€302 annual tax on a 2010 Mercedes Benz?

Raiser

I saw a 2010 registered Mercedes Benz yesterday it was nearly half the size of the Hotel it was parked outside and in the windscreen the Tax Disc was displayed - €302 Annual Tax paid - roughly half what most People pay annually for the typical Family Saloon.

Clearly The Green Party expects us all to go out and invest in Mercedes Vehicles and save the Planet?

- Or is it just an ingenious way the rampantly idiotic Greens came up with so that the very Wealthiest People in our Society can continue to pay a minimal amount of tax to fund our Schools, Hospitals and Public services?

Cookie_Monster

its a low CO2 emitting car so whats wrong with that. Probably diesel.

I drive a BMW 320 coupe and that has the same tax, under the old scheme it would have been over 2k.

you can of course buy small cars with even lower tax if you feel like it.

Raiser

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

its a low CO2 emitting car so whats wrong with that. Probably diesel.

I drive a BMW 320 coupe and that has the same tax, under the old scheme it would have been over 2k.

you can of course buy small cars with even lower tax if you feel like it.

The "just buy a smaller car" logic is a little short-sighted - Should the average cash-strapped family buy a little Micra and strap the Children, Buggies, and multitude of related accessories to the roof-rack so that they can then pay the same annual car tax as someone who earns 100K+ a year and thinks nothing of buying a 2010 Car for 80K?

- Also its not like you can opt to get the Bus or Train as an alternative in this Country; Even if you did happen to have public transport nearby, which is hugely unlikely for most of us, its going to be too impractical or expensive anyhow.

The Green Party truly are a shining light in their own pathetic Arena of utter Stupidity.

Max Power1

Raiser wrote: »

The "just buy a smaller car" logic is a little short-sighted - Should the average cash-strapped family buy a little Micra and strap the Children, Buggies, and multitude of related accessories to the roof-rack so that they can then pay the same annual car tax as someone who earns 100K+ a year and thinks nothing of buying a 2010 Car for 80K?

- Also its not like you can opt to get the Bus or Train as an alternative in this Country; Even if you did happen to have public transport nearby, which is hugely unlikely for most of us, its going to be too impractical or expensive anyhow.

The Green Party truly are a shining light in their own pathetic Arena of utter Stupidity.

typical irish begrudgery tbh

Raiser

Max Power1 wrote: »

typical irish begrudgery tbh

You're entitled to your opinion and that hold true no matter what your opinion is tbh....

- Thanks for your contribution and stark insight!

Cookie_Monster

Raiser wrote: »

The "just buy a smaller car" logic is a little short-sighted - Should the average cash-strapped family buy a little Micra and strap the Children, Buggies, and multitude of related accessories to the roof-rack so that they can then pay the same annual car tax as someone who earns 100K+ a year and thinks nothing of buying a 2010 Car for 80K?
.

I really don't get what you are on about. An awful lot of "standard" cars fall into that bracket or lower. Passat, golf, avensis, mondeo etc etc.

car tax is a very small part of the running expense of a car. I doubt someone who buys an 80-100k car even cares about it tbh

Scofflaw

If the OP is suggesting that a Mercedes is the only car that qualifies for a low rate of tax, he's rather obviously wrong - which makes the point of this thread rather moot, since it's based on a very simply false premise.

Is there any plan here bar a bit of green-bashing?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Raiser

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

car tax is a very small part of the running expense of a car. I doubt someone who buys an 80-100k car even cares about it tbh

Exactly - Which is why they're not even going to notice when they have to pay tax to help pay for Hospital beds and Schools.

- What the Green Party have done is typically obtuse and harebrained.

Cookie_Monster

Raiser wrote: »

- What the Green Party have done is typically obtuse and harebrained.

why do you think this?

They are encouraging people to buy clear, less polluting cars

Raiser

Scofflaw wrote: »

If the OP is suggesting that a Mercedes is the only car that qualifies for a low rate of tax, he's rather obviously wrong - which makes the point of this thread rather moot, since it's based on a very simply false premise.

Is there any plan here bar a bit of green-bashing?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Ha? The Mercedes example is just one single case posted here as an example, the same premise can be reduced reused and recycled indefinitely.

Point taken re. the Green-Bashing, will concentrate on just pointing out the lapsed logic etc.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cookie_Monster

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

but that is because the old system was stupid and flawed, engine size was a stupid way to calculate motor tax. They could have changed it over better for sure but it needed to be changed one way or the other.

Ideally it should have been scrapped altogether and lumped in with the cost of petrol, on this basis its paid by usage, a much fairer way

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Raiser

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but that is because the old system was stupid and flawed, engine size was a stupid way to calculate road tax. They could have changed it over better for sure but it needed to be changed one way or the other.

Ideally it should have been scrapped altogether and lumped in with the cost of petrol, on this basis its paid by usage, a much fairer way

Exactly - In that scenario if someone wants to buy a 3 Litre Luxo-Barge then let them pay for it.......

- But that's still beside the point in a way, with the salient point being that we are a tiny Country with a tiny handful of cars and the last thing we ever needed was a pack of Braying pseudo-academics legislating for a 'problem' that never existed.

Liam Byrne

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not to mention the new, annual (not-safety-related) NCT.......it'll be years before most ordinary people car buy a new car in this country.

steph1

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not to mention the new, annual (not-safety-related) NCT.......it'll be years before most ordinary people car buy a new car in this country.

Thats just another guise to take more money off hard pressed motorists.

OS119

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the problem is that the car tax - as opposed to income tax - is specifically designed to be regressive: less fuel efficient, more polluting cars pay more, more fuel efficient, less polluting cars pay less.

its an unfortunate coincidence that newer, more expensive cars will be at one end and older, cheaper cars the other - and therefore you get this richer/poorer divide, but it is a coincidence, its not the central point of the policy.

its not a tax based on income, its a tax designed to change behaviour, and as such if you either make it uniform, or just amalgamate it with income-based taxes, you completely remove the 'carrot and stick' element which is designed to change peoples motoring behaviour and car choice.

Twin-go

Why can't older cars, pre the new "Green" road tax bands, be givin the new rates based on their emissions? The info could come from the NCT.

I currently pay €551 for a 2004 1.8l petrol
If I could get the new rate my car is in band C anf would be €302. I'm been over taxed to the tune of €249 every year.:mad:

Raiser

OS119 wrote: »

the problem is that the car tax - as opposed to income tax - is specifically designed to be regressive: less fuel efficient, more polluting cars pay more, more fuel efficient, less polluting cars pay less.

its an unfortunate coincidence that newer, more expensive cars will be at one end and older, cheaper cars the other - and therefore you get this richer/poorer divide, but it is a coincidence, its not the central point of the policy.

its not a tax based on income, its a tax designed to change behaviour, and as such if you either make it uniform, or just amalgamate it with income-based taxes, you completely remove the 'carrot and stick' element which is designed to change peoples motoring behaviour and car choice.

If legislation can just be haphazardly implemented on urges, whims and crazy notions without any responsibility being taken for unforeseen consequences then why not just tender the whole lot out to our Schoolchildren or get People on Community Service to formulate these systems etc.

rasper

Twin-go wrote: »

Why can't older cars, pre the new "Green" road tax bands, be givin the new rates based on their emissions? The info could come from the NCT.

I currently pay €551 for a 2004 1.8l petrol
If I could get the new rate my car is in band C anf would be €302. I'm been over taxed to the tune of €249 every year.:mad:

Like the annual NCT it was a favour to the car retailers in order to encourage sales of new imported cars

OS119

Raiser wrote: »

If legislation can just be haphazardly implemented on urges, whims and crazy notions without any responsibility being taken for unforeseen consequences then why not just tender the whole lot out to our Schoolchildren or get People on Community Service to formulate these systems etc.

i didn't suggest that it was an unforseen coincidence, just not a coincidence that aroused much concern.

i would hazard to suggest the concept was formulated at a time when a dog could get a bank loan for a new(ish) car, and therefore this 'problem' wasn't considered to be an issue.

times change, but unless you have a mechanism for 'encouraging' people to run cleaner, more efficient vehicles rather than dirtier, less efficient vehicles you aren't going to change that behaviour at a faster rather than that acheived by waiting for such vehicles to fall apart.

Liam Byrne

OS119 wrote: »

times change, but unless you have a mechanism for 'encouraging' people to run cleaner, more efficient vehicles rather than dirtier, less efficient vehicles you aren't going to change that behaviour at a faster rather than that acheived by waiting for such vehicles to fall apart.

And if people don't have money then they can't buy a car anyway, so the Greens are just creating extra hardship.

"encouragement" should be cheaper options, not screwing people for the current option while ensuring they can't avail of the options that the rich and well-connected FF & Green supporters have.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Anto123

And if people don't have money then they can't buy a car anyway, so the Greens are just creating extra hardship.

There is no extra hardship. Tax on pre 2008 cars hasn't risen, it's just that is has gone down on newer low emission cars. If families continue to drive the car they already have there is no increased burden on them.

Originally Posted by Twin-go
Why can't older cars, pre the new "Green" road tax bands, be givin the new rates based on their emissions? The info could come from the NCT.

Changing the system so that all cars were taxed on CO2 would be placing a burden on struggling families as many of them would be facing a tax jump on cars they had already bought and couldn't afford to change.

That said I think it would be nice if there was an option to pay emission based tax on older cars, especially considering the CO2 you are saving by not causing a new car to be built.

As a matter of interest, what alternative sytem would you guys suggest if you don't like CO2 based taxes, and you don't want the tax added to fuel either?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OS119

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

an 'honest' tax system would be great - no VAT, or anything else. just a single Income tax.

at 80-odd% for any middle income eaner.

can you see any polictical party putting that on page 1 of their manifesto?

Dannyboy83

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was (mistakenly it seems) under the impression that the Greens had planned to do this and add the difference to fuel duty.

What ever happened to that idea?
It seems in this country, new taxes are introduced in the promise that other taxes will be repealed.
Except they are never repealed.

ei.sdraob

It aint very "green" now to be running out and scrapping cars that are still quite ok is it?

takes alot of energy and water to make and ship a car, any car

but then again the Greens where never good with logic, ideology yes, logic nope

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Raiser

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its quite simple - Your Neighbour is being punished because he is suffocating the Planet with his bad, evil, sinful Family Car. He should get himself a Horse and Cart, the Horse shall eat Turnips that this Gentleman will cultivate in an Allotment. He shall collect the Horse Dung and convert it into an eco-fuel to run his cooking stove, the ash from the stove will then be scattered on his allotment meaning that he no longer owes the World a massive debt. All of this will be grant aided by the Green Party if they recive an application written on bark using a sharp stick no later than next Wednesday at 7 Sundial hours.

No but seriously - If you actually look at this in retrospect; The Green Party have steadfastly refused to get involved in the social or economic problems facing your Neighbour. They have left all of that boring stuff to Fianna Fail to concentrate on being seen to effect change - They are in fact so anxious to introduce change, any change, just 'things' of any mad description, that they have had very little opportunity to underpin any of it with common-sense, appropriateness or logic and its all 'bigger picture' stuff that they are mad to showcase at European Conferences to other Green Party Airheads - But be quite sure, none of their plans have anything to do with Joe Bloggs in number 16.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your neighbour pays the rates he signed up to pay when he bought his car - rates based on engine size. If he changed to a newer and CO2-efficient car he would benefit - but he's not undergoing any extra hardship. The road tax rates for his car have gone up in the Budget, but they do that every Budget - the basis of the calculation is the one he signed up for, and if he didn't want to pay higher road tax rates, he should have bought a smaller car.

I swear, if the rates for older cars had been changed you'd all be moaning that people had wound up paying tax on a basis they couldn't have expected when they bought their cars - and you'd be right.

As it is, people who bought their cars expecting to pay motor tax on the basis of engine size pay motor tax on the basis of engine size. People who buy a new car will pay motor tax on a different basis. Someone who pays on the old basis they signed up for, and who complains about the new basis they didn't, is just generating hot air out of nothing.

somewhat exasperated,
Scofflaw

OS119

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

perhaps, distastefully, he needs to decide whether he can continue to run a car - unless you are suggesting a 'car allowance' for those on JS?

you also never answered my question - if you wish to 'persaude' people to drive more efficient cars (not just a 06 TDCI Focus vs a 1984 Corolla, but a 10 Audi TFSI A6 Quattro vs a 10 Jeep Grand Cherokee) how can you do that other than to financially penalise the running of a dirtier car while 'rewarding' the running of a cleaner car?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Moriarty

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Whoa whoa whoooaaa there. You're saying that one-off housing and low population densitys actually cause problems?! No way. I thought it consisted purely of wonderful lands filled with rainbows where everyone can live on half an acre and have everything they want and need at no expense to them!

More fool me, eh?

ei.sdraob

Moriarty wrote: »

Whoa whoa whoooaaa there. You're saying that one-off housing and low population densitys actually cause problems?! No way. I thought it consisted purely of wonderful lands filled with rainbows where everyone can live on half an acre and have everything they want and need at no expense to them!

More fool me, eh?

So I take it you fall under category B?


Category A: If you own your "own" land, you should be allowed to live on it, a place from which you can grow and prosper and earn enough to pay for expenses


Category B: The state "ownes" the land and "allocates" you a place to live (From each according to his ability, to each according to his need and all that carry on...)

Moriarty

ei.sdraob wrote: »

So I take it you fall under category B?


Category A: If you own your "own" land, you should be allowed to live on it, a place from which you can grow and prosper and earn enough to pay for expenses


Category B: The state "ownes" the land and "allocates" you a place to live (From each according to his ability, to each according to his need and all that carry on...)

Heh. I see you what you did there. No, I'm not a communist. Thanks for asking though.

If you own land and it's uneconomical for you to live there without getting yourself [private transport | private water supply | private electricity supply | private telecoms supply (!)], the reasonable option is to move somewhere where the provision of these services isn't as expensive to provide and hence costs you less.

If you can't afford to run a car and you rely on it because you live out in the country, maybe you need to move somewhere that has a public transport system that works for you?

ei.sdraob

Moriarty wrote: »

Heh. I see you what you did there. No, I'm not a communist. Thanks for asking though.

Lol that was funny, yes yes i tried to remind readers of the extremes

now back to the thread...

Moriarty wrote: »

If you own land and it's uneconomical for you to live there without getting yourself [private transport | private water supply | private electricity supply | private telecoms supply (!)], the reasonable option is to move somewhere where the provision of these services isn't as expensive to provide and hence costs you less.

If you can't afford to run a car and you rely on it because you live out in the country, maybe you need to move somewhere that has a public transport system that works for you?

The point being made by others earlier in this thread, is that its "uneconomical" not due to natural market movement (in which case you would have a point) but due to large artificial interference and a form of price fixing

there is a difference

someone in Dublin deliberately makes it "uneconomical" for someone in Donegal to live where they are now, I live now in the West and lived recently in Dublin center so I could see both points of view

Raiser

Moriarty wrote: »

Heh. I see you what you did there. No, I'm not a communist. Thanks for asking though.

If you own land and it's uneconomical for you to live there without getting yourself [private transport | private water supply | private electricity supply | private telecoms supply (!)], the reasonable option is to move somewhere where the provision of these services isn't as expensive to provide and hence costs you less.

If you can't afford to run a car and you rely on it because you live out in the country, maybe you need to move somewhere that has a public transport system that works for you?

bijapos

I think what most people here have failed to realise is that motor tax across Europe is essentially measured now on CO2 output in a lot of countries. As a result car manufacturers are striving to produce far more CO2 efficient engines. The research and development that BMW, VW, Renault and all others have put into this goes into the billions of Euros. So we in Ireland are left with a choice, react to it (as the GP have done) or stick our heads in the sand and use the old system.

As Scofflaw said motor tax rates for olders cars have not changed apart from the usual annual increase. Tax for newer ones has changed, some have gone up, some have gone down.

Along with this, VRT rates have changed, also to encourage people to buy lower CO2 emitting cars. As a result the prices for some of the biggest selling cars in this country have dropped, in some cases by several thousand. This should have a beneficial effect on second hand car prices in years to come, in that they will be cheaper and more affordable.

I agree that motor tax (and VRT) should be abolished, and it might happen in the next year or two. But another surcharge on fuel will lead to the usual mindless ranting and raving on forums like this.

Its the same really with anything progressive thats tried in this country, a minority are against it and claim to speak for the absolute majority.

As regards the Greens, I think anything they try to do is a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't"

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That might well be because the Irish rural electorate tends to view anyone environmentally aware as a dangerous alien species.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Since the foundation of the state, the largest segment of the Irish electorate have thought that Fianna Fáil was the best party to run the country. That rather suggests that what people think may not bear much relation to sense - whereas one likes to think that what posters here think does, although I'm rapidly losing confidence right now.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Rubbish - those who drive small older cars are in the same position as those who drive low-emissions newer cars. The bands for the new tax base are:

Band/Emissions|Annual Car Tax in € Euro
Band A: 0-120g/km CO2|€104
Band B: 121g-140g/km CO2|€156
Band C: 141g-155g/km CO2|€302
Band 156g-170g/km CO2|€447
Band E: 171g-190g/km CO2|€630
Band F: 191g-225g/km CO2|€1,050
Band G: 226g/km CO2 and over|€2,100

Engine Size |Annual Car Tax in € Euro
Not over 1,000 |172
1,001 to 1,100 |259
1,101 to 1,200 |286
1,201 to 1,300 |310
1,301 to 1,400|333
1,401 to 1,500 |357
1,501 to 1,600 |445
1,601 to 1,700 |471
1,701 to 1,800 |551
1,801 to 1,900 |582
1,901 to 2,000 |614
2,001 to 2,100 |784
2,101 to 2,200 |823
2,201 to 2,300 |860
2,301 to 2,400 |895
2,401 to 2,500 |935
2,501 to 2,600 |1120
2,601 to 2,700 |1164
2,701 to 2,800 |1204
2,801 to 2,900 |1,248
2,901 to 3,000 |1,293
3,001 or more ||1,566


Some new cars will have a large engine capacity and low emissions, others will have a small engine capacity and high emissions. The highest tax in the new scheme is higher than the highest in the old scheme, while the lowest is lower.

You're comparing apples and oranges at the very least. There are points of divergence and points of similarity - small fuel-efficient cars are cheap under either system, big gas-guzzlers are expensive under either system. Some people would see increases, assuming they buy the same kind of car, others will see decreases.

The guy who complains because he can't afford a Mercedes to replace his old Fiesta is not going to get much sympathy from me, even if the Mercedes owner pays less road tax - and someone who cherry-picks a low-emissions big car and complains that we all ought to pay that little road tax just because someone rich now does is really, really going to get no sympathy - it's an extraordinary piece of innumerate begrudgery.

regards,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

bijapos wrote: »

As Scofflaw said motor tax rates for olders cars have not changed apart from the usual annual increase.

Actually, Scofflaw said nothing about "the usual annual increase", and I've never heard of such a concept.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your neighbour pays the rates he signed up to pay when he bought his car - rates based on engine size.

bijapos wrote: »

Along with this, VRT rates have changed, also to encourage people to buy lower CO2 emitting cars. As a result the prices for some of the biggest selling cars in this country have dropped, in some cases by several thousand. This should have a beneficial effect on second hand car prices in years to come, in that they will be cheaper and more affordable.

Then tax us "in years to come", when it's a tax on a bad choice, rather than an extra penalty for those less well off.

bijapos wrote: »

But another surcharge on fuel will lead to the usual mindless ranting and raving on forums like this.

Its the same really with anything progressive thats tried in this country, a minority are against it and claim to speak for the absolute majority.

Incorrect. If we are not taxed twice, then it's viewed as fair. If anyone who has paid VRT then has to pay AGAIN for the fuel because they can't afford to change the car, then that is unfair.

But it's to be expected of the current Government, who are planning to charge people who already paid stamp duty an additional property tax.

bijapos wrote: »

As regards the Greens, I think anything they try to do is a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't"

As long as they have that mindset, and don't recognise / ignore the issues, then they'd damned alright, and I for one will be happy to see the back of them

P.S. The "damned if they do [anything]" might not have applied if they'd followed that theory in their 3 initial election promises.

danman

I know, let the government produce a VAT card, based on your earnings for the previous year.

When you buy any goods and services, you must hand over the card first

anyone earning over €100,000 has to pay 25% vat.
Anyone over €200,000 pays 35% VAT.
Etc, etc, etc.....

Would this make the OP and similar thread starters happy?

I'm not particularly happy with this present system, because I drive a '99 car.
But I accept that when I do decide to change my car, it will incentivise me to buy a lower emission car.

Is that not the point?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bijapos

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then tax us "in years to come", when it's a tax on a bad choice, rather than an extra penalty for those less well off.

I don't think you understand the tax system. Motor tax for older cars has barely changed. Tax on an 01 1.4 Megane has hardly increased in the past few years. Its around 330 now, was about 300 a couple of years ago iirc. Can you explain if I continue to drive this car how I am out of pocket? What exactly is your problem with the new system?

Incorrect. If we are not taxed twice, then it's viewed as fair. If anyone who has paid VRT then has to pay AGAIN for the fuel because they can't afford to change the car, then that is unfair.

I am referring here to the idea to replace Motor tax with a levy on fuel. VRT would be phased out over a number of years. If you tried to get rid of VRT overnight a lot of people would be in uproar as their car would be worth that much less overnight.

As long as they have that mindset, and don't recognise / ignore the issues, then they'd damned alright, and I for one will be happy to see the back of them

What mindset? Sorry, bit confused here.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Voting for a non-Civil War party in the first place indicates a difference.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh, you're entirely entitled to waste your vote, but that still doesn't mean it makes sense. Nor does the complaint this thread is based on make any sense.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Except that it's not a regressive tax, because that would require that road tax was higher on cheaper cars. That isn't the case at all - instead, because road tax is calculated on emissions, the less fuel the car uses per mile, the lower the road tax. If you like, you can say that larger cars use less fuel per mile than small cars, but you'd need to break the laws of physics for it to be true.

bijapos wrote:

I don't think you understand the tax system. Motor tax for older cars has barely changed. Tax on an 01 1.4 Megane has hardly increased in the past few years. Its around 330 now, was about 300 a couple of years ago iirc. Can you explain if I continue to drive this car how I am out of pocket? What exactly is your problem with the new system?

The complaint seems to be that while someone paying road tax on an older car is paying road tax on the same basis as they always have, and while that tax has gone up only slightly, it is nevertheless possible to find examples of new cars that are both more desirable than one's current car and attract less road tax, but which one cannot afford.

This is, apparently, a legitimate basis for complaint and an example of the general awfulness of the Green Party. It is, apparently, definitely not a piece of completely spurious and innumerate begrudgery conjured into existence purely for the sake of exercising the whining muscles against a particular political party.

wearily,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

The point being made by others earlier in this thread, is that its "uneconomical" not due to natural market movement (in which case you would have a point) but due to large artificial interference and a form of price fixing

there is a difference

someone in Dublin deliberately makes it "uneconomical" for someone in Donegal to live where they are now, I live now in the West and lived recently in Dublin center so I could see both points of view

This is the most extraordinary rubbish. No matter what the price of fuel is, no matter what the cost of providing roads is, then barring a subsistence existence it is always going to be less economical for people to live miles away from the nearest town than in the centre of the capital city.

The urban centres in Ireland subsidise the rest of the country, the same as virtually every other country. People who lives miles away from their nearest town but who demand the same services and tax rates as city dwellers aren't some kind of noble free yeomanry supporting the ungrateful urban parasites. If anything, it's the other way round - that's why every EU country both severally and jointly pour huge subsidies into rural Europe, including, without even a shadow of doubt, rural Ireland.

Honestly, I've seem some drivel before on these forums, but the offerings being made by the Green-bashers on this thread are really quite remarkably low quality.

I know most of you are smarter than this - have you been bitten by rabid Luddites or something?

appalled,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your neighbour pays the rates he signed up to pay when he bought his car - rates based on engine size. If he changed to a newer and CO2-efficient car he would benefit - but he's not undergoing any extra hardship. The road tax rates for his car have gone up in the Budget, but they do that every Budget - the basis of the calculation is the one he signed up for, and if he didn't want to pay higher road tax rates, he should have bought a smaller car.

I swear, if the rates for older cars had been changed you'd all be moaning that people had wound up paying tax on a basis they couldn't have expected when they bought their cars - and you'd be right.

As it is, people who bought their cars expecting to pay motor tax on the basis of engine size pay motor tax on the basis of engine size. People who buy a new car will pay motor tax on a different basis. Someone who pays on the old basis they signed up for, and who complains about the new basis they didn't, is just generating hot air out of nothing.

somewhat exasperated,
Scofflaw

Perfect logic except for the element of retrospective review of carbon emission. On this basis the OP makes a valid point; wealthy people who have made no concession or sacrifice with their choice of new car (in that many new high end cars meet both criteria i.e high performance & low emission) avail of lower tax rates almost automatically. Lower income individuals must make major concessions or sacrifices (in most cases unrealistic ones) in order to avail of lower co2 rates despite, and here's the kicker, their individual contribution to co2 emission (i.e a system not based on personal usage - unlike all other systems in place i.e electricity, gas and soon to be water) is irrelevant. A fairer system would've included elements from the three major factors involved in calculation:

Engine size - determining factor 1 (20%)
Co2 emission - determining factor 2 (40%)
Personal usage - determining factor 3 (40%)

Because the third determining factor is presently not easily quantified the system in use uses blanket factors to decide rates, even though, clearly, it makes very little sense.

In saying all that blaming it all on the Greens is somewhat one-sided.

Steve

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is the most extraordinary rubbish. No matter what the price of fuel is, no matter what the cost of providing roads is, then barring a subsistence existence it is always going to be less economical for people to live miles away from the nearest town than in the centre of the capital city.

Did I say otherwise?

Making fuel more expensive "artificially" by putting more taxes on top of it (and its existing taxes) doesnt exactly "help" now does it? Take someone from Mayo lets say who we getting along fine before the Greens with his/her fuel bill, now they are paying extra due to a decision from someone in Dublin to artificially increase the price. Do they not have the right to know why? where? and what is happening with their money?


You and the Greens keep on going on about <sticks> ie. taxes and <carrots> ie. incentives/grants
in order to change the behaviour of people (one slippery slope right there)
But so far all we got was alot of taxes (with more to come) and feck all incentives


Where and how much of the money collected, is actually going towards helping the environment?
I would love to see some links and figures to account for all the money levied and where it ended up.
I seriously doubt much of it went towards helping the environment.

You may blindly trust the Greens and vote for them unconditionally, but I reserve scepticism seeing their performance so far; keeping and election from occurring and of course being complicit in "appallingly" wasting billions of taxpayers money (which "amusingly" could have been put to better use on Green agenda).

Scofflaw wrote: »

The urban centres in Ireland subsidise the rest of the country, the same as virtually every other country. People who lives miles away from their nearest town but who demand the same services and tax rates as city dwellers aren't some kind of noble free yeomanry supporting the ungrateful urban parasites. If anything, it's the other way round - that's why every EU country both severally and jointly pour huge subsidies into rural Europe, including, without even a shadow of doubt, rural Ireland.

Honestly, I've seem some drivel before on these forums, but the offerings being made by the Green-bashers on this thread are really quite remarkably low quality.

I know most of you are smarter than this - have you been bitten by rabid Luddits or something?

appalled,
Scofflaw

What does any of that have to do with my post? and when was the last time I demanded any "entitlements" or "services"?
The only thing I ever asked for in my posts here is accountability, leadership, fiscal responsibility and some common sense. Once you have these surely it be much easier to pursue a "Green" agenda? (which as I mentioned in parallel thread in reply to your post, I do mostly believe in climate change, but do not like the current direction/approach of the Greens)

If anything may I remind you to read my post to which you replied where I clearly stated i lived in both and can see both sides of the urban vs. rural argument/divide

/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eoin5

Is anyone else of the view that theres too many factors involved to have a good representation of the actual harm a car does to the environment and that whatever you implement is an arbitrary decision? From engine size to carbon emissions, mileage per year, performance in NCT, the types of emissions generated etc.

I think they might have tried to make things a bit better but when feasability is such a big issue I think practical and therefore economic and political factors are always going to be much more influencial. For instance you wont see a sliding tax scale on cars from new because of the damage the manufacturing causes to the environment (until the car hits 25 of course).

Liam Byrne

bijapos wrote: »

ITax on an 01 1.4 Megane ..... is around 330 now, was about 300 a couple of years ago iirc. Can you explain if I continue to drive this car how I am out of pocket?

Exactly 10% out of pocket based on your own figures. :rolleyes:

Is that explanation enough ?

If not, throw in the annual NCT test, which was not in place when someone purchased that car.