Possible Hike in Motor Tax to be announced today (old)

Anan1

Riskymove wrote: »

firstly, it overlooks the second hand car market

secondly, the originally purchaser pays the VRT...the more expensive the car the more the VRT paid already

thirdly, while we can argue about it, the motor tax is supposed to go to LAs to fund local services. The value of the car has little to do with the services provided

finally, wealthy people can buy cheaper cars too

I think the basic idea of taxation here is to take more from those who can afford to pay more. A CO2-based system with a sliding scale for age will encourage new buyers into more efficient cars, encourage people to maintain and use older cars rather than replacing them, and generally hit the wealthy harder than the poor.

Riskymove

Anan1 wrote: »

I think the basic idea of taxation here is to take more from those who can afford to pay more.

the VRT does that

encourage people to maintain and use older cars rather than replacing them,

older cars have lower tax?

I can't see that hapeening tbh

smash

Anan1 wrote: »

encourage people to maintain and use older cars rather than replacing them, and generally hit the wealthy harder than the poor.

I think cars older than 10 years should have tax aligned with NCT ratings. The higher pass rating you get, the higher percentage discount you get. It would be an incentive for people to maintain properly which would put money into the economy.

Anan1

Riskymove wrote: »

the VRT does that

So does VAT, so does income tax, so does motor tax. This would help to prolong the economic life of older large-engined cars.

Riskymove wrote: »

older cars have lower tax?

I can't see that happening tbh

It would make sense though, no?

smash

smash wrote: »

I think cars older than 10 years should have tax aligned with NCT ratings. The higher pass rating you get, the higher percentage discount you get. It would be an incentive for people to maintain properly which would put money into the economy.

Higher pass rating?
A pass is a pass

bazz26

conzymaher wrote: »

If they cant put the motor tax on fuel they should base it on the value of the car, it would be great for bangernomics drivers and would stop "old" cars from being scrapped needlessly.

It would also punish post 08 520d drivers which is basically what they are trying to do, they're not happy that people are buying €60k cars and paying less tax than a 1.2 petrol on the old system.

The old system is flawed too because it punishes drivers of powerful cars instead of expensive cars..

Thing is though that while the €60k 520d owner pays less motor tax they have in fact contributed alot more to the exchequer via the VRT and VAT receipts included in that €60k. Introducing a higher motor tax here could infact result in them loosing money from VRT and VAT.

People think they are just going to slap a "luxury type" motor tax on owners of BMW, Mercs, etc currently with low motor tax. The reality is that they may very well slap higher tax on all cars currently in Tax Band A & B as these are the bands that most low emmission cars reside at the moment and this is where they are loosing most of their revenue.

Leonard Hofstadter

creedp wrote: »

Agree with that to some extent but it still doesn't address the issue of the 520d paying the same as the micra and that seems to be an issue that needs to be addressed in this so called reform. I'm sure there will be some form of hybrid system which will incorporate both a CO2 element and a charge based on value/size of car. I still think that Motor Tax should not significantly be based on CO2 emissions, that's what tax on fuel is for. You buy a gas guzzler and don't drive it then you don't emit CO2 .. motor tax is paid irrespective of the mileage you do ..

So what you're saying is that if BMW makes a car that is friendlier to the polar bears than a Nissan Micra, they should be punished? What sort of logic is that?

This country has got to be one of the worst in the world when it comes to petty begrudgery.

In every other country with CO2 based road taxes, if a 520d pollutes less than a Micra then the 520d pays less because it is less damaging to the polar bears!

What I would favour is a levy on diesel engines because they are worse for our health than petrol engines are.

The problem with our CO2 system is that the gap between the bands is far too high - in the maximum amount you can pay in tax is I believe £450, here it is a ridiculous €2,258!

I would favour something like the following:

Below 100 g/km - €250
101-120 - €300
121-140 - €350
141-160 - €400
161-180 - €500
181-200 - €600
201-225 - €750
Over 225 - €900

Plus a €100 levy for all diesel engined cars because their other fumes are worse for our lungs than the fumes from petrol engines! The levy could be reduced to €50 if the diesel engine meets Euro 6, because Euro 6 diesels are significantly cleaner than Euro 5 diesels (and far fewer people will be buying diesel anyway when Euro 6 comes along because it will be so expensive with all the emissions technology needed to get through those tests).

That way you are still massively penalising those who buy a more polluting car, but at least the penalties are far more reasonable. It is far better for petrolheads too, as they can own proper decent cars for far less tax than what they're paying at present, which has added knock on effects because more people are more likely to buy large engined cars now - and that is good for VRT and therefore Government revenue.

The other advantage of this system is that it makes it much easier to "shift the goalposts" because an at most €150 increase in tax (and €50 in most cases) is not exactly the end of the world, whereas under the current system if the goalposts were moved you could be left with an increase of over €1,100!

You could easily move the bands by say 5 g/km every year or two years as the average CO2 of the new cars keeps going down. It still has the polluter pays principle, plus petrolheads get something out of it as well!

creedp

Riskymove wrote: »

why? what is the problem there?

previously the same tax applied to all 2 litres, be it a BMW or a Ford or whatever, the value of the car meant nothing then either

the only reason to bring value in to it, is the angle that if a car is more expensive then it must be wealthier people who buy it, therefore they should pay higher tax...this is flawed imo

Well that's the reason being cited for this review of the CO2 system .. although the real reason is we need more revenue....

Just because the value/size of the care meant nothing under the old system doesn't mean it shouldn't mean anything under the new system. I don't really care what system is used so long as the incremental rates are not so large. There should be some kind of a sliding scale but capped at a reasonable level, otherwise the system is simply extortionate . using CO2 emissions as an excuse to tax a petrol car at over €2k a year is ridiculous especially if it only does low miles. My view is motor tax is simply a means to collect revenue from car owners and fuel tax is used to reward/punish efficiency/inefficiency

Riskymove

Anan1 wrote: »

So does VAT, so does income tax, so does motor tax.

but the same VAT applies to all similar products etc

should wealthier people pay more vat on items than poorer people? (let's not get into defining wealthy or poor just yet!)

The VRT/VAT is a % of the product, the more expensive the item the higher the VAT/VRT paid

Motor tax is not a transaction tax, it could be a flat rate or it could be graduated (as it is now)

This would help to prolong the economic life of older large-engined cars.

The system you suggest would mean (I think) motor tax would reduce in line with the age of the car (perhaps connected to value of the car?)

so i think this would come at the cost of further damaging the new cars market, swings and roundabouts in many ways

smash

RoverJames wrote: »

Higher pass rating?
A pass is a pass

It could easily be introduced based on the percentage rates from the various tests they do. You know like imbalance etc....

Riskymove

creedp wrote: »

Well that's the reason being cited for this review of the CO2 system .. although the real reason is we need more revenue....

no, the reason being given is that there are too many cars in the A and B categories and the exchequer has lost lots of revenue

so, like the recent budget, that will be the focus

smash

smash wrote: »

It could easily be introduced based on the percentage rates from the various tests they do. You know like imbalance etc....

If they test the same car on different lanes the imbalance will be quite likely different, the NCT test equipment doesn't have the accuracy or precision (very different things btw) to base any motor tax rates on.

smash

Riskymove wrote: »

no, the reason being given is that there are too many cars in the A and B categories and the exchequer has lost lots of revenue

€700m down in VRT receipts alone for 2009. That system should never have been introduced in the first place.

Riskymove

creedp wrote: »

There should be some kind of a sliding scale but capped at a reasonable level, otherwise the system is simply extortionate .

I agree


but I wouldn't expect much in the current financial scenario

Riskymove

smash wrote: »

€700m down in VRT receipts alone for 2009. That system should never have been introduced in the first place.

well it depends doesn't it

If you want to see a higher level of lower emission cars then it's working

If you want fairness in motor tax, it isn't!!

If you need more tax revenue, it isn't!!

smash

RoverJames wrote: »

If they test the same car on different lanes the imbalance will be quite likely different, the NCT test equipment doesn't have the accuracy or precision (very different things btw) to base any motor tax rates on.

It could be banded like imbalance 2-5% | 5-7% etc.

creedp

captainspeed wrote: »

So what you're saying is that if BMW makes a car that is friendlier to the polar bears than a Nissan Micra, they should be punished? What sort of logic is that?

What has the rate of Motor Tax in Ireland got to do with polar bears? Why is it that only after 4 years of a CO2 based tax system we can't see beyond it and consider if there are more appropriate ways to set motor tax rates. If the BMW is more efficient than the Micra it will use less fuel per Km driven and therefore the owner will pay less fuel tax .. that's his reward for buying an efficient car. Your argument is like saying that a high earning person should not be charged more income tax (not the same % but actual tax) than a low earning person as this disincentives the higher earner. If Motor Tax is about collecting revenue to pay forthe upkeep of the roads (If you believe that) then those who can pay most should do so .. for the most part those that buy more expensive cars are in a better position to contribute so should pay more. However, again as I said before I'm not talking about them having to pay extortionate amounts like currently applying to std pre-08 petrol cars but a reasonable figure and I also agree that there could be a sliding scale with age so less well off people purchase 2nd version of these cars and not be crucified with high levels of taxation. This would increase the 2nd hand value of the cars and the original owner would also benefit as a consequence.

smash

smash wrote: »

It could be banded like imbalance 2-5% | 5-7% etc.

I don't think you appreciate how sh1t the NCT equipment is

smash

This should go in favour of reversing the tax system: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/05/tory-meps-reject-carbon-cut-law

we can also trade credits if we need them. I'd like to see the most up to date figures for this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme

RoverJames wrote: »

I don't think you appreciate how sh1t the NCT equipment is

I do, I also appreciate how great it would be to pay €50 to a tester and get 40% off my motor tax :pac:

creedp wrote: »

If Motor Tax is about collecting revenue to pay forthe upkeep of the roads

That was road tax, not motor tax. It doesn't exist any more.

Riskymove

creedp wrote: »

If Motor Tax is about collecting revenue to pay forthe upkeep of the roads (If you believe that) then those who can pay most should do so ..

but it isn't

in fact, using your logic, the fuel tax is probably more suited to go to road upkeep than motor tax

Jesus Shaves

Riskymove wrote: »

The system you suggest would mean (I think) motor tax would reduce in line with the age of the car (perhaps connected to value of the car?)

so i think this would come at the cost of further damaging the new cars market, swings and roundabouts in many ways

But it would mean more people would be able to afford to put a car on the road which would mean that they might actually tax their car all the time, it would bring in more business to garages/tyre centres/nct's etc. which would increase VAT revenue to the government
Swings and roundabouts

creedp

Riskymove wrote: »

but it isn't

in fact, using your logic, the fuel tax is probably more suited to go to road upkeep than motor tax

Where does fuel tax go? I don't think it matters a jot where motor tax is spent but the point I'm trying to make is that it is simply an annual tax for owning a car in Ireland and as such there is no real logic in linking it to the potential CO2 emissions of the car. This is already being dealt with by the carbon levies applied to motor fuel. That's not to say it shouldn't be done that way, its just that its not the only way to set Motor Tax rates

JD Dublin

The govt has copped on that we are all opting for new cars with lower motor tax, so revenue from motor tax has gone down. So now they have to find a way that is 'fair' and cannot be fiddled to get more tax from the people that bought the cars that fit in to the lower band. But they have to dress it up to make it politically palatable.

My guess is that they will discuss it for months but only bring in the changes in the budget as the changes in motor tax will be buried in the detail of the budget in late 2012.

BTW wait until they are encouraging us to use electric cars. Some enterprising people will use self-generated electricity from solar panels / wind power to cut down on all the tax that is currently paid to Govt, and then the cat will be amongst the pigeons. Fuel duty will be down massively as will VAT on motor fuel.

BTW the take on VAT on fuel must be up massively this year as every time the base cost of fuel ( crude oil ) goes up, then so does the Govt take on it in the form of VAT etc.

creedp

Riskymove wrote: »

no, the reason being given is that there are too many cars in the A and B categories and the exchequer has lost lots of revenue

so, like the recent budget, that will be the focus

Apparently, in the halls of power, there is particular disquiet that 520d owners are paying the same Motor Tax as those driving Fiesta's and that is being used as a reason/excuse to resturcture the system so that 520d owners will pay more.

JD Dublin

JD Dublin wrote: »

The govt has copped on that we are all opting for new cars with lower road tax............

Are we feck all opting for new cars with lower road tax

JD Dublin

RoverJames wrote: »

Are we feck all opting for new cars with lower road tax

Then why does every car advert display the motor tax prominently?

dahamsta

So, has there actually been an announcement?

Please, save me from having to wade through the same posts by the same people as last week. Again.

RoverJames

RoverJames wrote: »

Are we feck all opting for new cars with lower road tax

JD Dublin wrote: »

Then why does every car advert display the motor tax prominently?

I see adverts for Haggen Das ice cream most days, I still don't buy the shtuff

Eric Cartman

JD Dublin wrote: »

Then why does every car advert display the motor tax prominently?

a lot of new car brochures mention the tax band and fuel economy before the engines power or other important details now

JD Dublin

RoverJames wrote: »

I see adverts for Haggen Das ice cream most days, I still don't buy the shtuff

You're obviously watching your figure:):):) like myself.