Motor Tax on old cars cost almost as much as the car!

kuro_man

I have a 13 year old Merc 3 litre estate diesel. It was cheap to buy, has 7 seats, does 35mpg easily, and only 8000 miles/year.
Motor tax is €1,231 per annum, meaning the purchase price of the car will be repaid every few years. Over the last 13 years, it has paid €14,000 in motor tax alone.

I have written to Mr Gormley suggestion the road tax should be 1/3rd the rate for car over 10 years old. I have made the following points:
- Cost would be tiny; number of cars in question is very small
- Larger unstressed engines last longer, but attract higher taxes
- Taxes based on CC are punitive and unfair
- Keeping a car as long as possible is good for the environment.
- Not everyone can afford to buy a low-CO2 7 seater (unless its awful!)
- This measure will help those on low incomes who are more likely to drive older cars
- Money keeping older cars is mostly spent in the local economy. Buying new cars sends large amounts of money out of the country
- it will make it more viable to retain potentially classic cars, protection our motoring heritage.

If anyone agrees, join the campaign! Please write a similar letter/e-mail to Mr. Gormley. His email address is john.gormley@oireachtas.ie

Guy:Incognito

kuro_man wrote: »

I have a 13 year old Merc 3 litre estate diesel. It was cheap to buy, has 7 seats, does 35mpg easily, and only 8000 miles/year.
Motor tax is €1,231 per annum, meaning the purchase price of the car will be repaid every few years. Over the last 13 years, it has paid €14,000 in motor tax alone.

How long have you had the car? Is this a rant because you blindly bought a car without checkign the tax rate?

kuro_man wrote: »

I have written to Mr Gormley suggestion the road tax should be 1/3rd the rate for car over 10 years old. I have made the following points:

You've written to the man who brought in a new system to get people out of older bigger cars and into newer , more efficient ones to ask him to encourage people into older , bigger cars by reducing tax?

kuro_man wrote: »

- Taxes based on CC are punitive and unfair:

This has been changed from now on.

kuro_man wrote: »

- Not everyone can afford to buy a low-CO2 7 seater (unless its awful!):

But said people can afford €1200 a year in tax? Nobody forces you to drive a 3 litre car. You chose to and take the associated charges.




-

kuro_man wrote: »

- This measure will help those on low incomes who are more likely to drive older cars!

Why do people on low incomes need 3 litre cars?

kuro_man wrote: »

it will make it more viable to retain potentially classic cars, protection our motoring heritage.!

Old Mercs are Irelands motoring heritage?

Seth Brundle

Stekelly wrote: »

You've written to the man who brought in a new system to get people out of older bigger cars and into newer , more efficient ones to ask him to encourage people into older , bigger cars by reducing tax?

In fairness, people should be encouraged to keep old cars instead of this "keep up with the Jones" attitude and further depleting natural resources.

Stekelly wrote: »

This has been changed from now on.

Not on cars that are already registered here![/quote]

Stekelly

Stekelly wrote: »

Why do people on low incomes need 3 litre cars?

clearly when its costs more to tax a car annually than to buy it things are silly.
Whats your problem with big engines? Its better for the environment to hold onto cars for longer. Plenty of fine cars going to the scrap yard because they are simply old.

galwaytt

Stekelly wrote: »

But said people can afford €1200 a year in tax? Nobody forces you to drive a 3 litre car. You chose to and take the associated charges.......why do people on low incomes need 3 litre cars?

You're completely missing the point: he bought a cheap, safe, economical car with 7 seats, obviously for kids/etc.. It just happens to have a 3 litre engine. I dare say if he'd come across it in 2.0, he'd have bought that.........except Merc never made one....

Where does it say he is 'low income' ? Define 'low income'.

And even if he's a frickin millionaire, he's still right to complain, and he's not obliged buy shiny new unreliable ****boxes that are built just to appease Gormley & Co. Remember, a new Galaxy 2.0 still costs 1k p.a. to tax under the new regime - and that, tbh, is a tax on families. They'd rather you run 2 x 150g cars than 1 x 197 car. Oh yes, that's so blindingly environmentally friendly....:rolleyes: And I'm not including that 2 x cars use more juice than one, and that 2 x new cars have a huge C02 impact by dint of their manufacture.

A 13 year old car has had it's C02 footprinted long evaporated, and, for every minute it runs, it saves tonnes - not grammes -of C02 emitted by dint of not requiring a squeaky new 'clean' one to be built to replace it.

I agree, once cars reach 10 years, there should be a sliding scale downwards on tax, to incentivise people to NOT buy a new one, at a huge cost to the environment. Engine size doesn't even come into it.

Reduce (not so many, new...)
Reuse (keep old ones running, longer)
Recycle (at end of it's use to you, don't scrap it......let someone else use it, whether for vehicle or parts for their own....)

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle ? Don't make me laugh - con job of the year, esp when the minister(s) went out and bought both Lexus' and A8's inside the last few weeks........:mad:


It'll be interesting to see if Cowan allows the low car tax bands and low VRT rates to remain after Oct 14th - Gormally handed away millions in lost revenue, and in the current climate, it won't take a genius to eye up the recoupment possibilities........

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

clearly when its costs more to tax a car annually than to buy it things are silly.

A quick root around carzone will find a car cheaper than every tax bracket.

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats your problem with big engines? .

Where didI say I had a problem with big engines. I drove a 2.5 up till recently. I didnt whinge about the cost of the tax though. I knew what it was before I bought it.

Guy:Incognito

galwaytt wrote: »

Where does it say he is 'low income' ? Define 'low income'.
.

The low income part was the next answer I gave. He mentioned people on low incomes

galwaytt wrote: »

You're completely missing the point: he bought a cheap, safe, economical car with 7 seats, obviously for kids/etc.. It just happens to have a 3 litre engine. I dare say if he'd come across it in 2.0, he'd have bought that.........except Merc never made one.....

Why does it have to be a Merc and /or 3litre? The tax rates are there for all to see. People can make their buyign choice with that in mind. Theres no after purchase surprises here.

10-10-20

I'm happily driving an 11 year old Alfa.
CO and MPG? Poor, I'm sure.

With all of the energy which goes into the production of a new car, I'm sure it works out better.

galwaytt

10-10-20 wrote: »

I'm happily driving an 11 year old Alfa.
CO and MPG? Poor, I'm sure.

With all of the energy which goes into the production of a new car, I'm sure it works out better.

++1 on that.

Guy:Incognito

galwaytt wrote: »

They'd rather you run 2 x 150g cars than 1 x 197 car. Oh yes, that's so blindingly environmentally friendly....:rolleyes: And I'm not including that 2 x cars use more juice than one, and that 2 x new cars have a huge C02 impact by dint of their manufacture.

theres plenty of other 7 seater sin lower brackets. The S-max being one.The 1.8 tdci is in the €430 brackets.


The people who buy new cars are not the same people who buy 13 year old mercs so encouraging people to buy 10yr old+ cars is not goign to reduce the amount of new cars anyway.

To use the Galaxy as an example theres plenty of older 1.9d and 2.0 petrols that would have fit the bill just fine. The OP bought a 3 litre car knowing how much the tax was. If the cost was too high, the simple answer is to buy something that costs less to tax.

If the current system was more in favour of big engined new cars would you all be on here tellign people not to buy a new big engines car but stick to your old 1.2 supermini because it's better for the environment? Or does it suit your current situation/future ambitions to whinge and moan about old bigger cars and you couldnt really give a toss that keeping an older car on the road is better for the environment ?

FWIW my current car , if new would be in the €2000 tax bracket and I dont care about the environment. I will probably buy a newer diesel in a couple of years but it will be a purely financial decision on my part (assumign it's still cheaper)

Magown3

Stekelly wrote: »

theres plenty of other 7 seater sin lower brackets. The S-max being one.The 1.8 tdci is in the €430 brackets.

I didn't know you could buy an S-Max 1.8 TDCI for only €430!! :rolleyes:

I think you're missing the point of the op.

Guy:Incognito

Magown3 wrote: »

I didn't know you could buy an S-Max 1.8 TDCI for only €430!! :rolleyes:

.

If your going to be smart, at least let it make sense.

Magown3 wrote: »

I think you're missing the point of the op.

His only point is that he doesnt want to pay so much tax.

I'd love to pay 5% income tax. It's not going to happen though.

robbie99

kuro_man wrote: »

- Keeping a car as long as possible is good for the environment.

kuro_man wrote: »

- Money keeping older cars is mostly spent in the local economy. Buying new cars sends large amounts of money out of the country
- it will make it more viable to retain potentially classic cars, protection our motoring heritage.

Eh, there's already a huge incentive in place to keep cars for as long as possible... VRT.

Run_to_da_hills

If the OP can hang on to his prised Merc for another 17 years it will can be taxed as vintage

Currently it is only e36 per year and it will be also NCT exempt

kuro_man

For the record, I have the car almost 2 years. I knew the tax would be high but I wanted the diesel (3L) over petrol (2L, 2.2L) because they are better more efficient engines, last longer and can easily be converted to bio-diesel if it becomes feasible.

(I know there is a 2.5L diesel but they are extremely rare in an estate because it is underpowered)

The simple point is that smaller engines die younger. Large engines, with less stress, last longer - especially diesels. The CC based tax punishes people with larger engines that last. W124 E-class is considered the last of the breed of Mercs built to a quality not a price - it would be sinful scrap such a cars because the government taxes them so highly.

I didn't want to get into debt to buy a younger car, and I don't like MPVs. The merc is lovely to drive and has the best boot ever; it will probably prove to be more reliable than an MPV as well. It's perfect for my family and I intend to keep it until it dies or I die (which ever happens first!).

My proposal was to reduce the motor-tax to 1/3rd on ALL cars over 10 years old, not just those with large engines. This still has me paying over €400, which I think is a fairer amount.

TomMc

robbie99 wrote: »

Eh, there's already a huge incentive in place to keep cars for as long as possible... VRT.

Exactly.

The govt want people buying new cars every few years to maximise on VRT revenue. A car bought for the long haul is a once only payment, they want people changing cars every 2 to 3 years. They can put certain green issues into the mix to give the impression that is what matters most, but there is also a certain element of duplicity going on. If the govt really cared about the environment they would not encourage people to buy five cars when one car would suffice for a say a ten year period. What is happening is if motorists want the new tax rates they are forced to buy new and get stung on VRT. It is swings and roundabouts or a double edged sword. Bottom line it is more about money, not high minded ideals. If they cannot screw us on VRT they will do so on road tax. And they change the rules as they go along and when and where they see fit. Revenue before right-minded values or principles.

TomMc

If the Government had vision and principles, they would scrap VRT (It is illegal afterall), and road tax (or at least leave it as a nominal amount) and put it all on fuel. Then whoever drives the most, in the most uneconomical (environmentally unfriendly) vehicles, pay the most. Simplistic yes, but effective and fair. But no, diddle the motorist, they are an easy target because without a proper public transport system, our personal freedom and having any quality of life kind of depends on one. And we will pay through the nose for doing so and won't fight back. (It should be a right not merely a privilege). We are a soft touch, an easy target, it is a pity we are not a little more like the French.

mike65

Burning sheep wouldn't work I suspect. :pac:

The rest I agree with - "pay as you go"

Mike.

alpina

Talking to our government on this issue is just frustrating & will make you blow up, Gormley does not give a **** about our large engine classic cars.
Just tax mine for the summer, may aswell have thrown the €324 down the toilet this year unless we get a heatwave fefore the end of the month...:rolleyes:

Well that's my Friday rant, apologies.

E92

kuro_man wrote: »

For the record, I have the car almost 2 years. I knew the tax would be high but I wanted the diesel (3L) over petrol (2L, 2.2L) because they are better more efficient engines, last longer and can easily be converted to bio-diesel if it becomes feasible.

(I know there is a 2.5L diesel but they are extremely rare in an estate because it is underpowered)

The simple point is that smaller engines die younger. Large engines, with less stress, last longer - especially diesels. The CC based tax punishes people with larger engines that last. W124 E-class is considered the last of the breed of Mercs built to a quality not a price - it would be sinful scrap such a cars because the government taxes them so highly.

I didn't want to get into debt to buy a younger car, and I don't like MPVs. The merc is lovely to drive and has the best boot ever; it will probably prove to be more reliable than an MPV as well. It's perfect for my family and I intend to keep it until it dies or I die (which ever happens first!).

My proposal was to reduce the motor-tax to 1/3rd on ALL cars over 10 years old, not just those with large engines. This still has me paying over €400, which I think is a fairer amount.

Absolutely. Large engines rarely have to be pushed hard. Smaller engines are like trying to put a square peg in a round hole - they either don't get stressed out and have zero power, or they can get a shift on but they're either going to be expensive to make or else very unreliable.

I really don't see the latest super duper diesels with 100 bhp per litre lasting very long at all.

Similarly does anyone really expect the new Ibiza Curpa with no less than 180 bhp from just 1.4 litres to be very reliable, especially as with this engine being installed in a hot hatch, it is going to be thrashed on a regular basis?

I certainly don't, and VAG even admits that the less powerful versions are only good for 300k km, or 186k miles.

Meanwhile older, but less powerful VWs used to do up to 300k miles, not km without too much trouble.

OTOH, when it comes to reducing CO2, we only have to reduce our own, us buying newer cars will reduce this country's CO2 emissions, especially with the VRT system the way it is and the fact that new cars produce on average 21 g/km less than before the changeover to CO2 emissions and it will improve our air quality now that the Euro 5 emissions standards are coming along, and thus will help us avoid all the fines. We don't have to care about what is actually the best thing for the environment, as long as we reduce our CO2 footprint by buying new cars and transferring the Co2 from this country to another, so who cares:rolleyes:?

We're not going to get any sympathy from Kyoto when we tell them that "ah sure what's really bad for the planet is us all buying new cars and not keeping the older ones for longer, so we took a principled stand in the interest of saving the planet and decided not to incentivise buying new cars; our CO2 emissions thus aren't down as much as we had hoped but sure look we'll have helped out a few other countries to cut down theirs":rolleyes:.

Instead, what we need to make absolutely sure is that we don't start increasing VRT, and instead work towards moving towards taxing those who pollute most i.e. phasing out VRT in favour of taxing the fuel.

And since diesel is taxed at 6 cent a litre less than petrol, this would be a very good place to start, as diesel produces 13% more CO2 than petrol for every litre burned.

galwaytt

Stekelly wrote: »

theres plenty of other 7 seater sin lower brackets. The S-max being one.The 1.8 tdci is in the €430 brackets.

Not so. First of all, you won't get an S-Max for the same money.The cheapest 7-seat 1.8 S-Max on Carzone is Eur 24,000. The Merc is worth, what.....3500 ?? Even if he did borrow the money to buy the S-Max as some sort of deluded environmental guilt, the interest on the money would add to the cost, and make the gap between the actual running costs of the two cars even larger.

Secondly, it will not last as long, and so will ultimately cost more than, that old Merc over it's lifetime. E92's post regarding longevity is correct in this respect. As the (unfortunate) purchaser of a new 1.8Tdci in March 07, I can state that for a fact.

E92 - and I'm not sure if you were being serious or sarcastic - the notion that by changing our cars for cleaner ones will reduce our C02 emissions measurably beneficially is exactly that.....notional. As Mr Gormley has decided to only calculate and benefit emissions on cars registered from Jan 1 2008 in the VRT scheme, then, in order to replace the entire national fleet (2.2m vehicles) with one of (credibly lower) C02 output will take in excess of 14 years, at current sales rates.

Are we to honestly expect therefore, that our annual motoring contribution is anything other than token, in a world-wide context ?? Emerging economies around the world, for instance, do not have EU standards for emissions, and to expect a minority (us) of a minority (EU) of a group, to bring any credible effect is.......well, frankly, incredible..........that may sound negative, depressing even, but no less true.

So why are we killing ourselves to make an effort, when it clearly behoves govt to facilitate us, but in fact does nothing of the sort.

Hypocrisy Central, Do As I Say, Not Do As I Do, HERE

To use the Galaxy as an example theres plenty of older 1.9d and 2.0 petrols that would have fit the bill just fine.

But are there, really? They are - significantly - of lower quality. Why voluntarily buy poor quality - it'll only add to the cost in the long run......there is a reason a Merc costs more than a Galaxy in the first place.

If the current system was more in favour of big engined new cars would you all be on here tellign people not to buy a new big engines car but stick to your old 1.2 supermini because it's better for the environment?

.. but you'd have the choice, not this Gormley-led 1984-like funnel vision of what's good for us......

.. [ Or does it suit your current situation/future ambitions to whinge and moan about old bigger cars and you couldnt really give a toss that keeping an older car on the road is better for the environment ?

...let's not let facts get in the way of a good yarn....why we should keep old 'uns.......

FWIW my current car , if new would be in the €2000 tax bracket and I dont care about the environment. I will probably buy a newer diesel in a couple of years but it will be a purely financial decision on my part (assumign it's still cheaper)

Indeed, and that's your choice. But that doesn't make the OP's point any less valid - you are prepared to pay the tax, irrespective. The OP feels it unjust, and has just cause, especially in the light of facts: that if the environment were truly at the centre of the issue, we wouldn't be taxing vehicles in this fashion at all, and to coin their own phrase: 'polluter pays'. Yeah, right .............

carchaeologist

TomMc wrote: »

Exactly.

The govt want people buying new cars every few years to maximise on VRT revenue. A car bought for the long haul is a once only payment, they want people changing cars every 2 to 3 years. They can put certain green issues into the mix to give the impression that is what matters most, but there is also a certain element of duplicity going on. If the govt really cared about the environment they would not encourage people to buy five cars when one car would suffice for a say a ten year period. What is happening is if motorists want the new tax rates they are forced to buy new and get stung on VRT. It is swings and roundabouts or a double edged sword. Bottom line it is more about money, not high minded ideals. If they cannot screw us on VRT they will do so on road tax. And they change the rules as they go along and when and where they see fit. Revenue before right-minded values or principles.

Well said..its always about the money..

Seth Brundle

TomMc wrote: »

If the Government had vision and principles, they would scrap VRT (It is illegal afterall), and road tax (or at least leave it as a nominal amount) and put it all on fuel. Then whoever drives the most, in the most uneconomical (environmentally unfriendly) vehicles, pay the most. Simplistic yes, but effective and fair. But no, diddle the motorist, they are an easy target because without a proper public transport system, our personal freedom and having any quality of life kind of depends on one. And we will pay through the nose for doing so and won't fight back. (It should be a right not merely a privilege). We are a soft touch, an easy target, it is a pity we are not a little more like the French.

1. Its not illegal! End of!
Its not nice, fair, etc. but its certainly not illegal.
2. The government rake in too much money for them to abolish the entire system and bring in something that would wake people into using public transport or whatever.

alpina wrote: »

Talking to our government on this issue is just frustrating & will make you blow up, Gormley does not give a **** about our large engine classic cars.
Just tax mine for the summer, may aswell have thrown the €324 down the toilet this year unless we get a heatwave fefore the end of the month...:rolleyes:

€324 - pfft! Mine is €899 and with a few more cc it would be a lot more!
Gormley is a puppet who was fairly good in opposition but seems to have sold out once he got power. Out of curiosity, whats he driving now?
Does anyone remember when his missus used his gas-guzzling mayoral car (Volvo) to go to and from work whilst John was bragging about how he didn't use the car (because it was not green)? Feckin hypocrite!

Our government don't give a rats ass about the carbon footprint of a new car simply because its not made here so Ireland isn't responsible for the carbon amount!

Henry Ford III

The system, warts and all, is still the system. You'd be certifiable if you believed there was a hope in hell of road tax being reduced for any vehicle currently.

cronndiesel

the new system suits the importers/dist clique too
the fact is that we ve moved overall to the japanese system but they have a vested interest in having things how they are over there as they have tens of thousands of people employed in the auto industry they actually make the stuff where we threw ours away thinking thats what britain was doing but they were just adusting eg big plants making nissans and toyotas etc (sure if they took off all their clothes we d do that too:rolleyes:)

well done kuro_man and well said galway tt its not about the enviornment at all just an other money making racket though complaining isnt going to get anywhere action might-maybe if we just refused to co operate:D

kuro_man

To add insult to injury, the reason my mileage is so low is because I cycle to work. Then I have to put up with terrible cycle-lanes, poor surfaces and ignorant drivers - ironically often taxis in a E300 diesel, taxed at €79pa!

blackbox

I totally agree that it is unfair.

However, the high road tax does affect the market, so it brings down the price of larger engined cars.

Also, on the positive side, once you go above 3 litres it doesn't increase any more.

It would be nice if there was a sliding scale towards the "classic" rate, but unfortunately this affects such a small proportion of the population (electorate) that politicians have no interest.

unkel

blackbox wrote: »

the high road tax does affect the market, so it brings down the price of larger engined cars.

Good point not often made here

CyberGhost

Stekelly wrote: »

But said people can afford €1200 a year in tax? Nobody forces you to drive a 3 litre car. You chose to and take the associated charges.

Why do people on low incomes need 3 litre cars?

It's sad that most of the people think this way in this country, big engines are awesome, more reliable and more pleasant to drive.

The road tax in Ireland is a complete and absolute rip off, and you know it.

I'd rather drive an older car with a 3 litter engine than a new one with a 1.4 litter.

I was on a trip to eastern europe recently when I came back I was shocked by what garbage drives here. A 1.2-1.4 engine is considered to be a mid sided engine here.

smash

It annoys me paying 1,200 a year for a 10 year old car that's only worth about 6k and that I only drive about 3k a year but I love the car so I'll pay up!

Government attitudes will only change if we(the public) give them a choice:
1. Work for and with the people
2. Get the hell out of power

Neither of these will ever happen because:
1. We're not a country full of petrol heads and as such the average Joe public thinks anything over 1.6 is big and it's 'killing the planet'
2. Not enough people will protest

We should take a tip from students... college fees might come back - go and protest!!!! But what do we do as motorists? hidden speed traps on perfectly safe roads, crazy VRT, stupid tax system.... we sit back and accept it and moan and never lift a finger!

I will say 1 thing, tax and VRT will never come down now, but if they do up in the next budget which is happening pretty soon then I'll be outside the DAIL with my car and I'll bring as many people as I can!

Guy:Incognito

CyberGhost wrote: »

It's sad that most of the people think this way in this country, big engines are awesome, more reliable and more pleasant to drive.

.

Why are you trying to make it sound like I went off on an anti big car rant?

As I said in a post in this thread, until recently I drove a 2.5 , which happened to get 19-20 mpg. I knew getting in what the costs were. I chose to buy and use the car. I didnt whinge and moan about the cost of things.

I still faily to see what the issue is with me askig why low income people need 3 litre cars. (The OP brought up the low income part btw) . If people on lower incomes have issues with the tax, why do they not have issue with fuel economy? If your on a tight budget and/or the car is just a means to transport family then costs are your main factors, be they tax, fuel or whatever. A 3 litre Merc is not going to be anywhere near the top of the list (top being best for said families) for fuel economy, tax or service costs.


Plus as the point was made above. If tax was €400 on a 3 litre merc they wouldnt be as cheap as they are anyway.

astraboy

Stekelly wrote: »

Why are you trying to make it sound like I went off on an anti big car rant?

As I said in a post in this thread, until recently I drove a 2.5 , which happened to get 19-20 mpg. I knew getting in what the costs were. I chose to buy and use the car. I didnt whinge and moan about the cost of things.

I still faily to see what the issue is with me askig why low income people need 3 litre cars. (The OP brought up the low income part btw) . If people on lower incomes have issues with the tax, why do they not have issue with fuel economy? If your on a tight budget and/or the car is just a means to transport family then costs are your main factors, be they tax, fuel or whatever. A 3 litre Merc is not going to be anywhere near the top of the list (top being best for said families) for fuel economy, tax or service costs.


Plus as the point was made above. If tax was €400 on a 3 litre merc they wouldnt be as cheap as they are anyway.

You seem obsessed with the fact the guy is driving a 3L car. You'd swear it was some 6.8L V8 he was on about!:rolleyes: His point is simple, the car, for its age, mileage, and current maket value, is far over taxed and has by now payed back its market value to the Revenue more then once over. There is no reason to tax a car worth say 2K, over 1K a year because of a silly cc based system that does not change as the car ages, and its value decreases.

The guy probably could have gone out and bought a new people carrier, and pay less tax a year. Buying an older car is more cost effective, probably gives him more space(older bigger cars are cheaper then buying new) and is better for the environment as the car does not end up on the scrapheap for a new car. His 'Big' 3L engine, ensures he will pay plenty of tax at the pump, so why screw him for tax 50% of the cars value that is unrelated to how much it is used? It does also make our roads a bit more interesting, older cars become classics and not everyone wants to drive a 08 C-max.

The main point is that charging 1K a year or more in tax on a car only worth twice that is unfair in the extreme, and the fact that he knew the running costs going in does not make the situation any fairer that people are being screwed, especially those that like to make sure they drive their car until it dies, but end up facing paying the same tax over the life of the car(or facing increases in road tax far more then inflation)

IMO his points are valid and I agree with him.

Guy:Incognito

astraboy wrote: »

You seem obsessed with the fact the guy is driving a 3L car. .

No, it would just be a bit pointless putting a different size in my sentences seeing as we are talking about the OP's 3 litre car.

cancan

The irish motor taxation system is nuts whatever way you look at it.
We have a '97 2.0 ltr auto carina at home, which a few of my siblings use when the visit home, to save them renting a car.

Due to the taxation system, that car is virtually worthless.
It costs ~600e to tax the thing for the year - it does maybe 3000 miles a year.

A perfectly good car will be going to scrapper soon, because the green party thinks that that’s the best place for a perfectly good car.

I would guess that the car is good for another 10 years, but our taxation system means that it's off to an early grave because our taxation system is stupid.

2.0 ltr, 3.0ltr, it doesn’t matter - being forced to throw away perfectly good cars for "green" reasons does not make any sense.

Yet these green idiots think that my buying a low emissions BMW and driving as huge miles a year should be taxed less.

While stekelly thinks there is no reason for the OP or myself to have a 3.0 or 2.0 car, hopefully he can justify why throwing them away is better?

Guy:Incognito

cancan wrote: »

While stekelly thinks there is no reason for the OP or myself to have a 3.0 or 2.0 car, hopefully he can justify why throwing them away is better?

Where did i say any of that? I've no problem if people want to drive 8 litre cars. I'd do so myself if there was a particular one I liked and could afford. As it was I could afford to buy and run a 2.5, so I did.

Guy:Incognito

cancan wrote: »

Yet these green idiots think that my buying a low emissions BMW and driving as huge miles a year should be taxed less.
?

Why would the newer lower emissions BMW be doing any more mileage than the carina in your case?

Your scenario is reasonably unique in that you are using your car as an occasional one for visitors. That is nothing to do with the point the op is making.

BTW , why tax it for the year and not i3 month segments around when it'll be used? (assuming its not in use every month).

Why is the car being scrapped anyway? Itll sell for a few hundred euro, even in the current climate, and if it's being replaced with another occasional car, then thats just pointless.

Dave147

Stekelly wrote: »

Why does it have to be a Merc and /or 3litre? The tax rates are there for all to see. People can make their buyign choice with that in mind. Theres no after purchase surprises here.

Why does my car have to be Audi? It's because I want one, I'm happy to drive audi and not something else. So he wants to drive this merc and not another car. Why should he have to suffer because of an absolutely corrupt government robbing us blind.

I pay my motor tax, I also paid my mechanic for 800 euro for a whole new set of shocks for my car. Why you ask? Because of the big huge potholes all over my roads. My families tax for a year could pay for the whole road to be fixed. Still waiting, 11 years later.

superjosh9

My 1998 Volvo 945 (2.3 LPT AUTO, 115,000 miles) is pretty hard on petrol. However, it covers less than 5000 miles per year these days - and yet I use it almost every day. I would prefer to keep it but its days are numbered as, like the OP said, the tax is a killer. I would prefer to spend the money on a new car rather than spend the extra few hundred on the tax because I feel it is going directly into someone's back pocket - and frankly I don't like that.

So which is worse for the envoronment, me keeping the 20-25 MPG Volvo on the road, or me going out and buying that new car???

I agree with the initial point that we can't all go out and afford to buy new cars which are low on C02 - and indeed, what could be worse than all of us going out and buying new cars for the environment?!? The motor industry needs to make that quantum leap forward in fuel efficiency right NOW in order to justify it all - because right now - there's damn all in it. But, as it is, they're drip-feeding the technology and therefore the rates, just like any good firm that knows how to make money.

Sounds like the Irish government.

superjosh9

btw, I think one of the points that the OP was making that has been maybe misinterpreted was about the large engines - is it not a waste to get rid of all these cars just because they have large engines? In a lot of other countries - maybe even most - these old cars would still be travelling around not a bother, esp from tax viewpoint etc.

galwaytt

Stekelly wrote: »

....Your scenario is reasonably unique in that you are using your car as an occasional one for visitors. That is nothing to do with the point the op is making.

No it's not. I have 3.0, and do less the 4k miles a year, and it's used every week - Thurs/Fri Eve, and the odd Saturday - the rest of the week I drive a bike. But I still have to pay a ludicrous tax.

And on that basis, I am a low-emissions motorist, but get no acknowledgement for it.

Superjosh - don't do it. I guarantee you'll regret it. I sold our (new) 07 1.8Tdci Galaxy, went back to an old 3.0 petrol. My cost-per-month are now less, even allowing for the rip-off tax, and a bit more fuel. No car payments, no depreciation, and I have a car I love. You'd be doing the same, and yours has all the toys. When you work it out, your new 'friendly' car will annoy the **** out of you because of the quality you had to give up........and you won't be saving any money.

What's not to like ?

cancan

Whats the point having emissions based of a per mile figure, that has absolutely nothing to do with the yearly emissions that that car will actually make?

Makes a mockery of the whole green idea behind taxation.

The taxation system is not right if it forces perfectly good cars off the roads.

VH

people always have choice - a friend recently bought a 7 seater toyota, also 13 years old and diesel, automatic, but its a 2.0 litre. he loves it. have say its a grand yoke - i like it too.

Seth Brundle

cancan wrote: »

Whats the point having emissions based of a per mile figure, that has absolutely nothing to do with the yearly emissions that that car will actually make?

Makes a mockery of the whole green idea behind taxation.

The taxation system is not right if it forces perfectly good cars off the roads.

The emissions based system is ideal politically.
Visually Gormley can address the green party and claim that he has saved the world. He can also go up to the Minister for Finance and say that he is still pulling in loads of dosh in motor tax.

Reality has nothing to do with vote getting.

Owen

There's a reason Gormley's nickname is Gormless.

unkel

In fairness to Stekelly, his point is not against cars with big engines or even in favour of high taxes for big engined cars. He's just stating that if you buy a big engined car, you know up front that tax is going to be high

galwaytt

unkel wrote: »

In fairness to Stekelly, his point is not against cars with big engines or even in favour of high taxes for big engined cars. He's just stating that if you buy a big engined car, you know up front that tax is going to be high

and the corollary of that - unfairness ?? - is that Stekelly ignored the OP's points, and went on a rant of his own.

The OP opened his post with a statement about his vehicle, and extolled a list of points in second paragraph on tax, I would submit, generally.

For the record.....OP did not advocate large cars for 'low income' families. What he actually said, was 'older cars'. Out of 8 points, in one paragraph, only two related to engine size. Stekelly add 1+1=3.

superjosh9

galwaytt wrote: »

Superjosh - don't do it...

I like your thinking - and I believe that was all the convincing that I needed! It's true, I've sat into/test-driven so many new cars now and everytime I've been left disappointed.

The motor-tax should not be a separate thing but should be lumped into the price of fuel instead, so then we can all decide how often to use our cars and also determine ourselves what car to use without being taxed unfairly.

This way, we would be taxed directly on how often we use our cars. i.e, The old 940 drives 5000 miles/year max - and yet I probably pay double the average or more on tax - even though I might be using one third of the fuel that others use - even with my 20-25 mpg.

Hmm, maybe I'll write to that Gormley fellow.

superjosh9

Big engined old cars are cheap because they've been taxed so hard. Catch 22. But, at the same time, it becomes prohibitive for people to keep their big engined cars for more than a few years since, as the op said, they are paying more tax than the car is worth. So they have to sell them, even if they like them. Another.. Catch 22. But yeh, lets go save the environment and lets use all the remaining resources to build those cars we must buy. :mad:

astraboy

Stekelly wrote: »

No, it would just be a bit pointless putting a different size in my sentences seeing as we are talking about the OP's 3 litre car.

well you seem to think its ok for him to be taxed to death because he bought a larger engined car. 3L, 4L, 2L, it doesn't matter, the original point about tax decreasing once a car gets, say, 10 years old, stands as a seriously valid one to consider.

Just because the guy knew the tax going in does not make the tax rate ok, or any less of a rip off. You, as someone who drove what our tax system considers 'large' should agree.

The OP's points are hugely valid. I'm even sure owners of 10year old plus cars put a larger proportion of money into upkeep and maintenance, and vat from this work and parts, as well as fuel, would more then counteract a fairer and more decent system where a person is rewarded for keeping their car on the road for longer.

Unfortunately, as many have said, the taxation scheme is all political, and if someone in the Gov came up with a actual origional idea to keep older cars on the road, the motor industry and the Dept of finance would be up in arms. I was around Europe(France, Spain and Italy) recently and was surprized at the number of older cars driving around, in fairly good nick. How often does one see a Renualt 19 or equivalent on the roads these days? People are now totally encouraged to seek out a 08 plate, not only to keep up with the neighbors, but to decrease annual road tax.

As we all know, a simple tax on fuel, and removal of the road tax scheme alltogether(bar perhaps a flat fee each year for every car) would solve this problem. People would be free to drive their Eco boxes all over the country, and those with a passion for cars with more power can drive them on the weekend and pay proportionately.

galwaytt

superjosh9 wrote: »

Hmm, maybe I'll write to that Gormley fellow.

Yes, you, we all, should.

I'll be sending him a note tonight on another matter, having seen him on TV last night, handing over the Tidy Towns awards. Something he said made my blood boil..........but that's a different forum (not car related.....):mad:

FWIW, my sis-in-laws 2.5 3-series only does 1mpg less, on average, than the 1.9 it replaced ..............so big engine/big fuel bills, are a myth..........even my 3.0 on is giving about 26mpg.

vibe666

unkel wrote: »

In fairness to Stekelly, his point is not against cars with big engines or even in favour of high taxes for big engined cars. He's just stating that if you buy a big engined car, you know up front that tax is going to be high

all the regular motors posters know Stekelly likes nothing more than riling up people who think the government unfairly taxes consumers. If he had his way whatever the government has in store for us (regardless of how unfair it might be) we should all be lubed up and bent over ready to take it with a smile on our faces.

but to be fair I'm being overly harsh on him and in some respects he's right, coming on here and whinging about it isn't going to change anything. I'm sure if anyone actually ever got a bunch of people together to campaign outside the dail, he's be there with the rest of us waving a banner for cheaper taxes and I bet he's going to past something now to confirm as much!

there was a link to a carbon offset calculator a week or so ago in here showing the carbon tax rip off scheme for what it is.

anyway, i have a 2.8L TD Pajero because it will happily run on 100% biodiesel and with some minor modifications it will run on veg oil blends too. Litre for litre when using 100% Biodiesel my co2 footprint is slightly less than a Toyota Prius, so I'm pretty chuffed about that in itself.

I do about 15-20k a year so decided to see what my carbon offset would be. it turns out that if I want to 'pay off' my carbon debt for doing 20k miles a year in a 20mpg diesel guzzler it will cost me a grand total of a smidgen under £130.

I wonder what the carbon offset cost of manufacturing a Prius is (anyone who saw the bit about that on Top Gear will know what I mean)?