Now families face (possible) €50 hike in car tax revamp

leonidas83

MOTORISTS are facing increases in car tax of as much as €50 for an average family vehicle under new proposals being considered by the Government.
The current system of motor tax rates is set to get a massive overhaul because the Government believes too many new cars are falling into lower tax bands, based on carbon emissions.
And the Irish Independent has learned ministers have targeted motor tax to bring in an extra €150m in December's Budget -- meaning motorists face an average annual increase of 15pc across the board.
Sources say discussions are still ongoing between the Department of Finance and the Department of the Environment, which administers the tax, and changes to the existing bands of motor tax have yet to be finalised.
A new system is likely to be introduced to increase the overall tax take. However, it is not clear where the burden of the 15pc increase will hit, although family cars in the 1.4 to 1.6 litre bracket are tipped to pay more.
Currently, most motorists who own a car registered after 2008 fall into the second and third emissions bands, B and C, and pay €225 and €330 in annual tax.
A 15pc hike would see their yearly bills go up by €34 and €50 respectively, while those with cars registered before 2008 pay according to engine size.
However, for the lowest A emission band, which costs €160, a 15pc increase would be €24, while the D €481 band would jump by €72. The new system will come into effect from January, but the precise details have to be finalised.
"It doesn't mean that everyone will end up paying 15pc more, some will pay more and some will pay less," a source said.
"But there are no definite decisions yet, even the figure of 15pc hasn't been finalised."
The Fianna Fail/Green Party coalition changed the tax system in 2008 to one based on carbon emissions, but with more efficient cars a big gap in the tax take has been created.
Many new luxury high performance cars emit less than the average family car and all cars have become 'greener' thanks to sweeping technological advances in the face of EU emission regulations.
Emissions
For example, the BMW 520d diesel costing more than €45,000 qualifies for the lowest band, as does the Toyota Yaris, which costs €15,000.
Since 2008, 90pc of all new cars sold have fallen into the lower three tax bands. The take fell to €988m last year, a reduction of €72m on 2008.
The Government increased tax across the board in response in last year's Budget -- with hikes averaging just 7.5pc for some of the higher emissions bands, but as much as 54pc for the more common A, B and C bands.
Discussions on the exact level of increases to be levied next year are still taking place between the Department of Finance and the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Transport is also lobbying on the issue.
Transport Minister Leo Varadkar wants to soften the blow of big hikes in motor tax next year by using the increased cash to fix potholed and damaged roads, but it is not clear if this will happen.
Alan Nolan of the Society of the Irish Motor Industry asked that any increases be handled carefully since motorists are already feeling the pinch.
"Motorists are already dealing with increased fuel costs and you really need to be careful when you are looking to increase the tax take that you don't affect the market," he said

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/now-families-face-50-hike-in-car-tax-revamp-3291015.html

Another increase, does this government have any novel ideas for improving the balance in the budget aside from just taxing its citizens to death.

How about taxing fuel more & getting rid of motor tax altogether, thereby getting rid of that joke of a system & department they have for collecting the tax.

Maybe have heavier penalties for people driving whilst chatting on their mobile or excessive speeding.

There is no innovation or genuine reform with this government, they are a disgrace. We have government departments running up huge costs, inefficiencies & the governments solution to this is to tax citizens in an already depressed economy to the hilt

dar83

As much as €50!!! :eek:

seamus

They'll need to bring in the mandatory off-the-road declarations in order to hike motor tax by that amount, otherwise it'll just result in an increase in people playing off-the-road roulette and very little increase in actual tax take.

Vicxas

Is this just post '08 or should i turf my 1.6 Corolla now?

MuppetCheck

Ah well, we knew it was going to change. All post-08 car drivers knew they were on borrowed time for the last couple of years with the cheaper tax.

If this report holds true we are still getting away lightly compared to pre-08 tax rates. Ì'm still going to get away with a years road tax for under half of what it would have been if the car was a couple of years older - satisfactory enough outcome really.

Green Diesel

If it goes up 15% across the board, my €660 bill for a 2.0 will be €759 next year, oh lawd.


"It doesn't mean that everyone will end up paying 15pc more, some will pay more and some will pay less"
- I will be extremely surprised if anyone is paying less.

Wexfordian

MuppetCheck wrote: »

Ah well, we knew it was going to change. All post-08 car drivers knew they were on borrowed time for the last couple of years with the cheaper tax.

If this report holds true we are still getting away lightly compared to pre-08 tax rates. Ì'm still going to get away with a years road tax for under half of what it would have been if the car was a couple of years older - satisfactory enough outcome really.

Agreed, I expected a much bigger hike then that. Though it may not be spread as evenly as that.

Valetta

What do families have to do with it?

I don't have a family. Am I exempt?

H3llR4iser

Still, doesn't address the real issue of a BMW paying as much as a Yaris...

djimi

They made a right balls of the newer co2 based tax system when a 520d can be taxed at the lowest tax band. Its no surprise that they are trying to rectify this, but its obviously going to get peoples backs up.

R.O.R

I can take €50 on a band C, but I'm glad I've just done a year from the start of November.

I'd guess that cc based tax won't be hit as hard, but I reckon there will still be a small increase.

EoghanConway

leonidas83 wrote: »

How about taxing fuel more & getting rid of motor tax altogether, thereby getting rid of that joke of a system & department they have for collecting the tax.

Wouldn't that just lead to an increase in fuel laundering?

neddynasty

I reckon we're looking at a system that merges the two current systems for all cars i.e. emiisions and engine size. So taking the cars in the article, they're both in the same band for emissions so that'll cost Y. The Yaris is a 1.4 engine so the owner pays Y x 1.4. The BMW owner will pay Y x 2.4 (or whatever size the engine in the BMW is). That's a rough idea of what i think they'll be looking at.

bazz26

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Still, doesn't address the real issue of a BMW paying as much as a Yaris...

The BMW owner payed more in VRT and VAT on the purchase price than the Yaris owner though or is that not taken into account? It's all tax in the Government's pocket at the end of the day.

rocky

And what happens if after the 15% increase for post 08 tax, the cars will pay more than the same 07 car? Initially it was a 'choice' to go into the lowest tax, between cc based and emissions based. If band C goes from 330 to 380, and the same 07 1.3l car remains at 358 to tax on the engine size...

330 < 358
380 > 358

:mad:

Mar4ix

wouldnt families just dump the cars, and pay nothing ?
why would not increase tax on baby milk and nappies ? all those things are consumable and targeting families.

Seams to be politicians targeting families, what a shame,.... they shall target drug dealers... but no, they'll bite back.

Kenny Logins

Mar4ix wrote: »

wouldnt families just dump the cars, and pay nothing ?
why would not increase tax on baby milk and nappies ? all those things are consumable and targeting families.

Seams to be politicians targeting families, what a shame,.... they shall target drug dealers... but no, they'll bite back.

A tinted windows, daft exhaust, and ridiculous wheels tax?

H3llR4iser

bazz26 wrote: »

The BMW owner payed more in VRT and VAT on the purchase price than the Yaris owner though or is that not taken into account? It's all tax in the Government's pocket at the end of the day.

The BMW owner would have paid the VRT nonetheless, be the road tax 150 or 600 Euro; I doubt a BMW is only bought to save on tax, if somebody spends 45k upfront with the one and only goal to save 450 euro/year, he/she isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the house.

Regardless, the whole concept of "I paid VRT, so it's fair I pay less road tax" is completely wrong. First of all, the buyer of the Yaris has paid VRT and VAT as well, in proportion to the value of the car.

Not happy with it? Want to pay less taxes? Buy a less expensive car.

Second, the tax is supposed to be measured towards the means of the individual paying it; In this case the tax is about cars and the type of the car is a good measure of the owner's financial means. Afterall, owning a BMW is clearly more expensive than onwing a Fiesta, so it's fair to assume that the owner of the former has more resources he/she can or is willing to put into the car. In a nutshell, can afford a better car = can afford to pay more tax.

You do have the money but don't want to pay too much tax? Buy a less expensive/smaller car. As simple as it is, it doesn't say anywhere that a solicitor can't drive around in an Opel Corsa.

And mind you, it gets more complicated than that: what about the owner of the 2007 BMW? Why does he/she have to pay 4x the tax of somebody that bought the same car a few months later?

In any way we turn this, the CO2 based system is completely wrong and unfair, the Government is slowly realizing that through the reduced tax income; The dual system of pre and post 2008 is as stupid as it gets.

As simplistic as it sounds, the most fair and effective taxation system remains the one based on the engine power; The more HP you have, the more you pay - afterall, power is a good and fair indication of where a car stands on the pecking order; e.g. a Golf GTI will always be a superior, more exclusive vehicle than its own TDI version.

Iwannahurl

Valetta wrote: »

What do families have to do with it?

I don't have a family. Am I exempt?

Should I sell the kids or the car?

munchkin_utd

such a stupid headline.

Why not just say that disabled or pensioners or cancer victims or some other poor unfortunates and vulnerable will have to pay 50 euro extra on their car insurance.

Anyhow, to slap 50 euro on an already relatively cheap tax for post 2008 cars isnt a biggie.
The current insanely high taxes on larger (family friendly) vehicles pre 2008 is more pertinent and scandalous than any relatively minor rise on those who are still benefiting substantially from the unsustainable green party policies from years ago.

Mar4ix

some countries in EU introduced tax based on number of things ... example _ Latvia ... wasnt there for long time, but overall idea is - to tax car, take in to account - car full weight, engine size and power (in kW) ,
I have good example how that thing works...

my father has vw golf, 1.8 petrol, '93. he pay around 120 euro a year, to me belongs jeep grand cherokee, '00 , 4.7 v8 petrol, tax around 600 euro. i'd call that fair system. (minimal wage there is 160 euro a month), my father is civil servant, his wage is around 400 -450 euro a month ..

if you cant afford pay tax, you buy smaler/cheaper car.

Duiske

EoghanConway wrote: »

Wouldn't that just lead to an increase in fuel laundering?

And lead to a slight increase in the tax take during the summer, as people will essentially be paying motor tax for the pleasure of taking their lawnmower for a spin around the garden.

Iwannahurl

leonidas83 wrote: »

How about taxing fuel more & getting rid of motor tax altogether, thereby getting rid of that joke of a system & department they have for collecting the tax.

Duiske wrote: »

And lead to a slight increase in the tax take during the summer, as people will essentially be paying motor tax for the pleasure of taking their lawnmower for a spin around the garden.

I can't escape Motor Tax (just coughed up €478 recently for the pleasure) but I could dodge that one: I have a push bike and electric lawnmower in the shed!

It BeeMee

Mar4ix wrote: »

some countries in EU introduced tax based on number of things ... example _ Latvia ... wasnt there for long time, but overall idea is - to tax car, take in to account - car full weight, engine size and power (in kW) ,
I have good example how that thing works...

my father has vw golf, 1.8 petrol, '93. he pay around 120 euro a year, to me belongs jeep grand cherokee, '00 , 4.7 v8 petrol, tax around 600 euro. i'd call that fair system. (minimal wage there is 160 euro a month), my father is civil servant, his wage is around 400 -450 euro a month ..

if you cant afford pay tax, you buy smaler/cheaper car.

So to tax a golf takes 3 weeks working at minimum wage.

A jeep, nearly 4 months.
Even at civil servant wages, it'll take 6 weeks.

I don't think we're quite that bad here.

166man

I would welcome the €50 increase in the lower bands absolutely. It's the pre-2008 cars that suffer the most and shouldn't have such increases.

The 2012 520d driver can easily afford circa €450 a year road tax and if he can't tough luck, shouldn't have bought a €50k car.

The guy buying a €1k BMW shouldn't be paying 50% the value of the car every year.

McGrath5

In fairness, If one can afford €45k for a new BMW, they can afford the extra €50 per year to tax the yoke.

MrFrisp

166man wrote: »

I would welcome the €50 increase in the lower bands absolutely. It's the pre-2008 cars that suffer the most and shouldn't have such increases.

The 2012 520d driver can easily afford circa €450 a year road tax and if he can't tough luck, shouldn't have bought a €50k car.

The guy buying a €1k BMW shouldn't be paying 50% the value of the car every year.

I totally agree..The tax on pre-2008 cars is very high as it is.

The government don't care anyway..They are going to get their money...People will pay it..
They will moan and complain,,but that's about it..They'll still end up paying.

Unless people stand up and do something together,you will just have to take whatever increases they implement.

.

bazz26

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The BMW owner would have paid the VRT nonetheless, be the road tax 150 or 600 Euro; I doubt a BMW is only bought to save on tax, if somebody spends 45k upfront with the one and only goal to save 450 euro/year, he/she isn't exactly the brightest bulb in the house.

Regardless, the whole concept of "I paid VRT, so it's fair I pay less road tax" is completely wrong. First of all, the buyer of the Yaris has paid VRT and VAT as well, in proportion to the value of the car.

Not happy with it? Want to pay less taxes? Buy a less expensive car.

Second, the tax is supposed to be measured towards the means of the individual paying it; In this case the tax is about cars and the type of the car is a good measure of the owner's financial means. Afterall, owning a BMW is clearly more expensive than onwing a Fiesta, so it's fair to assume that the owner of the former has more resources he/she can or is willing to put into the car. In a nutshell, can afford a better car = can afford to pay more tax.

You do have the money but don't want to pay too much tax? Buy a less expensive/smaller car. As simple as it is, it doesn't say anywhere that a solicitor can't drive around in an Opel Corsa.

And mind you, it gets more complicated than that: what about the owner of the 2007 BMW? Why does he/she have to pay 4x the tax of somebody that bought the same car a few months later?

In any way we turn this, the CO2 based system is completely wrong and unfair, the Government is slowly realizing that through the reduced tax income; The dual system of pre and post 2008 is as stupid as it gets.

As simplistic as it sounds, the most fair and effective taxation system remains the one based on the engine power; The more HP you have, the more you pay - afterall, power is a good and fair indication of where a car stands on the pecking order; e.g. a Golf GTI will always be a superior, more exclusive vehicle than its own TDI version.

Motor tax has never been measured on the means of the individual. Putting it on bhp is no better than putting it on cc imo.

The fairest system imo is to abolish motor tax altogether and incorporate it into fuel prices. That way it is charged on usage as opposed to ownership so the more you drive the more you pay. Putting it on fuel also eliminated the need for alot of administration costs associated with it as it is collected at source. It would also close the loop on alot of folks out there who don't have their car taxed, without having to use stretched Garda resources as tax collectors.

monkeypants

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Should I sell the kids or the car?

The age of the kids, how many you have and what skills they possess is probably going to influence your decision. With the general movement of manufacturing jobs eastward, there are less chimneys to send kids up.

Don't forget that the (any) Irish government considers a car with an engine greater than 1.6 litres a "big" car.

166man

bazz26 wrote: »

Motor tax has never been measured on the means of the individual. Putting it on bhp is no better than putting it on cc imo.

The fairest system imo is to abolish motor tax altogether and incorporate it into fuel prices. That way it is charged on usage as opposed to ownership so the more you drive the more you pay. Putting it on fuel also eliminated the need for alot of administration costs associated with it as it is collected at source. It would also close the loop on alot of folks out there who don't have their car taxed, without having to use stretched Garda resources as tax collectors.

Surely putting the tax on fuel will have implications as regards the inflation rate, i.e push it up?

bazz26

Set it at a fixed value rather than a percentage.

166man

bazz26 wrote: »

Set it at a fixed value rather than a percentage.

Regardless of which way it's done, fixed or %, pushing fuel up over €2 a litre (which it will need to be) will almost certainly have implications on our inflation rate I'd have thought?

H3llR4iser

bazz26 wrote: »

Motor tax has never been measured on the means of the individual. Putting it on bhp is no better than putting it on cc imo.

What? There are different tax bands because a 1.0 car is usually much less expensive to run than a 3.0; It is indeed a form of indirect means measurements; The CO2 threw all of it all out of the window.

The idea of putting motor tax on the fuel is probably even worse than the CO2 system as it would put a penalty on people that live in rural areas, commute long distances, drive older cars or a combination of the three. New, fuel efficient diesel sedans would end up paying much less than a petrol runaround from 2000.

Yet again, the one and only common denominator is engine power. Cars of similar categories tend to have comparable engine power outputs, putting them roughly in the same tax ballpark; Older cars with some decent HP will pay as much as new ones, it is still not totally fair but quite a step forward from the absurdity we have now.

CreepingDeath

seamus wrote: »

They'll need to bring in the mandatory off-the-road declarations in order to hike motor tax by that amount, otherwise it'll just result in an increase in people playing off-the-road roulette and very little increase in actual tax take.

They're going to close that "off-the-road" loophole.
You'll have to declare the car off the road in advance, not retrospectively as you do now.

May 2012 Journal.ie Link

WacoKid

Why not just put the motor tax in the price of petrol/diesel? They more you use the more you pay. Then everybody can work out what car suits them best.

seamus

CreepingDeath wrote: »

They're going to close that "off-the-road" loophole.
You'll have to declare the car off the road in advance, not retrospectively as you do now.

May 2012 Journal.ie Link

Yeah, but when.

The credit card sized driving licences which are to be introduced early next year, were first announced as "coming soon" in late 2002.

Mar4ix

It BeeMee wrote: »

So to tax a golf takes 3 weeks working at minimum wage.

A jeep, nearly 4 months.
Even at civil servant wages, it'll take 6 weeks.

I don't think we're quite that bad here.

well, all that is relevant ... my father could get 1.4 petrol, which would be around 60 ish euro tax.

regarding prices in Latvia, it is very different question, which would be not important in this thread. Civil servants getting very small wages there, it is average wage bracket , balancing between poor and middle class.

Theanswers

4x4s have lots of BHP because they need it in order to tow, very little of that power is for overtaking performance. Older cars should be much cheaper than new ones.

4x4s should be exempt from the BHP tax system.

Voodoomelon

H3llR4iser wrote: »

What? There are different tax bands because a 1.0 car is usually much less expensive to run than a 3.0; It is indeed a form of indirect means measurements; The CO2 threw all of it all out of the window.

The idea of putting motor tax on the fuel is probably even worse than the CO2 system as it would put a penalty on people that live in rural areas, commute long distances, drive older cars or a combination of the three. New, fuel efficient diesel sedans would end up paying much less than a petrol runaround from 2000.

Yet again, the one and only common denominator is engine power. Cars of similar categories tend to have comparable engine power outputs, putting them roughly in the same tax ballpark; Older cars with some decent HP will pay as much as new ones, it is still not totally fair but quite a step forward from the absurdity we have now.

Listen, we've done the tax on the fuel thing to death, and it is by far, the fairest and most sensible way of administering the tax. Do a search and you will find posts tens of pages long in this forum, with all the maths and for and against arguments.

Penalising people based upon engine size or bhp is again senseless targeting of a small group of people, for which wealth has no real bearing. Cars are increasingly become smaller-engined in size, whilst power is on the increase across the board, we'd be back to square one in a matter of years.

You mention penalising those who live in rural areas, that is absolutely fair. The bottom line is, that if you drive more, you use the roads more, the pollute more, you pay more. Businesses would get a rebate on fuel against their returns and the whole cross-border argument with a tax on fuel system is overstated in my view.

listermint

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Listen, we've done the tax on the fuel thing to death, and it is by far, the fairest and most sensible way of administering the tax. Do a search and you will find posts tens of pages long in this forum, with all the maths and for and against arguments.

Penalising people based upon engine size or bhp is again senseless targeting of a small group of people, for which wealth has no real bearing. Cars are increasingly become smaller-engined in size, whilst power is on the increase across the board, we'd be back to square one in a matter of years.

You mention penalising those who live in rural areas, that is absolutely fair. The bottom line is, that if you drive more, you use the roads more, the pollute more, you pay more. Businesses would get a rebate on fuel against their returns and the whole cross-border argument with a tax on fuel system is overstated in my view.

BAM!

msg11

How about the government address the real problem of 1,700 people in public owned banks getting more than 100,000 P/A ..

170,000,000 ... If they even halved that bill that's 70,000,000 we are saving.

But it was sure fire the new car tax band was getting hit, particularly the A & B bands.

bazz26

Lads, a tax is exactly what it is. It is not meant to be fair, it is a source of revenue for the Government. People can argue for and against it depending on their perspective and which system they are taxed on meaning nobody is going to be happy with which ever system is used.

Putting it on bhp will not be a one size fits all solution either, just like the co2 system it will drive people to buy low powered cars meaning people with high powered cars are forced off the road if they cannot afford it or take the chance of driving around with out motor tax. The cycle will continue.

mitosis

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Listen, we've done the tax on the fuel thing to death, and it is by far, the fairest and most sensible way of administering the tax. Do a search and you will find posts tens of pages long in this forum, with all the maths and for and against arguments.

Penalising people based upon engine size or bhp is again senseless targeting of a small group of people, for which wealth has no real bearing. Cars are increasingly become smaller-engined in size, whilst power is on the increase across the board, we'd be back to square one in a matter of years.

You mention penalising those who live in rural areas, that is absolutely fair. The bottom line is, that if you drive more, you use the roads more, the pollute more, you pay more. Businesses would get a rebate on fuel against their returns and the whole cross-border argument with a tax on fuel system is overstated in my view.

Really. It's hard enough to get people in Donegal to pay VRT or motor tax as it is. Put it on fuel and they'll never pay a penny.

Voodoomelon

Any loss around the border areas would be confined to approx a 10 mile radius, if even. It would be more than made up by the compliance of the remaining 98%+ population.

Supergurrier

Theanswers wrote: »

4x4s have lots of BHP because they need it in order to tow, very little of that power is for overtaking performance. Older cars should be much cheaper than new ones.

4x4s should be exempt from the BHP tax system.

Torque :pac:

dingus12

All this shows is that BMW are light years ahead of the japs when it comes to making fuel efficient and high bhp per liter engines.

jayok

dingus12 wrote: »

BMW are light years ahead of the japs when it comes to making fuel efficient and high bhp per liter engines.

Hahahahahah....hahahahah....hahahaha....

BMW and other have an engine line-up that works currently works well with our tax system.

Neither BMW or any manufacturer is "light-years" ahead on another. There is only so much energy in a litre of fuel.

Supergurrier

So to summarize.

Companies comply with new carbon tax laws extremely well and government goes back on it's word and throws toys out of the pram because of the loss of revenue even though we are all being taxed twice to drive on the roads. I can see alot of people who bought new cars from 2008 onwards feeling abit hard done by tbh. Don't see what a badge should have to do with taxation tbh

dgt

Bit of a kick in the face, the speculated 15% hike, 660 to 758 a year....

F*ck newspapers and f*ck their speculations. I'm sick of scaremongering

vectra

Just as I was expecting all the time while convos were going on around here with members saying it was going to revert back to the old system.. :P
But of course as usual I was told I was wrong by all the keyboard know all's


On another not.
BMW are well prepared for any steep rise in Irish motor tax rates,

dingus12

jayok wrote: »

Hahahahahah....hahahahah....hahahaha....

BMW and other have an engine line-up that works currently works well with our tax system.

Neither BMW or any manufacturer is "light-years" ahead on another. There is only so much energy in a litre of fuel.

are there any other engines that produce 184bhp from a 2 liter diesel yet be in tax band A?

Yes there is only so much energy in a liter of fuel, However BMW seem to be making more use of it than every one else.