Anyone else think new car tax ill conceived?

gbh

It just occured to me, while driving in traffic that about 90% of cars you see on the road are second-hand cars. And you see all sorts, ranging from fairly fuel efficient vehicles to old, 3-4 litre gas guzzling machines which are clearly not fuel efficient and which new cars even the bigger engined ones emit less CO2.

Surely John Gormely should put the tax on all cars across the board to encourage people to get rid of their older cars. And cars as they get older and the engines more worn tend to emit more not less CO2.

So what is the point of not taxing the older cars which emit a lot of CO2 and tax newer cars? What will happen next year is a drop in demand for newer big engined cars, although probably only a slight drop and a big demand for second hand cars with all the problems of worn engines. It makes no sense.

AngryHippie

You definitely have a point there. It is a necessary step for new cars, and next years should put the squeeze on the mid 90's machines still bangin around out there, The proposals for that should be put together early in 08 to avoid a shocker in December and to allow people to finance any necessary changes.

Capt'n Midnight

increasing tax on petrol would be the simple answer
it would also reduce the amount that crosses the border for which we will have to pay koyoto tax

bonkey

gbh wrote: »

It just occured to me, while driving in traffic that about 90% of cars you see on the road are second-hand cars. And you see all sorts, ranging from fairly fuel efficient vehicles to old, 3-4 litre gas guzzling machines which are clearly not fuel efficient and which new cars even the bigger engined ones emit less CO2.

And yet, when you look at any number of the "what car should I buy" threads, there are always one or two people advocating that the greenest option is to buy second-hand.

Surely John Gormely should put the tax on all cars across the board to encourage people to get rid of their older cars. And cars as they get older and the engines more worn tend to emit more not less CO2.

Indeed, but the more often you change cars, the more cars need to be built. Don't forget to include the construction cost into your footprint.

What will happen next year is a drop in demand for newer big engined cars, although probably only a slight drop and a big demand for second hand cars with all the problems of worn engines. It makes no sense.

I think it does make sense. I don't believe that someone who was going to buy a big-engined new car will decide to go buy a second-hand one just to avoid paying the extra cash. If they were going to do that, they'd already be buying second-hand for the same reason.

Rather, the idea is to avail of the reality that there are some number of new cars sold in any given year. These cars, in the following years, trickle down through the second-hand market. Over a period of time, it will benefit us to have more-efficient rather than less-efficient cars entering this "flow".

[Capt'n Midnight]increasing tax on petrol would be the simple answer[/quote]
Maybe. Then again, if petrol prices were a consideration, then one would imagine that the increases over the last 2-3 years would already have driven people en masse towards more fuel-efficient options.

I've no idea where the stats came from, but at a course I was on recently, the figure put forward was that it is believed people will start making decisions which effect their driving habits (driving style, choice of car, etc.) when petrol hits 2 EUR / L. Unless the proposal is that the govt. ensure the price stays over this point, I think the idea of a "short sharp shock" when making the choice to buy is a good one.

Bassman

Complete rubbish! If petrol gets to €2.00 per litre, I'll take my car and my tax-revenue generating a** out of here and not come back. I was taxed out of the country in 1994, watch me go again.

gbh

Will this legislation encourage the building of more fuel efficient cars? I don't think so.

If as some people argue relatively rich people buy big engine cars and so can absorb the increase better, then this tax will have no impact whatsoever on their consumer choices. It does seem like a money grabbing excercise by the government to plug holes caused by falling stamp duty revenue, etc. As for travelling sales people etc, they usually can write these things off against tax anyways.

What really needs to happen is to encourage people away from their cars and into public transport and also for people to live closer to their work places, which can be best achieved by decentralising industry and commercial centres out to the suburbs.

But that again is a question of good planning and we the people have been let down by the politicians and planners on that issue for years.

prendy

i understand the need for reform but why not lower the tax on smaller cars...under 1.4l.
this would entice people to use them...but no what do they do...increase across the board.

fits

prendy wrote: »

i understand the need for reform but why not lower the tax on smaller cars...under 1.4l.
this would entice people to use them...but no what do they do...increase across the board.

Eh... they're doing that next year. All new cars will be taxed based on cO2 emissions.

I've already switched from an old gas guzzling sports coupe (which we've kept as its a classic really), to a newer 1.3litre Mazda which does 48mpg. And I plan on keeping that until it dies. I'm definitely going to consider CO2 emissions when purchasing from now on, and plan on never going the large 4x4 route (instead getting a small lorry for the horses and using a small and efficient daily runaround).

I love big fast cars, but its just not right and responsible to drive one anymore... even what I'm doing isnt really enough to be honest.

bonkey

prendy wrote: »

i understand the need for reform but why not lower the tax on smaller cars...under 1.4l.
this would entice people to use them...but no what do they do...increase across the board.

Do they increase across the board? My understanding was that tHey set new taxes based on CO2 emissions, resulting in the tax on efficient cars dropping, while the tax on inefficient cars increases....which is pretty-much exactly what you're advocating.

fits

they gave a 9% increase across the board for old cars, and the new CO2-based tax regime will come into effect for new cars only.

Antenna

AngryHippie wrote: »

put the squeeze on the mid 90's machines still bangin around out there,

The people clocking up huge annual mileage doing the 100 mile+ round daily commutes are unlikely to be driving old cars anyway. The old cars are likely to be in the hands of people driving on average short distances daily, such as elderly people driving just to the local shops/church.

Cars should be kept going for as long as possible, within reason.
Old cars are less efficent, but counteracting this is the energy consumed in building a new car, transporting it to this country, and the scrapping of old cars consumes energy too.

djmc

Its no longer about engine size as many of ye think lower co2 emmissions dosent mean smaller engines eg. some 2.2 honda diesals 135g/co2
will cost just 150 euro to tax
while a 2.0 litre suzuki gran vitara will cost 2000 euro to tax even though it has a smaller engine 1750 extra for 200cc less
some cars 2.0 litre like bmw 320d and audi a4 tdi can be taxed for just 290 euro. A 1.6 ford ka will cost 600 euro
They are also going car makers to reduce co2 emitions on cars

ircoha

fits wrote: »

they gave a 9% increase across the board for old cars, and the new CO2-based tax regime will come into effect for new cars only.

for the record:the increase in car tax is 9.5% for all existing cars up to 2.5l and 11% above, from 01/02/2008.

casey212

What the hell is this???

Study the Hegelian Dialectic. Problem/reaction/solution. An ancient technique.

The government are stupid bumbling idiots????? I would beg to differ, look how everyone here is crying out to be taxed. A people asking for extra taxes?? Even 20 years ago people would have been insensed by your ramblings.

Do you think the vast majority of people use cars for fun? I bet everyone on the M50 twice a day, they just love the few of other cars.

Since you are all so concerned by the environment, how about donating to my "foundadtion". I can promise you all funds will be used for environmental purposes, well at least 1% anyway. I can use the rest of the funds to live like a king, swan around the world and generally put down the plebs (just like that man, whats his name, yeah, Al Gore).

I have serious doubts about a lot of posters on these boards. You know what I mean.

Waken up.

silverharp

What gets me about all these measures is that they are taken in isolation, what is the gov going to do with this extra revenue, it will be spent on additional goods and services or additional employees who themselves will drive cars etc. its moving deck chairs on the titanc. Unless countries commit to for instance buying out coal and oil reserves and shutting them in, a bit like setting aside Amazon forests then I don’t see the point. Many people will see through these measures as being window dressing.
There are a million good reasons why people should drive less, but countries need a more focused approach then using global warming as the reason. I for instance live 3min walk from work, I can walk to the shops and my wife works from home, I couldn’t be happier.

Carawaystick

It would be relatively easy to find the countries average mileage from NCT data/ amount of road fuel sold/ no of cars on the road.
reduce motor tax to zero
add a tax on road fuel so an average motorist would be in a revenue neutral position

for an example
average person drives 13000 miles a year at 37.5 MPG = 1560 litres of fuel
average car tax is 520 per year

increasing fuel duty by 34 cents per litre and reducing motor tax to zero is cost neutral to the motorist. however it provides a large incentive to use public transport as not using your car will not cost you in tax wasted, unlike now.

SO you could have a large engined car, not being used not costing 2k per annum and drivers availing of more environmentally friendly transport, because they are not paying twice.


Failing this, I'd have changed the VRT/tax system to also take the safety rating of the car into account by deducting some amount of tax for every NCAP star rating particularily for pedestrian ratings.

Gekko

the tax should definitely be on fuel rather than on cars. For anyone with any sense it's a no-brainer.

perhaps there's also a road safety issue in that if more people drive more small cars, which are less safe than bigger cars, theoretically there could be an increase in road deaths.

This country is a joke when it comes to cars. You've got crap roads that they can't even build or maintain properly, ridiculously high car prices due to illegal VRT, extortionate insurance premiums, especially for younger drivers, and on top of that this new tax system which makes no sense at all.

casey212

Gekko wrote: »

the tax should definitely be on fuel rather than on cars. For anyone with any sense it's a no-brainer.

perhaps there's also a road safety issue in that if more people drive more small cars, which are less safe than bigger cars, theoretically there could be an increase in road deaths.

This country is a joke when it comes to cars. You've got crap roads that they can't even build or maintain properly, ridiculously high car prices due to illegal VRT, extortionate insurance premiums, especially for younger drivers, and on top of that this new tax system which makes no sense at all.

Well, thankfully I have no sense. The whole thing is a scam. People need to put their foot down.

I personally would recommend a boycott of all road use for a week, in the old days this was known as consumer power, now it would probably be called "unpatriotic".