Why pay VAT and VRT on safety features in new cars.

WHITE_P

Why pay VAT and VRT on safety features in new cars.

If the Government and RSA were serious about road safety, aside from providing better driver training / testing, why don't they make safety features and hands free car kits etc. VAT and VRT exempt.

All stick and No Carrot.:mad:

beerbaron

Why Indeed ? info@transport.ie

RobAMerc

how very true

airbags - abs - esp etc are all charged vrt and vat, why ?

because this government couldn't give a rats ass about your safety - they want to extract as much dosh covertly as possible, and blame you for everything thats wrong with the country.

road deaths are caused by speed therefore caused by you therefore you should pay speed tax via a fine system

boll8x the lot of it

Run_to_da_hills

Same goes for motorcycle helmets in Ireland, because of the luxury rate of VAT on motorcycle helmets in this country young bikers that cannot afford a decent lid end up going to Aldi & Lidl and buying cheap rubbish.

MrPudding

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Same goes for motorcycle helmets in Ireland, because of the luxury rate of VAT on motorcycle helmets in this country young bikers that cannot afford a decent lid end up going to Aldi & Lidl and buying cheap rubbish.

Yet another indication that the government really does not care about road safety. They gather revenue from safety features that could save lives and reduce injuries, the result? The good old Irish poverty spec. Things like ASC and additional airbags, which are standard in even the cheap models of cars in the uk, are only available as optional extras or much higher specced models. And don’t start me on speed cameras…..

MrP

flanzer

Sure didn't Mary harney only yesterday announce that she'll be reducing the VAT on condoms.......Blame it all on the catholic church I say!

Seth Brundle

They charge it because they know that people are willing to pay it!

E92

In fairness pretty much everything has front and side airbags at this stage. Almost every non convertible car has cutain airbags too once you move out of the Fiesta size category.

ABS has been mandatory for just over 3 years at this stage.

And an ever increasing number have ESP at this stage(all BMW, Merc, most Fords now that the Mk3 Focus will have ESP as standard, the Avensis now has ESP as standard as well etc) though I agree that ESP and traction control should be exempt from VRT.

MrPudding

E92 wrote: »

I
And an ever increasing number have ESP at this stage(all BMW, Merc, most Fords now that the Mk3 Focus will have ESP as standard, the Avensis now has ESP as standard as well etc) though I agree that ESP and traction control should be exempt from VRT.

Not everyone is buying a BMW or a Merc. My point is smaller cars in the UK will have ESP etc as standard, in Ireland because there is 21% vat plus the VRT rate on top, these things are being excluded to keep prices down.

MrP

Anan1

The solution is not to make these items tax-free, but to make them mandatory.

craichoe

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Same goes for motorcycle helmets in Ireland, because of the luxury rate of VAT on motorcycle helmets in this country young bikers that cannot afford a decent lid end up going to Aldi & Lidl and buying cheap rubbish.

This is total rubbish, although i have an Arai Lid i paid 375 sterling for, its purely for comfort, a 100 euro helmet is just as safe as a 500 euro one. Their all tested to the same standard.

Airflow and comfort are the only difference.

MrPudding

Anan1 wrote: »

The solution is not to make these items tax-free, but to make them mandatory.

But if they are mandatory then they have to be paid for, therefore will attract VAT & VRT.

MrP

Anan1

MrPudding wrote: »

But if they are mandatory then they have to be paid for, therefore will attract VAT & VRT.

MrP

To be honest, I don't really see why they should not be taxable.

craichoe

Anan1 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't really see why they should not be taxable.

Taxation on a MANDATORY item required by law is bollocks.

Bread, Milk and Butter aren't taxed as their basic staple foods. Something to stop your brain splattering all over the road shouldnt be taxed either

Anan1

craichoe wrote: »

Taxation on a MANDATORY item required by law is bollocks.

Bread, Milk and Butter aren't taxed as their basic staple foods. Something to stop your brain splattering all over the road shouldnt be taxed either

These things would only be MANDATORY if you buy a car.;) What does food have to do with it? And why should safety features be tax-free?

Run_to_da_hills

craichoe wrote: »

This is total rubbish, although i have an Arai Lid i paid 375 sterling for, its purely for comfort, a 100 euro helmet is just as safe as a 500 euro one. Their all tested to the same standard.
Airflow and comfort are the only difference.

Those Aldi / Lidl lids are fine for scooters and small bikes but not for the serious biker. If someone can spend 6000k+ on a bike and skimps e60 euro on a cheapo lid he’s a fool. I paid e500+ for my Arai Astro R land before that it was a Doohan special and I don’t ride anything too fancy. The cost is cheap if you spread e100 over five years towards your skull. I wouldn’t use any lid without a "Double D" chin strap.

javaboy

Anan1 wrote: »

These things would only be MANDATORY if you buy a car.;) What does food have to do with it? And why should safety features be tax-free?

Because it would be an incentive to buy a safer car. I agree with you though that the food analogy doesn't hold up. A car is not absolutely necessary to live unlike food.

Anyway, they'd only increase VRT rates or road tax to compensate for lost revenues so don't worry about it.

daRobot

Agree with you, OP.

No way things like xenons should be subject to Vrt either.

Anan1

daRobot wrote: »

Agree with you, OP.

No way things like xenons should be subject to Vrt either.

Why not? And where would you stop? What about a/c? Sports suspension? PASM on a 911?

BlackWizard

xeons bit OTT there.

The luxury items list needs some modernising alright. Condoms are "luxury"

Sandwich

No extras, safety related or not, should be exempt from VAT.
It would reduce the revenue coffers without significantly increasing the purchase of safety equipment in my view.
Does anyone ever seriously think - "ESP, that would be a nice safe feature. How much? E800. Shame, no thanks. It it were E650 id have bought it."

javaboy

Sandwich wrote: »

No extras, safety related or not, should be exempt from VAT.
It would reduce the revenue coffers without significantly increasing the purchase of safety equipment in my view.
Does anyone ever seriously think - "ESP, that would be a nice safe feature. How much? E800. Shame, no thanks. It it were E650 id have bought it."

Actually I think they do. There would be no reduction in revenue coffers anyway. Like I said before, the other motor related taxes would just mysteriously increase :mad:

Anan1

BlackWizard wrote: »

Condoms are "luxury"

If you ask me, it's more luxurious without.

astraboy

Sandwich wrote: »

No extras, safety related or not, should be exempt from VAT.
It would reduce the revenue coffers without significantly increasing the purchase of safety equipment in my view.
Does anyone ever seriously think - "ESP, that would be a nice safe feature. How much? E800. Shame, no thanks. It it were E650 id have bought it."

Are you a troll? Seriously you seem to frequent the motors forum but are in no way interested in cars, you just like to spout politically correct Bull. The problem with VRT/VAT on safety features is that Irish base models are often "poverty spec" without the standard safety features of extra airbags or ESP for instance, that are are standard on base models right across the water in the UK. One recent example is Mitsubishi who removed ESP as a standard feature on a recent car launch in Ireland, making it an option instead to reduce the base models price. Sole reason was our obscure car tax regime.

Now, you can spout the retheroic of how silly people are not to purchase additional safety features(agree) or the greed of the car companies removing them to reduce prices and increase sales, but the buck stops with the Department of Finance with this one. The fact remains more standard safety features or removal of taxes on optional ones will make the cars on irish roads safer over the years, these better equipped models will one day be on the second hand market and the benefit filters down.

Of course this thinking is far removed from the "don't dare go 1kph over the speed limit, slow down, speed kills" sound bites that make the Government look good but do little for road safety in the long run.

Anan1

I dunno, astraboy. It seems to me that Irish buyers are far more interested in alloys and metallic paint than they are in ESP. They'll get safety aids if they're made mandatory, but they don't seem to want to pay for them.

colm_mcm

if something is standard, who decides how much it's worth?

This discussion has been had so many times here. It's not even a good argument. All the anti-VRT brigade are using this as an argument that the Gov don't care about its citizens. I'm not pro VRT, but arguments like this are pointless.
Why not make any product that reduces the risk of someone dying tax free. High Vis jackets, tyres, coffee in service stations, in fact anything that could be argued to have a benificial effect on someones wellbeing, no matter how tenuous.

daRobot

Anan1 wrote: »

Why not? And where would you stop? What about a/c? Sports suspension? PASM on a 911?

A/c isn't likely to promote safety is it...

Xenons provide better lighting conditions for night driving, so to me, that's a safety device.

astraboy

colm_mcm wrote: »

if something is standard, who decides how much it's worth?

This discussion has been had so many times here. It's not even a good argument. All the anti-VRT brigade are using this as an argument that the Gov don't care about its citizens. I'm not pro VRT, but arguments like this are pointless.
Why not make any product that reduces the risk of someone dying tax free. High Vis jackets, tyres, coffee in service stations, in fact anything that could be argued to have a benificial effect on someones wellbeing, no matter how tenuous.

@Anan1: It is true Irish buyers like to tick the options boxes, and often they might not select the extra safety options which seems to be misguided to be honest! however, this largely effects base model cars in the lower price ranges of new cars, ie superminis etc. The guy splashing 60K on a BMW 5 series already has lots of safety equipment as standard. It just seems to be punishing people that choose to make their cars safer, and obviously making cars in the lower end of the market more expensive hurts these buyers more.

As for the comment above, you can justify removing taxes on many safety products. A bit of common sense is obviously needed. Anyway, if the Government chooses to tax drink/ciggies and now possibly fattening foods, why not reduce taxes on the stuff that is good for us and even better makes our roads and our driving a safer pursuit.

Sandwich

astraboy wrote: »

As for the comment above, you can justify removing taxes on many safety products. A bit of common sense is obviously needed. Anyway, if the Government chooses to tax drink/ciggies and now possibly fattening foods, why not reduce taxes on the stuff that is good for us and even better makes our roads and our driving a safer pursuit.

Why not make the same argument for anything that is good for us: bottled water, nicotine patches, broccoli, gym membership..........

astraboy

Sandwich wrote: »

Why not make the same argument for anything that is good for us: bottled water, nicotine patches, broccoli, gym membership..........

The fact is you can make the same argument! Its just a case of common sense being used to not just use the stick but the carrot as well, be it to help people buy safer cars or lead healthier lifestyles! As regards the gym membership, I think removal of VAT on that is a great idea! However again the need for common sense comes in, like someone joining a gym to go on the threadmill should be encouraged, a person joining a "health club" and getting vat off tanning sessions is another!

Back on topic, I think any obvious safety features should not have VRT charged on them. As I said, the new cars with more safety options will trickle down to the second hand market making all the cars on our roads safer eventually. Claiming 20" alloys as a safety feature is an obvious no no. A basic list of exempt beneficial features would suffice. Airbags and electronic aids would be priority. Charging 21% vat, then another tax up to 30% again on safety features is a disgrace and just shows how the Government views motorists, as a handy revenue source, and **** the consequences of our taxation policies.

javaboy

Increase VAT on gyms I say. Anybody who can afford to pay to run indoors when there's perfectly good places to run outside for free can afford to pay a little more tax.

JHMEG

craichoe wrote: »

Bread, Milk and Butter aren't taxed as their basic staple foods.

What!?!? Shoes for children must be optional as they are taxed.

Prescription medicines are taxed, in addition to a 100% markup levied by the pharmacist to subsidise Medical Card holders (in agreement with the then govt), so must also be very optional!

colm_mcm

As cars progress, safety equipment is increasing, there's no point in dissecting every car out there and ruling what's a safety feature and what isn't. aboloshing VAT or VRT isn't a workable option. What if a manufacturer says standard ESP is worth €5k and 9 airbags are worth €2k. how do you put a price on standard equipment?

astraboy

colm_mcm wrote: »

As cars progress, safety equipment is increasing, there's no point in dissecting every car out there and ruling what's a safety feature and what isn't. aboloshing VAT or VRT isn't a workable option. What if a manufacturer says standard ESP is worth €5k and 9 airbags are worth €2k. how do you put a price on standard equipment?

Its not that hard really. Manufacturers offer ESP as an option. Don't put vrt on the price of the option. If its a standard feature then a price comparison or basic rebate could be given. Either way, taxing people not only once(VAT) but twice(VRT) on something that may save their lives, or the lives of others, is a disgrace.

Anyway, the small amount of revenue lost would be made up by the reduction in accidents or the reduction in the severity of accidents and injuries. How much does it cost the state and the economy if someone is off work for 6 months after a crash? Never mind a long term injury. I'm not saying this is the silver bullet to reduce road deaths, but safer cars are one tool in reducing our road deaths. No doubt the Gov will still be spouting the speed kills card in years to come and not looking at basic simple ideas like this.

colm_mcm

How many lives will be saved by a few new cars registered in say the next 4 years having ESP (It'll prob be standard on pretty much everything by then) how many accidents in Ireland could be prevented by ESP. It's not gonna stop people from drink driving, overtaking into oncoming traffic, not paying attention and rear ending a line of stopped traffic, it's not gonna make people turn their lights on in bad weather, it's not gonna make people drive at an appropriate speed.
ESP only has a limited function in a small percentage of potential crashes. I'm all for safety, but this repetitive argument for not taxing safety features is ridiculous.


VRT is a tax based on the accepted value of a car. VAT is a tax that goes on sale of goods. Simple. This idea is nonsense. If we want to reduce road deaths, we need to focus on the drivers rather than the cars.

astraboy

colm_mcm wrote: »

How many lives will be saved by a few new cars registered in say the next 4 years having ESP (It'll prob be standard on pretty much everything by then) how many accidents in Ireland could be prevented by ESP. It's not gonna stop people from drink driving, overtaking into oncoming traffic, not paying attention and rear ending a line of stopped traffic, it's not gonna make people turn their lights on in bad weather, it's not gonna make people drive at an appropriate speed.
ESP only has a limited function in a small percentage of potential crashes. I'm all for safety, but this repetitive argument for not taxing safety features is ridiculous.


VRT is a tax based on the accepted value of a car. VAT is a tax that goes on sale of goods. Simple. This idea is nonsense. If we want to reduce road deaths, we need to focus on the drivers rather than the cars.

Honestly, I agree with most of what you said. Driver training is a huge issue with me and I think we need far far more of it. Of course ESP won't prevent a guy falling out of a pup and driving into a wall. It is, as I said, a tool that would help prevent, avoid or reduce the effect of a crash. Combined with other safety features it could make a genuine impact on road safety into the future. I was merely using ESP as an example. I just fail to see why we should be taxed twice on aspects that can save lives. The Gov spouts plenty about speed cameras etc.

Removing taxes on these would simply make the features, or the cars they are on, more accessible to more people. Nothing ridiculously about that really. No, it won't prevent road deaths overnight, but no one solution will, the key to reducing crashes is to use every available solution as best we can. driver training, better roads, safer cars, more cops on the roads.

colm_mcm

Isn't VRT paying for better roads and more cops on the roads? surely reducing VRT will have a negative impact on the country's tax take and ultimately the safety on the roads?

javaboy

colm_mcm wrote: »

ESP only has a limited function in a small percentage of potential crashes. I'm all for safety, but this repetitive argument for not taxing safety features is ridiculous.

Fair enough but to quote a well known supermarket/petrol station/mortgage lender/phone company/taker over of worlds chain:

"Every little helps"

E92

The danger with all the safety features is that people will think that the electronic gadgets will save them if they do anything wrong and they will pay less attention to driving and drive more carelessly.

As for whether people will pay for safety features, I'd say certainly not, you only have to look at the number of Corolla Versos, Mk1 Avensis, previous generation Corolla and Yaris to see that they won't.

In the case of all bar the Yaris, Toyotas across the pond were fitted with more airbags than here, e.g. 4 for Mk1 Avensis, only 2 here, Corolla Verso has only 5, in the UK it has 9, previous generation Corolla had 4 in the UK and only 2 here initially, then when it got it's facelift we got 4 and they got 8, and only the top spec of any of these had the same amount of airbags that was standard on bottom of the range versions across the pond, and look at how many people bought the base spec of these.

The Yaris only gives you curtain airbags when you go for the top of the range Luna and Sol models, and look at how many Yarises sold here are Terra and Strata models.

Same goes for the Avensis, the biggest seller by a mile is the 1.6 litre engine, and there was no stability control, traction control or brake assist that is standard on all other versions until this year.

It's not just Toyota, others are at this game too, and it doesn't affect their sales either(e.g. Golf, A3 etc).

astraboy

colm_mcm wrote: »

Isn't VRT paying for better roads and more cops on the roads? surely reducing VRT will have a negative impact on the country's tax take and ultimately the safety on the roads?

AAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA . You can't be serious? VRT, paying for better roads?! Get real. The best roads in the country are all being build using public/private partnerships and are tolled.

Anan1

Let's be honest here, the whole VRT on safety equipment argument is bullsh1t. If you want the largest possible number of people possible to benefit from, say, ESP there is only one way - make it mandatory on all new cars. Tax has nothing to do with it.

astraboy

Anan1 wrote: »

Let's be honest here, the whole VRT on safety equipment argument is bullsh1t. If you want the largest possible number of people possible to benefit from, say, ESP there is only one way - make it mandatory on all new cars. Tax has nothing to do with it.

Tax has plenty to do with it. Your taxing a safety feature twice, how is that reasonable. Charge Vat on it fine. Anyway everyone is using ESP as an example, what about extra air bags, etc? Making a safety feature like ESP mandatory would be difficult as many manufacturers use different safety systems. How can you reasonably say making safer cars more favorable is "Bull****". Nice attitude.

Anan1

astraboy wrote: »

How can you reasonably say making safer cars more favorable is "Bull****". Nice attitude.

Where did I say that?

astraboy

Anan1 wrote: »

Where did I say that?

Meant to say affordable sorry! But if the Gov insists on putting extra tax on things that are bad for us, surely the other side of this would be reductions in terms of stuff that is good for the general population. Thats my main point really, sorry if I'm repeating myself.

Anan1

astraboy wrote: »

Meant to say affordable sorry! But if the Gov insists on putting extra tax on things that are bad for us, surely the other side of this would be reductions in terms of stuff that is good for the general population. Thats my main point really, sorry if I'm repeating myself.

Like bicycles?;)

astraboy

Anan1 wrote: »

Like bicycles?;)

I suppose! Someone memtioned Gym membership back earlier and i thought it would be great to remove VAT on it! However you know people will take advantage somehow!