Have the Greens scored an own goal with the Co2 rated motor tax?

Lando Griffin

Have the Greens scored an own goal with the Co2 rated motor tax?

Wondering is the Government is out of pocket by introducing this Motor Tax.

Alot of cars have reduced CO2 emmisions so much that where they could have been paying over Euro400 they now pay a little over euro 100.

Have they shot them selves in their foot?

I would be thinking in 4 to 5 years when most cars on the road are on the C02 system for motor tax and their revenue is down considerably they'll change it again.

hobochris

Their official mandate was to reduce carbon emissions, this has worked perhaps better then they imagined.

From a PR perspective this has been a success so far, Financially though they are probably kicking themselves that they have less for their quango's and brown envelopes.

I'm sure they will make up for this with the roll out of private greed cameras.

dekbhoy

over the long term they will probably make a loss assuming it stays the same . , but would still say they are raking it in as. personally mine has gone up a good lot , eventually when the old cars start getting scrapped then they will lose money but you can bet your bottom dollar the price will rise in upcoming budgetrs

Riskymove

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Have they shot them selves in their foot?

the Green's objective was not to do with an increase the amount recieved in motor tax

Tea 1000

You mean like a Mazda 6 at €156 tax which would have been nearly €850 in the old system? Or the fact that you can spend €80,000 on a car and only pay €302 in tax? Possibly... they may have!
However, the rest of us who can't afford 2008 and newer cars still get screwed. And they should have scaled it better. Like the fact that 1 gram of CO2 per KM could cost you an extra €1050 per year is mind-numbingly stupid.

smash

We're billions in dept, the country's on the verge of collapse....

But what about the trees?

cdb

The 8c increase on unleaded announced in the previous budget is a sign of things to come - they'll make up for any lost revenue at the pump and no doubt by increasing road tax. Can't see either reducing any time soon.

Owen

It should have been retrospectively applied to older cars with clean emmissions too. I've 2 cars, one hell of a polluter, and one not so bad. I'd be happy to keep paying the old tax on the polluter, but if my organically sourced hippy loving machine is as clean as some of the 08 cars qualifying for 156 euro a year road tax, I should be allowed to tax mine for that much, thereby encouraging me to keep it for longer and not having to waste resources building a new one and putting my old one into a landfill.

Lando Griffin

steve06 wrote: »

We're billions in dept, the country's on the verge of collapse....

But what about the trees?

I think the Electric cars will save them.

Chuckle HA HA chuckle.

Riskymove

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Wondering is the Government is out of pocket by introducing this Motor Tax.

2007 reciepts €944,000

2008 €1,079,000

2009 €1,040,000

2010 estimate: €1,025,000


so while it has fallen in recent times, due to recession i suppose its still ahead of pre-change reciepts

Gophur

Revenue, when seeking submissions for a CO2 based tax system stipulated any change must be "revenue neutral", i.e. any change in tax structure must not reduce teh tax take from the system.

Boy, oh boy, have they messed up.

Who would have thought you could pay annual road tax of €156 for an €80k car?

A fairer system would be to tax all the fuel, or, if it's absolutely necessary to have an ownership tax, to have it at 1% of the car's original new price.

Max Power1

Or we could just go down the american route and pay no car tax, and have cheap fuel! Id love to see such a policy introduced, just to annoy the green hippies party if nothing else.

Gumbo

wouldnt the loss of revenue from the old cc motor tax be offset from the pay outs thay we used to have to purchase CO2 credits?

R.O.R

PaintDoctor wrote: »

It should have been retrospectively applied to older cars with clean emmissions too. I've 2 cars, one hell of a polluter, and one not so bad. I'd be happy to keep paying the old tax on the polluter, but if my organically sourced hippy loving machine is as clean as some of the 08 cars qualifying for 156 euro a year road tax, I should be allowed to tax mine for that much, thereby encouraging me to keep it for longer and not having to waste resources building a new one and putting my old one into a landfill.

But would you be happy to pay €2,100 per annum on the big polluter if you could pay €156 on the clean car?

Owen

R.O.R wrote: »

But would you be happy to pay €2,100 per annum on the big polluter if you could pay €156 on the clean car?

Of course not, thats why I stated in my post :

I'd be happy to keep paying the old tax on the polluter, but if my organically sourced hippy loving machine is as clean as some of the 08 cars qualifying for 156 euro a year road tax, I should be allowed to tax mine for that much

Max Power1

R.O.R wrote: »

But would you be happy to pay €2,100 per annum on the big polluter if you could pay €156 on the clean car?

Thats an interesting point - are there many cars (that would presumably have been on the old €1566 rate) that actually fall into the new, higher rate?

R.O.R

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Of course not, thats why I stated in my post :

So, you want the smooth without any rough.........I see

I don't think it's fair to let people pick and choose what suits them, and it's pretty fair the way it is now.

When I bought my car, I knew it was going to cost €590 to tax, and that was probably going to increase, but not by a giant amount. It's ended up at €614 so not a massive change.

On emissions it would have gone to €630 which isn't a huge difference, but if the grades had been pitched slightly differently it could have ended up in the €1,050 band, and there is no way I'm paying the Government that amount of money every year to drive. It would also have devalued my car (and thousands of others around the country) even further than they already did in 08.

positron

The new CO2 based tax system might have boosted government finances in not so obvious ways too. For example, the low taxes would have been one of the influencing reasons for a percentage of people to buy new cars. This brings in a lot of VRT for the government. I suppose that has somewhat helped the car dealerships in Ireland, which is less money out in Unemployment and more money in tax.

I am sure there's more indirect income generated because of this, and of course, when the effect of this fades, they will just go ahead and gradually increase the motor tax year after year anyway..!!

Viper_JB

The greens are too foolish and short sighted to actually give a damn about the fall in revenue from cars, don't get me wrong I do agree with tax by emissions but I don't think any consideration went in to the fall out from a revenue point of view, these are the same people after all who are encouraging people to scrap perfectly fine cars so that they can be replaced with incredibly irresponsibly produced cars, but I guess the co2 thing is only an issue on our shores.

Lando Griffin

positron wrote: »

The new CO2 based tax system might have boosted government finances in not so obvious ways too. For example, the low taxes would have been one of the influencing reasons for a percentage of people to buy new cars. This brings in a lot of VRT for the government. I suppose that has somewhat helped the car dealerships in Ireland, which is less money out in Unemployment and more money in tax.

I am sure there's more indirect income generated because of this, and of course, when the effect of this fades, they will just go ahead and gradually increase the motor tax year after year anyway..!!

I think the scrappage deal was the carrot in front of the donkey for most people to buy new cars, in fairness.

Owen

R.O.R wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to let people pick and choose what suits them, and it's pretty fair the way it is now.

I don't actually see what's fair about a 2007 car and a 2008 car having the same emissions, and one being 156 euro a year, the other being 600 odd. If a car has a clean engine it should be taxed as such. If they're trying to reward people for driving clean cars that is!

kuro_man

Problem with this ownership tax is that is it doesn't protect the most scarce resource of all: road space. Congestion is the big cause of pollution, not individual cars. Clog up the roads with 100 hybrids and the SUV at the back produces more CO2. Nobody should pay 100 and nobody should pay 2000. Scale should be 400 min - 800 max. Car ownership doesn't pollute, using them does.

The co2/km figure is purely technical figure, nothing to do with the real world. I think diesel car manufacturers have figured out how to rig the car to pass the test, then run it differently on the road with, for example, adaptive gear box programming.

Other problem is the "efficiency paradox" - the more efficient something gets and the higher return (i.e. diesel) the higher the dependency. It gets even harder to switch to a more sustainable energy source, e.g. electric cars.

So its all very complex and simply taxing, lets face it, diesels, more cheaply is not going to make a huge difference. Integrating ticketing would probably achieve more!

Heroditas

kceire wrote: »

wouldnt the loss of revenue from the old cc motor tax be offset from the pay outs thay we used to have to purchase CO2 credits?

The carbon tax that we're now paying on oil, petrol, peat, gas etc will raise about €400m per anum at the current carbon value.
That more than easily makes up any loss of earnings through motor tax based on emissions.

daveharnett

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Have the Greens scored an own goal with the Co2 rated motor tax?

Wondering is the Government is out of pocket by introducing this Motor Tax.

Alot of cars have reduced CO2 emmisions so much that where they could have been paying over Euro400 they now pay a little over euro 100.

Have they shot them selves in their foot?

As others have said, I think that any reduction in the motor tax take has been offset by VRT on new car sales (sales that have been generated by the new tax scheme).

TBH, the greens won't be around for long enough to worry about what happens next: when most cars on the road fall under the 'cheaper' system and new car sales start to drop off.

Owen

Even though it's been done a million times, taxing based on mileage is the way to go. A car which does no mileage (Say a weekend toy) pays little, company rep cars pay a lot. If they made the NCT annual, that could be the time to audit the mileage and issue the owner a bill based on the year's driving.

Heroditas

PaintDoctor wrote: »

A car which does no mileage (Say a weekend toy) pays little, company rep cars pay a lot. If they made the NCT annual, that could be the time to audit the mileage and issue the owner a bill based on the year's driving.

What I still can't get my head around is the fact that BIK drops for a company car if you rack up a higher mileage.

Surely if the government were serious about initiatives like these, they'd increase BIK if you increased your annual mileage. Utterly ridiculous.

R.O.R

Heroditas wrote: »

What I still can't get my head around is the fact that BIK drops for a company car if you rack up a higher mileage.

Surely if the government were serious about initiatives like these, they'd increase BIK if you increased your annual mileage. Utterly ridiculous.

BIK is a tax on a perk. The more Business mileage you do, the less of a perk the car is, and therefore the less tax you pay.

PaintDoctor wrote:

I don't actually see what's fair about a 2007 car and a 2008 car having the same emissions, and one being 614 euro a year, the other being 2100. If a car has a dirty engine it should be taxed as such. If they're trying to penalise people for driving dirty cars that is!

bijapos

Seeing that a lot of European countries have emissions based tax systems and that car manufacturers are developing cars to get the emissions down I think it only makes sense to have a system thats based on emissions. At least a couple of years from now you can have the choice of buying a second hand car with a large engine and relatively low emissions.

I think where the system fails is that over the years a cars emissions will increase as the engine gets older and more inefficient. Along with this the average car driver here pays little or not heed to basic servicing once the warranty rums out.

A car with a clean air filter and oil that has been changed regularly will have better emissions than one where no work has been done on it. Some countries have an emissions test and on the basis of this they will calculate the tax for the next year or two. I don't know if this would be a better system, it might encourage people to look after their cars a bit more.

Even though it's been done a million times, taxing based on mileage is the way to go. A car which does no mileage (Say a weekend toy) pays little, company rep cars pay a lot. If they made the NCT annual, that could be the time to audit the mileage and issue the owner a bill based on the year's driving.

This sounds complicated, getting rid of all kinds of motor tax and replacing it with a surcharge on petrol or diesel would be easier.

Owen

PaintDoctor wrote:

I don't actually see what's fair about a 2007 car and a 2008 car having the same emissions, and one being 156 euro a year, the other being 600 odd. If a car has a clean engine it should be taxed as such. If they're trying to reward people for driving clean cars that is!

R.O.R wrote: »

I don't actually see what's fair about a 2007 car and a 2008 car having the same emissions, and one being 614 euro a year, the other being 2100. If a car has a dirty engine it should be taxed as such. If they're trying to penalise people for driving dirty cars that is!

Yes, very funny changing my post. However, my argument that a car which doesn't have a clean engine should be kept at the old tax system is fair - it's already being penalised as such by having to pay 600 odd a year instead of 156, I'm arguing that if a car is pre-2008 with a clean engine, it should be rewarded, enticing the owner to keep it for longer, having less of an impact on the environment.

Owen

bijapos wrote: »

This sounds complicated, getting rid of all kinds of motor tax and replacing it with a surcharge on petrol or diesel would be easier.

Much better suggestion, thanks! Brain no workey today.

Guy:Incognito

PaintDoctor wrote: »

I don't actually see what's fair about a 2007 car and a 2008 car having the same emissions, and one being 156 euro a year, the other being 600 odd. If a car has a clean engine it should be taxed as such. If they're trying to reward people for driving clean cars that is!

But what if the change in systems meant and increase, would it be fair to make the 2007 owner pay the new higher rate? AS R.O.R said, you cant have it both ways.

Owen

Stekelly wrote: »

AS R.O.R said, you cant have it both ways.

Of course we can. It's just because you & R.O.R have it in your heads that it can't be done that it can't be done. There's no reason whatsoever it couldn't be done.

In fact, this exact situation happened between January 1st and June 30th in 2008. Cars were initially taxed on their CC, but if they were clean engines they were given the new cheaper tax. Those which polluted stayed at the old tax system. From citizensinformation.ie :

New cars registered between 1 January 2008 and 30 June 2008 had their motor tax charged on the basis of engine size initially. If it was beneficial for those cars to switch to the CO2 based motor tax system this happened on the first renewal of motor tax after 1 July 2008

robtri

one of the driving factors behind this scheme was to save money.

Yes they have lost money on potential tax revenues by moving to this system.

BUT

Under an agreement if we dont cut our co2 emissions we will be heavily fined as a country.... a lot more than the loss of revenue from motor tax...

Eoin

Max Power1 wrote: »

Thats an interesting point - are there many cars (that would presumably have been on the old €1566 rate) that actually fall into the new, higher rate?

The Mazda RX8 would fall into the higher rate, and I think that was previously taxed as a 1.8 I think. That would be a big jump.

I'd say the same applies to a good few luxobarges - e.g. BMW 540, MB S350 and so on.

Heroditas

R.O.R wrote: »

BIK is a tax on a perk. The more Business mileage you do, the less of a perk the car is, and therefore the less tax you pay.

But people drive the business miles during business hours, i.e. they're working.

It's ridiculous to actually promote greater mileae by saying you'll get taxed less.
I know of instances where guys will do laps of the M50 to get the mileage up so they can get the lower BIK the following year.

Viper_JB

eoin wrote: »

The Mazda RX8 would fall into the higher rate, and I think that was previously taxed as a 1.8 I think. That would be a big jump.

I'd say the same applies to a good few luxobarges - e.g. BMW 540, MB S30 and so on.

Ya they've stopped selling new rx8's in ireland like 2k a year now to tax them...such a shame..

shedweller

bijapos wrote: »

This sounds complicated, getting rid of all kinds of motor tax and replacing it with a surcharge on petrol or diesel would be easier.

I agree. This removes the problem of cars not being serviced etc. because they will use more fuel and therefore put more money into the system. It is an environmental tax after all.
It also takes care of the mileage per year too only much easier than having to have it checked every year at an nct centre. There would be chancers clocking their cars to avoid this no doubt!
Speeders will also contribute massively to the system for obvious reasons and road safety would also improve.

Viper_JB

shedweller wrote: »

I agree. This removes the problem of cars not being serviced etc. because they will use more fuel and therefore put more money into the system. It is an environmental tax after all.
It also takes care of the mileage per year too only much easier than having to have it checked every year at an nct centre. There would be chancers clocking their cars to avoid this no doubt!
Speeders will also contribute massively to the system for obvious reasons and road safety would also improve.

That's how it's done in France - but as is with their road taxes included their petrol prices are pretty similiar to ours, they'll probably never do that when they can just get away with the current system and tax the hell out of both.

Eric Cartman

R.O.R wrote: »

But would you be happy to pay €2,100 per annum on the big polluter if you could pay €156 on the clean car?

i would, because the polluter is probably a nicer car to drive with a fair whack of power, there are no amazing cars in the sub 400 euro co2 band, id rather buy an old 750iL for 10 grand and pay 2k tax for the next 5 years rather than pay 20 grand for some sh*tbox prius

ART6

steve06 wrote: »

We're billions in dept, the country's on the verge of collapse....

But what about the trees?

And the frogs (no, not the French:D) and the bats.

This whole business of taxes based on CO2 emissions is as simplistic as one would expect from Gormley & Co. What about the lifecycle analysis -- how much CO2 was produced in making the steel and the plastics and the alloys, and then building a car and exporting it. The lifecycle carbon footprint of a large luxury car or a hybrid (battery carbon costs) is likely to be very much larger than that of an older smaller car, even if the luxury model emissions are lower.

The trouble with this whole carbon nonsense is that it is treated as a national issue when in fact it's a global one. Taxing on CO2 emissions in Ireland simply absolves BMW in Germany in terms of lifecycle analysis. They don't have to pay the carbon tax in Ireland.

BeciMester

The motor tax back home in Hungary is based on power output. I'll look up the details when I get home if anyone's interested. Would you lads rather have that here? Do you consider it a better system?

Eoin

BeciMester wrote: »

The motor tax back home in Hungary is based on power output. I'll look up the details when I get home if anyone's interested. Would you lads rather have that here? Do you consider it a better system?

Nope, wouldn't want that at all. I know a few people who take public transport to work every day, but have a nice powerful car for the weekends, in which they do pretty low mileage. It seems grossly unfair to punish them for that, and only pays lip service to any environmental concerns.