Motorists and THE LAW

ART6

Reading the threads here about the M50 toll started a thought about The Law in general as applied to us motorists. In spite of the public reaction to the M50 rip off, we are being told that we have to pay the toll because it is THE LAW. Ok, so who's law?

Law, in my simplistic view, is something that is intended to protect the public from harm or to enhance the civilised society. It may be enacted as a result of public demand, or to deal with a problem perceived by our elected representatives. Therefore, speed limits, for example, may not be popular but they do meet the above criteria. However, when a law is enacted to meet the aspirations of a political party, to enforce a political egenda, or to simply enshrine an unjust tax, then I am inclined to respond "It is not The Law. It's your law."

So, we are required to pay VRT and VAT on it when we buy a car. We are then required to tax it every year for the privilege of using what we already own. We are required to pay excise duty on fuel, with VAT charged on the excise duty although to any sensible person they are both tax, and now we are required to pay to use a bridge we already own and have, to date, paid for (a rough estimate) 45 times over.

I fancy that if this was not THE LAW it would be fraud. Motorist's trade union anyone? That's the only thing the current crop of politicians seem to understand.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

start voting in more libertarian politicians, otherwise suck it up because there's no way it's going to change.

Robbo

ART6 wrote: »

Reading the threads here about the M50 toll started a thought about The Law in general as applied to us motorists. In spite of the public reaction to the M50 rip off, we are being told that we have to pay the toll because it is THE LAW. Ok, so who's law?

Law, in my simplistic view, is something that is intended to protect the public from harm or to enhance the civilised society. It may be enacted as a result of public demand, or to deal with a problem perceived by our elected representatives. Therefore, speed limits, for example, may not be popular but they do meet the above criteria. However, when a law is enacted to meet the aspirations of a political party, to enforce a political egenda, or to simply enshrine an unjust tax, then I am inclined to respond "It is not The Law. It's your law."

So, we are required to pay VRT and VAT on it when we buy a car. We are then required to tax it every year for the privilege of using what we already own. We are required to pay excise duty on fuel, with VAT charged on the excise duty although to any sensible person they are both tax, and now we are required to pay to use a bridge we already own and have, to date, paid for (a rough estimate) 45 times over.

I fancy that if this was not THE LAW it would be fraud. Motorist's trade union anyone? That's the only thing the current crop of politicians seem to understand.

What we really need is a motoring secessionist movement, a United Vehicle Front or Cars in Ireland Representative Association. Y'know, the kind of thing that the Offences Against the State Act loves...

ardmacha

You live in a democracy, society has determined that these are appropriate taxes, which are needed to pay for the government activities in that society. If you don't agree you can vote for people with other policies.

I'd say some of the people on here who think there shouldn't be taxes on motorists also think there should be smaller classes in school, medical cards for old folks and so on. You can't have everything.

ART6

ardmacha wrote: »

You live in a democracy, society has determined that these are appropriate taxes, which are needed to pay for the government activities in that society. If you don't agree you can vote for people with other policies.

I'd say some of the people on here who think there shouldn't be taxes on motorists also think there should be smaller classes in school, medical cards for old folks and so on. You can't have everything.

I wouldn't suggest that there shouldn't be taxes on cars, but rather that the taxes should be seen to be fair and reasonable in relation to the importance of them to the national economy -- eg: people unable to get to work without them. What I resent is unfair and exhorbitant taxes protected by "The Law", which is quoted as if to suggest that there is no argument against them. Personally I'd like to see a flat tax system that excludes all stealth taxes and is transparent. In Ireland? Some hope.

Beta Ray Bill

Robbo wrote: »

What we really need is a motoring secessionist movement, a United Vehicle Front or Cars in Ireland Representative Association. Y'know, the kind of thing that the Offences Against the State Act loves...

What we need is for some lad in a big artic to block the entrances to the bridge from both sides and force the governments hand.

I Absolutely refuse to pay TOLLS on Motorways. I will either drive through town or use the old Roads.

I make regular trips out of Dublin an haven't paid a TOLL in at least 2 years. I pay high enough road tax already. I am not paying for a TOLL as well.

Jumpy

Robbo wrote: »

What we really need is a motoring secessionist movement, a United Vehicle Front or Cars in Ireland Representative Association. Y'know, the kind of thing that the Offences Against the State Act loves...

The Real Informed Roads Association?

craichoe

ART6 wrote: »

I wouldn't suggest that there shouldn't be taxes on cars, but rather that the taxes should be seen to be fair and reasonable in relation to the importance of them to the national economy -- eg: people unable to get to work without them. What I resent is unfair and exhorbitant taxes protected by "The Law", which is quoted as if to suggest that there is no argument against them. Personally I'd like to see a flat tax system that excludes all stealth taxes and is transparent. In Ireland? Some hope.

What would you definition of fair and reasonable be with one of the highest average wages in the european union ?

TBH I think Tax for Car usage in Ireland is quite low, VRT is lower than BPM in the Netherlands for example and Petrol is way cheaper. Road tax on a 1.9TDI here is 1100 euros per year.

ART6

craichoe wrote: »

What would you definition of fair and reasonable be with one of the highest average wages in the european union ?

TBH I think Tax for Car usage in Ireland is quite low, VRT is lower than BPM in the Netherlands for example and Petrol is way cheaper. Road tax on a 1.9TDI here is 1100 euros per year.

With respect, I don't see what tax rates in another country have to do with it, or average wages for that matter. It's my opinion that the government in Ireland continues to rip off the electorate with excessive motoring taxes (icluding stealth taxes of which the M50 toll is one). The fact that other governments in other countries may be worse is not the point.

seamus

The purpose of the law is to protect and uphold the standards of a civilised society. A civilised society requires income in the form of taxation. Therefore to protect society, we must pass laws to ensure that taxes are paid.

The nature of these taxes is largely irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

Steve

seamus wrote: »

The purpose of the law is to protect and uphold the standards of a civilised society. A civilised society requires income in the form of taxation. Therefore to protect society, we must pass laws to ensure that taxes are paid.

That's all fine and dandy but the same law also enables private operators to operate toll bridges with relatively little return to the state coffers.

Yes, the M50 is now pure tax but what about the other privately run tolls.

seamus

I'm just refuting the OP, I didn't say I loved the tolls

Private operators are far more secure in their position, because as best I understand it they own the piece of road which they toll, so the charges are no different to car parking fees and so forth.

Steve

seamus wrote: »

I'm just refuting the OP, I didn't say I loved the tolls

I should hope not..:D

ART6

seamus wrote: »

The purpose of the law is to protect and uphold the standards of a civilised society. A civilised society requires income in the form of taxation. Therefore to protect society, we must pass laws to ensure that taxes are paid.

The nature of these taxes is largely irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

I think perhaps you're missing my point. I was not campaigning for no taxation at all since that would be stupid. What I DO object to is the law being used to defend taxes that are patently unreasonable. So, in the case of the M50, the government bought the bridge from NTR for €600 millions of our money and are now demanding payment from us all over again and at a higher rate than NTR charged. In my definition, money taken from the public by the government is tax, plain and simple, and this is an unfair tax.

seamus wrote: »

I'm just refuting the OP, I didn't say I loved the tolls

Private operators are far more secure in their position, because as best I understand it they own the piece of road which they toll, so the charges are no different to car parking fees and so forth.

If a private operator owns a road that he has paid to be built, then I don't have a problem with his charging tolls for it's use. In the same way, I didn't object to NTR charging, since they built the bridge at their own expense (I assume). However, since it was a PPP deal, there should have been a time limit placed on the tolls so that when the bridge was paid for and a reasonable rate of return had been earned, it should have been transferred to public ownership. In this case, the government bought the bridge, but the government is not a private operator and it doesn't own anything. The people do.

LightningBolt

I think we need to form a new group like the Car Users of National Tolls Society and complain about all these change. Imagine a nation of car driving....

Guy:Incognito

ART6 wrote: »

I think perhaps you're missing my point. I was not campaigning for no taxation at all since that would be stupid. What I DO object to is the law being used to defend taxes that are patently unreasonable. So, in the case of the M50, the government bought the bridge from NTR for €600 millions of our money and are now demanding payment from us all over again and at a higher rate than NTR charged. In my definition, money taken from the public by the government is tax, plain and simple, and this is an unfair tax.

Toll roads are a fact of life all over the world. I dont know of any country that remove the tolls on roads when they have recouped the cost of the road.

The roads that were there 20 years ago are still there and can be used. The toll bridge on the M50 is not a compulsory tax, it can be gotten around, but you cannot have the convenience of the bridge without paying the toll.

ART6

Stekelly wrote: »

Toll roads are a fact of life all over the world. I dont know of any country that remove the tolls on roads when they have recouped the cost of the road.

The roads that were there 20 years ago are still there and can be used. The toll bridge on the M50 is not a compulsory tax, it can be gotten around, but you cannot have the convenience of the bridge without paying the toll.

Maybe that's becuase politicians are the same the world over?;)