000 euro car!:mad:

Someone else goes away and buys a vehicle classed as commercial. This can be a van or a 4x4 with the back seats taken out. They pay, wait for it, E50 in VRT. Thats it! So people with commercial land cruisers, with 3.0L engines pay 50 euro VRT while the family car has 5,000 euro placed on it. Problem no 2.

Problem number 3, and this is related to the one above, is that if someone decides to buy a passenger version of the land cruiser, ie one they can take their family around in, the 3.0L vehicle will have VRT placed on it of 30% of OMSP. This vehicle pollutes the same amount as the "commercial" version, so why the two tax bands? VRT is stupid, and its also illegal as the government are fined a certain amount each year by the EU. However, the fine is so small that it makes plenty sense to keep raping the irish motorist to the tune of nearly 2 Billion a year. Nice one.:rolleyes:

Now Alan, was that clear enough for you? I got to say though I agree with your point above^^^^^^. Certain rural transport will never be totally viable, being from west cork I know people in certain areas will always need a car for transport.

AlanD

astraboy wrote:

Since you clearly entered the debate knowing **** all about VRT, and failing to understand my previous post with your sarcastic comment, let me spell it out for you. .

who is that comment aimed at?

astraboy

Anan1. He did'nt understand the commercial tax issue regarding VRT when more then one person bought it up. He you made a silly statement about not understanding my original post. While I admit it could have been clearer I think it got my point across.

Edited cos I was stupid!

AlanD

astraboy wrote:

You clearly. You did'nt understand the commercial tax issue regarding VRT when more then one person bought it up. The you made a silly statement about not understanding my original post. While I admit it could have been clearer I think it got my point across. Anyway, I clarified all I said in my above post.

astraboy, I think you may be mistaken. My one and only post on this topic was in reply to the Green Party candidate. I have not mentioned or commented on commercial tax at all. But do agree with the points you have made earlier in the topic.

FYI, I know a lot about VRT....spent 25 years in the Motor Trade.

astraboy

My apologies, in quickly scanning through the usernames I got ALAND and ANAN1 confused!:o Sorry about that! I'll edit my other post. IN fairness to the greens their policies make more sense then what is in place now. Dan Boyle, would ye get the flyovers for the bandon and sarsfield rd. roundabouts finished? These would allow freer movement of traffic and reduce emissions from the south link!

Anan1

astraboy wrote:

Anan1. He did'nt understand the commercial tax issue regarding VRT when more then one person bought it up. He you made a silly statement about not understanding my original post. While I admit it could have been clearer I think it got my point across.

Edited cos I was stupid!

Having sold both cars and commercials new in a dealership and having imported several used cars from both the UK and Germany, I think I can safely say that I understand how the VRT system works. Neither your original post nor your subsequent 'clarifications' address the my support for VRT on cars. How is VRT on commercials relevant to this?

astraboy

Fair enough you understand the system, but you stated that

"VRT is a tax on pollution too" so explain how a 3L diesel has less tax on it (when commercial) then a 1.4L car, and also explain how it is a tax on pollution when it is stupidly linked to engine size and not emissions. Also, as I said, you pay VRT on top of VAT. Double taxation is bad enough, but having double taxation on things like ESP is downright scandolous. The VRT system, and how it is applied makes no sense, and I am talking about VRT on all vehicles not simply cars in this issue.

AlanD

astraboy wrote:

Fair enough you understand the system, but you stated that

"VRT is a tax on pollution too"

I reckon it was said in jest rather than being in the slightest bit factual.....could be wrong though

ambro25

Anan1 wrote:

I've noticed that many people here are in favour of taxing fuel on the basis that it's a tax on pollution, but are opposed to VRT on the basis that 'it's a tax on ownership, not pollution'. I hate to break it to you all, but VRT IS A TAX ON POLLUTION TOO. Brand new cars don't just grow on trees, you know.;)

Not willing to enter your private little p1ss1ng contest here lads, but there's a bit of a flaw in that post Anan1 - or I'm just not getting it and you'll have to either explain or pardon me.

Brand new cars are made *wherever* (say Japan) in right hand-drive guise for IE and UK markets. IE pays VRT yet UK does not. So, I ask ye, if VRT is such a Tax On Pollution, given any standard identical car in both countries, why does the Irish motorist pays to lower the UK motorist's carbon footprint?

EDIT - bum, the tax man asked first, I shoulda read the whole thread :rolleyes:

Re-EDIT - but I note that you ain't replied yet

astraboy

AlanD wrote:

I reckon it was said in jest rather than being in the slightest bit factual.....could be wrong though

Maybe, but the guy reckons he knows it all because he worked in a garage, so why come on here and make a silly statement he can't back up? We were supposed to be discussing factual issues relating to the Irish motorist and the election, making such statements is not a help.

Anan1

astraboy wrote:

Maybe, but the guy reckons he knows it all because he worked in a garage, so why come on here and make a silly statement he can't back up? We were supposed to be discussing factual issues relating to the Irish motorist and the election, making such statements is not a help.

You're doing an awful lot of guessing about me in this thread, don't you think? First you guess that my car is 'lacking in safety features', then you guess that I don't understand how VRT is applied, and now you're guessing that I 'reckon I know it all'. Why don't you stop guessing and either read my posts or ask?

ambro25 wrote:

Not willing to enter your private little p1ss1ng contest here lads, but there's a bit of a flaw in that post Anan1 - or I'm just not getting it and you'll have to either explain or pardon me.

Brand new cars are made *wherever* (say Japan) in right hand-drive guise for IE and UK markets. IE pays VRT yet UK does not. So, I ask ye, if VRT is such a Tax On Pollution, given any standard identical car in both countries, why does the Irish motorist pays to lower the UK motorist's carbon footprint? )

Sorry, but what is the relevance of UK taxation policy to the issue of whether VRT is a tax on pollution? We levy VRT on the registration of new cars, the production of which entails lots of pollution. VRT can therefore be called a tax on pollution. Neither UK taxation policy, nor indeed our taxation policy on commercials, changes this simple fact.

astraboy

Anan1 wrote:

You're doing an awful lot of guessing about me in this thread, don't you think? First you guess that my car is 'lacking in safety features', then you guess that I don't understand how VRT is applied, and now you're guessing that I 'reckon I know it all'. Why don't you stop guessing and either read my posts or ask?

I never said your car lacked safety features, in fact you stated that your car had 6 airbags etc. My point was related to the fact that certain cars have saftey features as options here, while they are standard in the rest of the EU. This is SOLEY due to VRT. :mad: This effects you and everyone else with a car, so my origional point remains correct. When you choose these safety features, as you sensiably did, you payed more for the pleasure due to VRT. FACT.

Anan1 wrote:

Sorry, but what is the relevance of UK taxation policy to the issue of whether VRT is a tax on pollution? We levy VRT on the registration of new cars, the production of which entails lots of pollution. VRT can therefore be called a tax on pollution. Neither UK taxation policy, nor indeed our taxation policy on commercials, changes this simple fact.

I can't believe you still say its a tax on pollution!:rolleyes: Is stamp duty, by your defination also a tax on pollution as building a house emits Co2? Or why not tax oranges flown from foreign countries, as this is polluting too? Production of many things causes pollution, should we stop making and producing goods so, and let the economy die? Also, VRT is not related to how efficient polltion wise a factory producing a car is. A 1.4 opel could have produced more tonnes of CO2 in its production then a range rover, you don't know how far the steel had to be transported or how far the workers commuted to the factory. Your point is baseless and shaky at best. VRT is a scam, placed on the Irish people in the form of a tax. But its fiana fail, so its ok. They will probably still be in power next month.:mad:

If you wish to contine this debate I suggest you get some facts to back up "VRT as a pollution tax"

Anan1

astraboy wrote:

I never said your car lacked safety features, in fact you stated that your car had 6 airbags etc. "

Sorry, my mistake, that was IrishSpeedTraps.

astraboy wrote:

My point was related to the fact that certain cars have saftey features as options here, while they are standard in the rest of the EU. This is SOLEY due to VRT. :mad: "

It's not. Sadly, it's due to the priorities of the average Irish motorist. The importers choose the options they think will sell the car, and most Irish buyers would rather have a sunroof or some such tat than ESP.

astraboy wrote:

I can't believe you still say its a tax on pollution!:rolleyes: Is stamp duty, by your defination also a tax on pollution as building a house emits Co2?

There's no stamp on new homes.;)

astraboy wrote:

Or why not tax oranges flown from foreign countries, as this is polluting too? Production of many things causes pollution, should we stop making and producing goods so, and let the economy die? Also, VRT is not related to how efficient polltion wise a factory producing a car is. A 1.4 opel could have produced more tonnes of CO2 in its production then a range rover, you don't know how far the steel had to be transported or how far the workers commuted to the factory.

This is true. The point I am making is that it is not just car usage that causes pollution. If I buy a new Prius and never drive it, I am still responsible for as much CO2 as you would emit over many years of driving your Astra.

astraboy wrote:

But its fiana fail, so its ok. They will probably still be in power next month.:mad:

Finally we agree on something.:)