When will CO2 tax change?

daveharnett

It seems that the government has been outmanouvered by the car industry on CO2 emissions.

The european car industry has done awfully well in producing engines that fall several tax brackets lower than their pre-CO2-tax equivalents, and the governments looks set to lose it's shirt as a result.

So when are they going to start tinkering to recover some of the 'lost' revenue?

I see a combination of
1. upping the price for each tax band.
2. moving each band's top end down by a 5 or 10 g/km to 'catch' engines that were tuned to just hit the lower category.
coming in the next budget or two. The greens will call it a continuing drive to reduce greenhouse gasses.

Thoughts?

quenching

December Budget seems a fair bet?

Tipsy Mac

Id imagine 5c on a litre of petrol would bring in much more cash and the Greens would be onside as polluter would pay.

Biro

Audi, BMW, etc - weren't looking at the Irish tax system when lowering their CO2 from their engines. Our market is too small. They'd look more closely at the UK system and other countries.
No doubt the govt will adjust things to make more money.
It should be graded as a percentage though. Why for instance should person A pay significantly more than person B for the sake of 1g/km of CO2?

roosterman71

Biro wrote: »

It should be graded as a percentage though. Why for instance should person A pay significantly more than person B for the sake of 1g/km of CO2?

Your talking an awful lot of sense here. So you can be guaranteed a grading system will never happen with this government

Biro

roosterman71 wrote: »

Your talking an awful lot of sense here. So you can be guaranteed a grading system will never happen with this government

Sorry, for a minute there I thought I was living in a country where sense prevailed! Silly me!

JHMEG

Biro wrote: »

Audi, BMW, etc - weren't looking at the Irish tax system when lowering their CO2 from their engines. Our market is too small. They'd look more closely at the UK system and other countries.
No doubt the govt will adjust things to make more money.
It should be graded as a percentage though. Why for instance should person A pay significantly more than person B for the sake of 1g/km of CO2?

No, but they would have looked at the system in other countries like the UK where the cut-offs are essentially the same.

Person B should pay more than Person A for the sake of 1g/km simply because 1 is more and Person B had a choice when buying, and no system is perfect. I don't believe tho that they will change the cut-offs, but will just increase the cost of motor tax and possibly VRT.

The system we have since July 08 is here to stay for a while anyway. It's up to the govt to balance what they get out of it, as it wasn't intended to make cars cheaper.

Biro

JHMEG wrote: »

No, but they would have looked at the system in other countries like the UK where the cut-offs are essentially the same.

Person B should pay more than Person A for the sake of 1g/km simply because 1 is more and Person B had a choice when buying, and no system is perfect. I don't believe tho that they will change the cut-offs, but will just increase the cost of motor tax and possibly VRT.

The system we have since July 08 is here to stay for a while anyway. It's up to the govt to balance what they get out of it, as it wasn't intended to make cars cheaper.

If person B's requirement is for an Estate instead of a saloon, why should be be penalised that much? A small penalty is fine, but not at the level it's at. And the arguement of "no system is perfect" doesn't really wash. Why can't it be perfect? Or better? Just grade it using percentages. End of story.

JHMEG

Biro wrote: »

If person B's requirement is for an Estate instead of a saloon, why should be be penalised that much?

That doesn't apply to all saloon/estate cars, so they could just buy something different.

Biro wrote:

And the arguement of "no system is perfect" doesn't really wash.

Ah it does It can't be perfect because the people that design it aren't perfect

Del2005

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

Id imagine 5c on a litre of petrol would bring in much more cash and the Greens would be onside as polluter would pay.

It's on diesels that they are loosing money and diesels are more polluting then petrol on nearly everything. I'd rather a bit more CO2 then the crap from an oil burner any day.

daveharnett

A thought struck me today. A car's tax is based on a car's theoretical CO2 emissions as it comes off the production line, right?

So is there anything stopping a manufacturer completely de-tuning an engine (eg turn off 3 cylinders in a 6 pot) in order to reduce CO2, and keeping a second 'performance' engine map stored in the ecu for the customer (or their dealer's service dept) to switch over to the day after they purchase?

daveharnett

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

Id imagine 5c on a litre of petrol would bring in much more cash and the Greens would be onside as polluter would pay.

In a lot of ways, fuel tax makes much more sense than motor and registration tax. The problem for the government is that there is a diminishing return on fuel tax - the more they raise it, the more fuel smuggling and diesel washing goes on.

-Chris-

daveharnett wrote: »

A thought struck me today. A car's tax is based on a car's theoretical CO2 emissions as it comes off the production line, right?

So is there anything stopping a manufacturer completely de-tuning an engine (eg turn off 3 cylinders in a 6 pot) in order to reduce CO2, and keeping a second 'performance' engine map stored in the ecu for the customer (or their dealer's service dept) to switch over to the day after they purchase?

They already do that with exhaust noise, don't they? You have a Ferrari that conforms to EU legislation at idle, but once it lets rip it sings! Some sort of exhaust valve or something...

I wouldn't be surprised if they could do something similar with CO2 emissions.

cnocbui

Del2005 wrote: »

It's on diesels that they are loosing money and diesels are more polluting then petrol on nearly everything. I'd rather a bit more CO2 then the crap from an oil burner any day.

Yes, and a Japanese researcher discovereed that one of those emissions is a substance which is possibly the most carcinogenic ever tested.

What was the second most carcinogenic substance you ask? Another compound found in diesel exhausts. So now you possibly have the two most highly carcinogenic substances known in diesel exhaust.

The stupidity of governments and the civil servants who advise them is just staggering, you would think none of them have children or they have access to a different source of air than the rest of us. Anthropogenic global warming being the most egregious example of science fraud/misrepresentation ever, just makes it so much worse.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3-Nitrobenzanthrone is a nitrated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (nitro-PAH).It is produced during reactions between ketones - by products of burning fuel - and airborne nitrogen oxides that take place on the surface of hydrocarbon particles in diesel exhaust.
The researchers used the Ames test to measure the number of mutations the compound caused in the DNA of standard strains of bacteria. In a test with a strain of Salmonella typhimurium, 3-nitrobenzanthrone recorded more than 6 million mutations per nanomole. This compared to a score of 4.9 million for its nearest rival, 1,8-dinitropyrene, which is also found in diesel exhaust and had until now been the most powerful known mutagen.[/font]

Seth Brundle

cnocbui wrote: »

The stupidity of governments and the civil servants who advise them is just staggering, you would think none of them have children or they have access to a different source of air than the rest of us. Anthropogenic global warming being the most egregious example of science fraud/misrepresentation ever, just makes it so much worse.

But nobody really knows about this whereas many people would know about CO2 and that there is supposed to be a link with global warming. The greens were presumably delighted when they could go to their membership and say we got a CO2 motor tax deal! It has nothing to do with sense or logic - its about politics!

Biro

-Chris- wrote: »

They already do that with exhaust noise, don't they? You have a Ferrari that conforms to EU legislation at idle, but once it lets rip it sings! Some sort of exhaust valve or something...

I wouldn't be surprised if they could do something similar with CO2 emissions.

True. If CO2 emissions are halved, then fuel economy should be nearly doubled. With all these extra low CO2 cars, how many in real world driving are actually that much more economical?
On another note, nothing stopping you getting something like a 2008 325d from the UK (which has the same 3 litre engine as the 330d) and remapping it to bring it to the same bhp as the 330d. It'll cost less to clear than a real 330d because the VRT and road tax will be based on the CO2 emissions of the 325d!

stealthyspeeder

Biro wrote: »

. Why for instance should person A pay significantly more than person B for the sake of 1g/km of CO2?

I agree, Im in the highest tax bracket by 6 grams of carbon, (this is in the north) and I have to pay nearly double the tax of someone who owns a car with 6 grams of carbon less than me! I find that unfair! Yes I had a choice when I got the car and I will accept and pay the tax (grumpily) as it was my desicion, but the amount of carbon I am producing relative to the amount im paying ,compared to that other person is ridiculous!

JHMEG wrote: »

Person B should pay more than Person A for the sake of 1g/km simply because 1 is more and Person B had a choice when buying, and no system is perfect.

Yes but thousands more for 1 g? and no small monies involved either!!

smash

Next budget = carbon tax = a lot more duty on fuel!

Ice_Box

steve06 wrote: »

Next budget = carbon tax = a lot more duty on fuel!

Why dont they call it a Carbon Dioxide tax?

JHMEG

kbannon wrote: »

But nobody really knows about this whereas many people would know about CO2 and that there is supposed to be a link with global warming. The greens were presumably delighted when they could go to their membership and say we got a CO2 motor tax deal! It has nothing to do with sense or logic - its about politics!

They do know about it, and in this country too. It's the civil servants who came up with the CO2 based system that don't seem to!

Even prominent Irish websites refer to problems with diesel fumes.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=11902

Biro

Ice_Box wrote: »

Why dont they call it a Carbon Dioxide tax?

Probably cause it's only the Carbon they're worried about!! The oxygen part is fine...

smash

Everyone knows about CO2 and Diesel fumes, they just picked on Petrol as an easy target to extract money from motorists. In 3-5 years time they'll do the same with Diesel and push for electric cars! So while your sub €200 road tax is great now, it'll be up high again soon!