Do you pay motor tax in line with legislation?

Yes or No

listermint

I dont imagine any data coming from this poll would be valid as im not sure it is something people like to advertise that they are non compliant with.

I have voted none the less.

drunkmonkey

Yip I don't want to be getting a bollocking from the flying squad.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

I dont imagine any data coming from this poll would be valid ...........

........ it's a poll on a forum, nothing more nothing less

listermint

RoverJames wrote: »

........ it's a poll on a forum, nothing more nothing less

Im pretty confident you are trying to prove an earlier comment that wont stand up solely due to the fact that its a poll on a forum.

Schewed stats are no stats

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Im pretty confident you are trying to prove an earlier comment that wont stand up solely due to the fact that its a poll on a forum.

Schewed stats are no stats

What earlier comment am I trying to prove Mr pretty confident? Make your point if you have one and stop beating around the bush

Max Power1

Atari XJ8 ?

listermint

RoverJames wrote: »

What earlier comment am I trying to prove Mr pretty confident? Make your point if you have one and stop beating around the bush

Not beating around the bush, some stated that they think there was 25% non compliance with Motor Tax, you said you didnt agree and said it was less than 10% or something to that effect.

You are trying now to legitimise that statement with what can only be described as an uncontrolled poll. (by which i mean there is no control) So any data that comes of it doesnt really stack up.

Would you agree?

limklad

RoverJames wrote: »

Do you pay motor tax in line with legislation?
Yes or No

Can you quote the Legislation in full so people can read and answer the question correctly? If the method of paying the Car tax is in breach of Legislation.

The Poll question "Do you tax your car?" is a different question to "Do you pay motor tax in line with legislation?"

I can't agree as I said nothing of the sort, I disagreed when it was claimed almost half of the national fleet being untaxed was a good measure. I also said it was no way as high as a third to a half
I never said it was less than ten percent.
So I'm hardly trying to legitimise what I didn't say, you should really read posts more carefully
Btw, the vast majority can be less than 90 per cent in case that's the straw you'll be clutching at

pah

Don't know about RJ's other posts but as a member of AGS, based on the number of cars encountered both parked, on the beat doing checkpoint etc I reckon 10% is about right. Similarly for insurance.

limklad

limklad wrote: »

Can you quote the Legislation in full so people can read and answer the question correctly? If the method of paying the Car tax is in breach of Legislation.

The Poll question "Do you tax your car?" is a different question to "Do you pay motor tax in line with legislation?"

For folks who need clarification they can read up on the legislation themselves

It goes something like use a car on public roads and it must be taxed, it's not overly complicated

ABajaninCork

Yes, we tax our car in line with current legislation; i.e when due. Don't fancy getting a tug (or worse) from the Gards.

P1sses me off to see others not complying making the experience much more expensive for those of us who do. Same thing with insurance.

dar83

pah wrote: »

Don't know about RJ's other posts but as a member of AGS, based on the number of cars encountered both parked, on the beat doing checkpoint etc I reckon 10% is about right. Similarly for insurance.

That's a much more worrying thing if that stat is true...

corktina

any chance people who dont tax their cars might add their reg nos? I have 4 cars OTR all taxed.

working fool

corktina wrote: »

any chance people who dont tax their cars might add their reg nos? I have 4 cars OTR all taxed.

Likewise I've 5
Only driving one

tossy

Are these planned OTR or OTR due to unforeseen circumstances?

corktina

On the Road...capable of use.

tossy

corktina wrote: »

On the Road...capable of use.

Sorry i read it as Off the Road.

GavRedKing

I sure do, its up in November so going to try and get it done for the year when it comes around.

Toyotafanboi

Occassionally up to a month in arrears this last year (taxing 3 months at a time). arrears always paid though...

Finding taxing much easier now having moved from 2.0 to 1.3 likelyhood of running into arrears much less likely.

I was once previously stopped for no tax before, €60 fine and no points. Did make me wonder, with a fine that costs less than 3 months tax on the cheapest tax band of car, if you didn't drive too much, its almost a risk worth running is it not?

Tax two months out of date and the car can be impounded.

Toyotafanboi

RoverJames wrote: »

Tax two months out of date and the car can be impounded.

Theres the flaw in that logic so :pac:

Matt Simis

RoverJames wrote: »

Tax two months out of date and the car can be impounded.

Impound fees are set correctly IMO, but motor tax isnt.. ie Impound fees are vastly less than even the lowest amount of tax on the top bracket.

Its a system thats grown out of itself the base cost doesnt align with the check an balance in place, a clear sign it needs a total overhaul.

pred racer

I answered no. Even though I normally pay on time, there have been times when I haven't

corktina

it should be the case that a car can be impounded with tax one month out of date.

Theanswers

Depends,

On the Car and the amount they want.

Lower the tax to a realistic level they will get full compliance, raise the tax they can go and take a long jump off a short pier!

Theanswers

Theanswers wrote: »

Lower the tax to a realistic level they will get full compliance, raise the tax they can go and take a long jump off a short pier!

..... Can't understood why people think that.

Toyotafanboi

corktina wrote: »

it should be the case that a car can be impounded with tax one month out of date.

because we're all perfect and bursting with cash at the moment?

a little leniancy is no bad thing.

I've said it a few times and as above, there have been times where i simply havn't had the money to tax the car, i've never let it lapse too far and always covered any arrears. the little leniancy is a big help. otherwise my car would be impounded. leaving me to pay a tax fine, impound fees, recovery fees all on top of my arrears which i probably wouldnt have been able to do at all. no car, cant get to work. no work, cant pay for my college, no college ed, no future, the vicious circle is complete.

i await the high horses.

edit : 2 months or more i would find acceptable, there is a line between leniancy and piss taking and imo is in a nice position where it is.

Anan1

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

i await the high horses.

Ever considered that you might be a low horse? It's all relative..

kuro2k

corktina wrote: »

any chance people who dont tax their cars might add their reg nos? I have 4 cars OTR all taxed.

Out of interest what tax rate are you paying for each of the 4 cars?

Max Power1

Anan1 wrote: »

Ever considered that you might be a low horse? It's all relative..

No...
From reading your thread contributions on tax and clamping, I think its fair to say that its not him thats a low horse, but rather very much you on a high horse.

imo

Anan1

Max Power1 wrote: »

No...
From reading your thread contributions on tax and clamping, I think its fair to say that its not him thats a low horse, but rather very much you on a high horse.

imo

Here's a little tip for you - there is no such thing as a high horse. It's just something people throw out when they feel offended by a point made but are unable to compose with a coherent argument against it. It's the keyboard equivalent of sticking your tongue out, covering your ears and saying 'na na na na na'.

ShadowHearth

Tax both cars. Just few days ago payed 360eu for 2xcars and only for 3 months each.

I don't know how accurate that would be for this pole, but I got third car which is not taxed and is off road.

Max Power1

Anan1 wrote: »

Here's a little tip for you - there is no such thing as a high horse. It's just something people throw out when they feel offended by a point made but are unable to compose with a coherent argument against it. It's the keyboard equivalent of sticking your tongue out, covering your ears and saying 'na na na na na'.

I think people who dont read the quote and then reply with a nonsensical argument are the lowest of the low.


See... now I'm on a high horse too!

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

I think people who dont read the quote and then reply with a nonsensical argument are the lowest of the low.


See... now I'm on a high horse too!

What non sensical argument?

Toyotafanboi

Anan1 wrote: »

Ever considered that you might be a low horse? It's all relative..

More a sensible horse, if we're using horse related phrases or whatever.

I mean what are the benefits in your opinion of zero tolerance over road tax as opposed to a months grace (benefits that reflect onto me of which i have outlined in my previous post?)

i appreciate too before you point it out that there shouldn't be "benefits" or "leeway" etc, a tax is a tax that must be payed and all that.

but if you were to push for zero tolerance on road tax, what is the case you would make?

patwicklow

Cars taxed, full years NCT, and fully insured its good to drive in comfort.
and not peering down the road hoping there's not a check point ahead!

Galwayguy35

Yeah it's fully taxed.

Just as well as the Guards were checking for tax and insurance las week.

The guy in front of me must have had none as I have never seen anyone do a 3 point turn so fast and head back the way he was coming from.

inforfun

Theanswers wrote: »

Depends,

On the Car and the amount they want.

Lower the tax to a realistic level they will get full compliance, raise the tax they can go and take a long jump off a short pier!

Dont think so.
Some people just dont pay, no matter how much they would have to pay.
If it was the amount that is the problem, they would drive a car with the cheapest tax.

FYI, the car i am driving here would cost me almost double in motor tax in Holland. And then there is also a difference of about €0,15 per litre of fuel (cheaper here) and you can imagine i dont think driving a car here is that expensive.

Matt Simis

inforfun wrote: »

Dont think so.
Some people just dont pay, no matter how much they would have to pay.
If it was the amount that is the problem, they would drive a car with the cheapest tax.

Yes some people just wont pay it at all, same as some people just wont pay for insurance or steal petrol or mis-sell written off cars etc. However such an open ended unquantifiable statement is pointless.

In my opinion, there are a sizable majority of people that would be more likely to pay based on their own deduction of Risk vs Reward. Its a sliding scale and currently the scales Revenue are using do not align to reality.

RoverJames wrote: »

..... Can't understood why people think that.

To me I cannot understand how anyone could dispute what he said though? Allow me to rephrase it however:

Common market theory is proven time and again, there is a sweet spot in pricing that gets you mass compliance, a spot that gets you slightly higher return but lower compliance and a point where you get a massive drop off in compliance and much lower return.

This has been done to death and will continue to come up as long the current system remains in place, irrelevant of this high/low horse pointlessness.

In the context of Motor Tax, logic would dictate that there is higher compliance on those cars with low tax cost as the static value married with general inconvenience of getting caught does not cancel out the value of not paying the Motor tax.
Evidence of this is abundant (several people in this thread mentioned paying lower tax rates, sales of low tax 2008 cars skyrocketed on intro etc).

If we accept the above (which if nothing else, is common sense) then conversely the opposite would be true too, those cars with EUR1000 to EUR2100 tax must have far lower compliance rates, with the perception that being caught is worth the risk vs the value of loosing 2 grand.


This would be most effectively addressed by compressing the tax bands $$, there is no benefit to having sky high top rates if compliance is so low, we should have a EUR200 to EUR600 tax band range and logic would dictate the overall take for Revenue would be higher due to greater compliance despite lower static charges (for high brackets).

listermint

Matt Simis wrote: »

To me I cannot understand how anyone could dispute what he said though? Allow me to rephrase it however:

Common market theory is proven time and again, there is a sweet spot in pricing that gets you mass compliance, a spot that gets you slightly higher return but lower compliance and a point where you get a massive drop off in compliance and much lower return.

This has been done to death and will continue to come up as long the current system remains in place, irrelevant of this high/low horse pointlessness.

In the context of Motor Tax, logic would dictate that there is higher compliance on those cars with low tax cost as the static value married with general inconvenience of getting caught does not cancel out the value of not paying the Motor tax.
Evidence of this is abundant (several people in this thread mentioned paying lower tax rates, sales of low tax 2008 cars skyrocketed on intro etc).

If we accept the above (which if nothing else, is common sense) then conversely the opposite would be true too, those cars with EUR1000 to EUR2100 tax must have far lower compliance rates, with the perception that being caught is worth the risk vs the value of loosing 2 grand.


This would be most effectively addressed by compressing the tax bands $$, there is no benefit to having sky high top rates if compliance is so low, we should have a EUR200 to EUR600 tax band range and logic would dictate the overall take for Revenue would be higher due to greater compliance despite lower static charges (for high brackets).

Excellently put.

..... I believe the post I replied to mentioned full compliance Matt of the untaxed cars out there I doubt most are over 2.0.
Also, where is this evidense you mention of low compliance?

listermint

RoverJames wrote: »

..... I believe the post I replied to mentioned full compliance Matt of the untaxed cars out there I doubt most are over 2.0

I would imagine alot of the ones over that 'magical' 2.0 litre figure are declared off the road for months on end (actually unused) due to the tax and losing revenue a good deal of cash on petrol.

Summer cars if you will.

Matt Simis

RoverJames wrote: »

..... I believe the post I replied to mentioned full compliance Matt of the untaxed cars out there I doubt most are over 2.0.
Also, where is this evidense you mention of low compliance?

Im claiming logical deduction and circumstantial evidence in lieu of actual court approved evidence..

If the declaration pre taking them off road is introduced we will have visibility on that, minimal amount of road worthy cars imo.

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

Im claiming logical deduction and circumstantial evidence in lieu of actual court approved evidence..

We have a garda estimating 1 in 10 overall

Toyotafanboi

RoverJames wrote: »

We have a garda estimating 1 in 10 overall

and the stats of this thread currently @ 100 yes and 19 no would indicate 1 in 6...

not sure whos arguement thats helping, but interesting results this far.

At the moment I've no choice but to keep tax up to date as I park on the street and the wardens will do me. I have spent most of my car ownership though doing at the very least 3 months on 2 months off but have gone 5 or 6 months at a time too without it. I still pay it every 3 months though as I never have enough spare cash to tax it for longer. I will go back to my old system when my parking situation permits.

galwaytt

RoverJames wrote: »

..... Can't understood why people think that.

.....because it is proven that high levels of taxation, generally, lead to higher levels of tax avoidance and evasion. We don't have to leave this island to get the proof, anyone (like me) that worked here in the 80's and early 90's know this wrt to income tax.

galwaytt

RoverJames wrote: »

If the declaration pre taking them off road is introduced we will have visibility on that, minimal amount of road worthy cars imo.

...actually, it won't: it will only work on those vehicles currently on the road, an then to be taken off.

There is no way to gather data on something you cannot quantify.

For example, if a lotto ticket wins the prize tonight, we can state with certainty there was 1 winner, and xxxxx amount of non-winning tickets bought. What you cannot say is how many UNSOLD tickets there were, as there is no answer to it.

The numbers involved in vehicles are smaller, but the principle is the same: there are 1000's of vehicles in this country that DoE/DoT/CoCo's don't know about/aren't aware of/have no current record of the status of. But they still exist, still have (legitimate) tax books.

There is no actual way to find out.