VRT Megathread - ALL VRT DISCUSSION IN HERE - Read First Post

opinion guy

slimjimmc wrote: »

Don't injury claims, driver profile and vehicle specs have a much greater influence on insurance costs than vehicle value. Any time I went looking for quotes the value of the car made feck all difference to the price.

Yeah I'm sure you are right. This is why I said "in theory"

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, people are still buying cars.
When the government decides to keep VRT that is the only thing they look at, they don't care about a dozen people protesting, there's always someone protesting, to politicians that's just background noise.
There's only two ways out of this:
Build up a concerted movement of voters threatening to vote for some silly party that is sufficient to unseat the government (fat chance in Ireland, weclome to an endless future of FF)
or
STOP BUYING CARS YOU GIMBOIDS!
If everyone would drive around in 10-15 year old bangers VRT would be gone in 6 months.
But people are buying like mad, that means that most don't seem to mind and are happy to give their money over to the gov.
Also, VRT is the only tax where you decide how much you want to spend.
Import a Merc or Beemer, get fleeced, import some Jap banger and get off lightly.
So all in all people seem happy to be fleeced.

All good points. It is kind weird how there are so many 2010's about given we are all supposed to be broke and jobless

ryanstewart

opinion guy wrote: »

All good points. It is kind weird how there are so many 2010's about given we are all supposed to be broke and jobless

It's amazing that people still think that this "silly" facebook campaign is going nowhere. Just look at whats happening. People are talking about this everywhere, and i hope they continue to do so. We'll keep this going all the way, and we are making an impact, and will continue to do so.

K-9

ryanstewart wrote: »

It's amazing that people still think that this "silly" facebook campaign is going nowhere. Just look at whats happening. People are talking about this everywhere, and i hope they continue to do so. We'll keep this going all the way, and we are making an impact, and will continue to do so.

People have being talking about this for years though, just its people talking about it on facebook now.

ryanstewart

K-9 wrote: »

People have being talking about this for years though, just its people talking about it on facebook now.

yes but it's gone further than facebook...people on the street who aren't on facebook are rallying their support, and when you have so many people talking about it, it's obviously influencing/annoying people in equal respects, and now people are actually trying to change something rather than sitting back and letting it continue. The media are involved, ordinary people are involved, it wont go away.

JHMEG

ryanstewart wrote: »

yes but it's gone further than facebook...people on the street who aren't on facebook are rallying their support, and when you have so many people talking about it, it's obviously influencing/annoying people in equal respects, and now people are actually trying to change something rather than sitting back and letting it continue. The media are involved, ordinary people are involved, it wont go away.

Nobody is talking about it where I live...

furtzy

ryanstewart wrote: »

yes but it's gone further than facebook...people on the street who aren't on facebook are rallying their support, and when you have so many people talking about it, it's obviously influencing/annoying people in equal respects, and now people are actually trying to change something rather than sitting back and letting it continue. The media are involved, ordinary people are involved, it wont go away.

I see you haven't changed the name of your facebook group yet....why are you still claiming its illegal?

Cookie_Monster

furtzy wrote: »

I see you haven't changed the name of your facebook group yet....why are you still claiming its illegal?

because its more inflammatory and so easier to get people behind it.

furtzy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because its more inflammatory and so easier to get people behind it.

Exactly...so come on ryan admit you were wrong show some leadership and change the name

It BeeMee

opinion guy wrote: »

Or how about this.
Overall cost of cars goes down, more cars get sold, less people go abroad to buy, tax take per car goes down but overall tax take goes up. Motor industry does better, which is good for economy.

I don't believe dropping the cost of cars will result in more being sold. Everyone who needswants a car already has one.

The more people that go abroad to buy cars, the more the government like it as they get a tax revenue from the purchase.

On the other hand, buy a car from Joe Bloggs down the road and the government don't get a penny.

opinion guy wrote: »

Personally I think they should scrap VRT, differentally adjust VAT on vehicles in accordance with vehicle emmissions bands and make up any shortfall in higher fuel taxes.
Say a base rate VAT for emissions band A of 25%, 27% for B, 30% for C, 35% for D, 40% for E and up.

Simples

So you want to replace VRT with another tax that varies according to the emission levels of the car?
What a novel idea, wonder what will they call it?
Vehicle Registration Emissions Tax, maybe?

Look forward to a facebook campaign about how "our vet is illegal" ...

opinion guy

It BeeMee wrote: »

The more people that go abroad to buy cars, the more the government like it as they get a tax revenue from the purchase.

On the other hand, buy a car from Joe Bloggs down the road and the government don't get a penny.

This is a good point. Thou if second hand cars were cheaper here Northerners might buy in the South thus boosting our economy instead of all that money going abroad as currently happens.

So you want to replace VRT with another tax that varies according to the emission levels of the car?
What a novel idea, wonder what will they call it?
Vehicle Registration Emissions Tax, maybe?

Look forward to a facebook campaign about how "our vet is illegal" ...

No you misunderstand. I'm saying in stead of paying VAT and VRT as we currently do on a new car. There should only be a variable rate VAT on new cars and nothing on second hand. (Althou I dislike the VRT itself, I like the scaled nature of it to encourage more fuel efficient cars).

Helea

Hi , I bought the car in February from guy who lives in Dublin but the car has NOI reg no. The car had valid english tax, so I didn't pay the VRT and later on I didn't have a money for it. Now I would like to pay my VRT, but I am just wondering what to say or are they going to get me some penalties, I didn't use to his car for a while, I just don't know what to say them I have only paper from this guy about our purchase where is the date of purchasing and the part of his vehicle reg cert.

furtzy

Helea wrote: »

Hi , I bought the car in February from guy who lives in Dublin but the car has NOI reg no. The car had valid english tax, so I didn't pay the VRT and later on I didn't have a money for it. Now I would like to pay my VRT, but I am just wondering what to say or are they going to get me some penalties, I didn't use to his car for a while, I just don't know what to say them I have only paper from this guy about our purchase where is the date of purchasing and the part of his vehicle reg cert.

Has it been insured with an Irish insurance company since you bought it? If so they will have details from said insurance company with policy commencement dates i.e how long you have the car so penalties may apply

Helea

Yes, I have insured it for i think 2 months.

furtzy

Helea wrote: »

Yes, I have insured it for i think 2 months.

If your policy has been in place for 42 days or more then they may already have you on file. The insurance companies now have to provide revenue with details of all foreign reg cars on irish policies for more than 42 days

Just head down the VRO and see what happens....you may be lucky. I think they'll be just glad to get the money off you

ryanstewart

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=476661&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=114939931865765&aid=-1&id=1670070597

EU launch official investigation into legality of rules applied to calculate VRT and valuations of second hand cars, and the application of a second tax on a used vehicle from another member state.

Nice:D

K-9

ryanstewart wrote: »

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=476661&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=114939931865765&aid=-1&id=1670070597

EU launch official investigation into legality of rules applied to calculate VRT and valuations of second hand cars, and the application of a second tax on a used vehicle from another member state.

Nice:D

Is it any different to previous cases and investigations?

The only reason I mention that is, I think you will be let down if you believe this will make any change to the system. The EU have undertaken these investigations and people have taken cases before, Governments just find ways around them.

Guy:Incognito

I notice you havnt blown up the first few paragraphs that say how VRT is legal to show the members of the group.

Guy:Incognito

opinion guy wrote: »

There should only be a variable rate VAT on new cars and nothing on second hand.

So what your saying is that people in Ireland should pay a tax and people bringing in a cars should not have to pay it?


When a new car is registered here it as VRT applied. At no other stage in its life, no matter how many times it's sold on, is it subject to VRT again so I dotn see what your point is here.

ryanstewart

Stekelly wrote: »

So what your saying is that people in Ireland should pay a tax and people bringing in a cars should not have to pay it?


When a new car is registered here it as VRT applied. At no other stage in its life, no matter how many times it's sold on, is it subject to VRT again so I dotn see what your point is here.

It's pretty obvious what he's suggesting here, or can you not see the wood for the trees. Regarding new car sales, lower VAT on lower emission vehicles, higher VAT on higher emission vehicles, no VAT on imports. If the govt are serious about emissions, it could work on new car sales, and to be honest stekelly, your questioning on valid arguments is getting more desperate by the day - try dealing with the facts and contributing to a valid discussion than just half reading paragraphs, and thinking up a smart arsed answer to what most would consider fairly minor points. His point is made about NO VRT being paid but rewarding those who buy vehicles with low emissions as new cars, and penalising those who buy high emission cars with a VAT - read it again - V.A.T. charge. It's a very good point, and as far as imports are concerned, motor tax already penalises engine size, although higher engine sized cars can have lower emissions, which is why I believe a usage based tax is more feasible, and less costly to enforce. We keep going around in circles here because you fail to read/acknowledge an argument that does not interest you. You seem more prepared to sit and think of something ridiculous to say, than actually deal with an issue relevant to the argument.

There should only be a variable rate VAT on new cars and nothing on second hand.

Nice of you to paraphrase.

Eoin

You want people to "deal in facts", yet your facebook group still has a factually incorrect title.

Guy:Incognito

ryanstewart wrote: »

It's pretty obvious what he's suggesting here, or can you not see the wood for the trees. Regarding new car sales, lower VAT on lower emission vehicles, higher VAT on higher emission vehicles, no VAT on imports..

So if theres vat at various levels on cars sold in Ireland and none on cars imported, why would anyone buy a car in Ireland ever again?

eoin wrote: »

You want people to "deal in facts", yet your facebook group still has a factually incorrect title.

and an ever increasing number of posts being ignored that are questioning it.

ryanstewart

eoin wrote: »

You want people to "deal in facts", yet your facebook group still has a factually incorrect title.

Try reading the posts on the page - and the previous post on here - this is what we are talking about - and i have no intention of changing the title of the group - for reasons I've mentioned so many times before - double taxation, restriction on freedom of movement on EU citizens, denial of due process, wrongly calculated VRT charges and valuations of vehicles - I could go on all night why this thing is illegal - try reading this stuff before you post - and while you are at it - you may have seen serious concerns from the EU regarding the legality of all this on the most recent post on the page. Just because the govt says "It's the law" does not make it right, and that is why these laws have to be challenged - laws are amended, overturned, abolished every day - cop on - factually incorrect? If it gets overturned does that mean that you are then factually talking rubbish, as that will then become law???

ryanstewart

Stekelly wrote: »

So if theres vat at various levels on cars sold in Ireland and none on cars imported, why would anyone buy a car in Ireland ever again?



and an ever increasing number of posts being ignored that are questioning it.

I'm afraid stekelly that you just keep ignoring the response, in both points you have questioned - why would anyone buy a car in Ireland ever again - because there's no VRT! - cars are cheaper! better value! how many more times do you need this spelled out? see above regarding your other remark.

Guy:Incognito

ryanstewart wrote: »

I'm afraid stekelly that you just keep ignoring the response, in both points you have questioned - why would anyone buy a car in Ireland ever again - because there's no VRT! - cars are cheaper! better value! how many more times do you need this spelled out? see above regarding your other remark.

ryanstewart wrote: »

Regarding new car sales, lower VAT on lower emission vehicles, higher VAT on higher emission vehicles, no VAT on imports..

.

If theres No VRT in Ireland and the UK but we have a sliding scale on VAT, with none applied to imports, then Irish cars would be more expensive. Or am I qouting you in your own words wrongly?

Guy:Incognito

ryanstewart wrote: »

Try reading the posts on the page - and the previous post on here - this is what we are talking about - and i have no intention of changing the title of the group - for reasons I've mentioned so many times before - double taxation, restriction on freedom of movement on EU citizens, denial of due process, wrongly calculated VRT charges and valuations of vehicles - I could go on all night why this thing is illegal - try reading this stuff before you post - and while you are at it - you may have seen serious concerns from the EU regarding the legality of all this on the most recent post on the page. Just because the govt says "It's the law" does not make it right, and that is why these laws have to be challenged - laws are amended, overturned, abolished every day - cop on - factually incorrect? If it gets overturned does that mean that you are then factually talking rubbish, as that will then become law???

You've said yourself you know realise VRT is legal. The letter you link to above says VRT is legal.

If something is due to be made legal tomorrow (not that VRT is about to be gotten rid of) then it's still illegal today. Right now, VRT is legal. The government say so, you say so and the EU say so.

Vertakill

I think what a lot of people who are pro-VRT misunderstand is that... if we had a set date that we knew VRT was going to be removed/reduced, dealers could prepare themselves, and their current stock, so that when the date comes around they would be able to lower their prices due to the fact that they, themselves, no longer have to pass on the VRT bill to the customer. They'd probably take an initial hit on their current stock they they've paid VRT on, but there's no way around that, hence my suggestion about being given a large amount of notice beforehand.

This could also improve our current situation on 'poverty spec' cars that seem to be plague Ireland, but not the UK, due to the VRT implications.

In turn, customers would be able to choose (just like they do now) whether to buy a local car for a now-reduced price, or go to the UK to buy one.
If the prices were able to compete with the UK, why the hell would anyone want to give our money to the UK if we had a comparable choice?

And anyone that's bought cars in the UK will tell you, it's a right pain in the hole and it's not particularly enjoyable, especially if you're booting it across England for 100's of miles trying to make it to your ferry before the last one leaves the port for the night.

Guy:Incognito

Vertakill wrote: »

I think what a lot of people who are pro-VRT misunderstand is that... if we had a set date that we knew VRT was going to be removed/reduced, dealers could prepare themselves, and their current stock, so that when the date comes around they would be able to lower their prices due to the fact that they, themselves, no longer have to pass on the VRT bill to the customer. They'd probably take an initial hit on their current stock they they've paid VRT on, but there's no way around that, hence my suggestion about being given a large amount of notice beforehand..

That "initial hit" will probably put a heap out them out of business. Car dealers income comes from sellign cars. If all their stock is now retailing for less than they paid for it, how can they not fold?

Vertakill

You gotta break eggs to make an omelette !

After it was fully implemented, it WOULD be beneficial to the dealers in the long run though because the money dealers lose to people buying in the UK would be going directly to them instead.

That's why I mentioned a set date and they could prepare themselves accordingly.
They could stop bringing in new stock, try and sell their existing stock and maybe the government could aid them in other areas like removing/reducing businesses VRT amounts before the set date that Joe public could avail of it in order to bring in new stock if my suggestion completely sucked.

I've no idea how that business plan would work but that is the only option I can think of if something were to be done with VRT.

I'm making suggestions rather than just running the same spiel of "If they remove VRT, you'll have to pay for it in X,Y,Z" etc.

You can't say that VRT is beneficial to the public, so why not help suggest ways that it could be removed or reduced without crippling the economy in the process, rather than just saying removing it'll never work.

That same comment could also be aimed at the facebook fanbois who are quite happy protesting against something but have absolutely no productive suggestions that could be used to replace the income of VRT.

That's not entirely aimed at you Ste Kelly, but just to a lot of the people who relay the same things over and over.

Guy:Incognito

We already have very high car ownership and high new car sales per head. How many extra people do you think are waiting patiently in the wings to buy cars just because VRT is gone? Enough to prop up the motor industry and replace lost revenue to the government with extra VAT?

Thats an awfull lot of silent people your relying on to suddenly mobilise and buy cars , then keep replacing them with reasonable regularity.

Vertakill wrote: »

You can't say that VRT is beneficial to the public, so why not help suggest ways that it could be removed or reduced without crippling the economy in the process, rather than just saying removing it'll never work.
.

It's beneficial to the public in that it's keeping the cost of something else down , be it income tax, VAT, fuel duty or whatever. I'd rather none of those went up. At least if i buy a new car, it's bought. If fuel goes up it's costign you more with every mile travelled. It might be hady if your a low mileage driver but if you do high mileage you'll notice that money going. You can choose to pay higher or lower VRT based on the car you buy. The petrol will cost the same to buy per litre.

Vertakill

Stekelly wrote: »

We already have very high car ownership and high new car sales per head. How many extra people do you think are waiting patiently in the wings to buy cars just because VRT is gone? Enough to prop up the motor industry and replace lost revenue to the government with extra VAT?

Well, it would be higher again. I'm sure that can't be considered a bad thing.

I'm also not counting on anyone to be waiting in the wings for VRT to be gone, since that's a fairly stupid point since it's only a pipedream at the moment.
And again, my suggestion never mentioned VAT being the replacement, so another moot point.

Stekelly wrote: »

Thats an awfull lot of silent people your relying on to suddenly mobilise and buy cars , then keep replacing them with reasonable regularity.

Again, not relying on anyone but have you forgotten about the car industry before the recession? People were replacing their cars with reasonable regularity. Going by the same logic, once we're all back on our feet, wouldn't the sales of cars (doesn't even have to be new btw..) be just as high, if not higher, than pre-recession times if the prices had the potential to be a lot lower and more money would be staying within the country rather than being pi55ed away to the UK?

Stekelly wrote: »

It's beneficial to the public in that it's keeping the cost of something else down , be it income tax, VAT, fuel duty or whatever. I'd rather none of those went up. At least if i buy a new car, it's bought. If fuel goes up it's costign you more with every mile travelled. It might be hady if your a low mileage driver but if you do high mileage you'll notice that money going. You can choose to pay higher or lower VRT based on the car you buy. The petrol will cost the same to buy per litre.

Not everyone does high mileage, and as someone already calculated (price of car with price of fuel taking the avg mileage into account) in one of the threads that was merged into this, having the tax on fuel could work out as a cheaper alternative.


I'd much rather have a wide variety of choices of cars that I could buy with all the extras I could afford, with 1 of those many options being an economical car (or a complete gas guzzler if I so choose) that wouldn't cost me a great deal more even with an increase in fuel prices, rather than being pigeon holed to cars that I may have no interest in whatsoever, but may be the only financially viable option as a result of co2 emissions, engine size or double-taxed skewed OMSP's.

You would also get a lot of money coming INTO the country from tourists who would pay for fuel and so on. The list goes on.

It may be that I'm stuck in a 1 track mind here, but I'm struggling to see a reason why anyone, confronted with better and more thought out points than I've tried to convey here, would be FOR vrt. Especially if you're a car enthusiast... unless you're someone who loves nothing better than going out and squeezing every penny out of your car for MPG.