Petition to reform the older cc based tax system

porscheman

Not sure if this was posted allready but i thought it was wort mentioning

http://www.change.org/petitions/reform-the-grossly-unjust-irish-car-tax-law

kawasaki1100

How much does it cost to tax your car?

colm_mcm

thread reopened. This is to be the only thread on this topic

Max Power1

Did you know the CC rate on your car before you bought it?

Yes?

And that the market price reflects the higher tax? Yes?

Ok then what is the issue? (Apart from that the rates should be equalized somewhat with the emissions rates) I see no issue with taxing on CC, indeed it lets some cars have cheaper tax than they would otherwise have!

Guy:Incognito

What about the post 08 cars paying 2k in tax and subsidising older cc based tax?

Max Power1

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What about the post 08 cars paying 2k in tax and subsidising older cc based tax?

While I agree (this is why you dont see many post 08 RX8s or other high capacity petrols), most of the subsidization is the other way. If there were no CC rate and we were starting from the year dot, the CO2 rates would be much higher.

colm_mcm

I suppose my main gripes with the system are:

Engine size has little bearing on environmental impact. I'm assuming that the environment has some significance given the new system is based on co2.

The higher bands are too expensive. A 3000cc litre car is 3 times the size of a 999cc, but the tax is 9 times as much.

The co2 based system is too cheap

A lot of perfectly good cars are being abandoned because the tax is too high

Not everyone can afford a post 08 car. Everyone doesn't want a micra.


We'd really need to establish what tax is for, what the reasoning behind the cc system is and if there is any workable alternative. Realistically a blanket reduction in rates will never happen. I wonder how people would feel about a €400 minimum and €800 maximum rate

Max Power1

Yes. I think there should be a "per 100cc" rate, rather than the exponential increases above 2.0 liters.

flyingsnail

colm_mcm wrote: »

I suppose my main gripes with the system are:

Engine size has little bearing on environmental impact. I'm assuming that the environment has some significance given the new system is based on co2.

The higher bands are too expensive. A 3000cc litre car is 3 times the size of a 999cc, but the tax is 9 times as much.

The co2 based system is too cheap

A lot of perfectly good cars are being abandoned because the tax is too high

Not everyone can afford a post 08 car. Everyone doesn't want a micra.


We'd really need to establish what tax is for, what the reasoning behind the cc system is and if there is any workable alternative. Realistically a blanket reduction in rates will never happen. I wonder how people would feel about a €400 minimum and €800 maximum rate

I don’t know how popular it would be but how about a flat rate regardless of the car. If I want to drive a 3L luxobarge I will end up paying more in the tax on my fuel bill anyway and somebody else who wants to save can purchase something more fuel efficient.

colm_mcm

How far back do you reckon they'd have co2 data?
Be some shock if everything went co2 and you had to pay huge tax on old micras.
I suspect this is why they're never gonna backdate for co2

flyingsnail

colm_mcm wrote: »

How far back do you reckon they'd have co2 data?
Be some shock if everything went co2 and you had to pay huge tax on old micras.
I suspect this is why they're never gonna backdate for co2

I don’t know but I found it easy to find for my 03 1.8 mondeo, but it would mean an increase from 636 to 750 for me.



The 1L mirca from 93-02 is listed as 152 g/km which would be 390 annually.

Max Power1

They backdated in the UK for at least 5 years afaik.

beauf

I always assumed that it's a tax that assumes if you run a car that's expensive to run you can afford to pay more tax than someone who runs a car that's cheaper to run.

Max Power1

beauf wrote: »

I always assumed that it's a tax that assumes if you run a car that's expensive to run you can afford to pay more tax than someone who runs a car that's cheaper to run.

Except the emissions taxes?

Where a brand new bmw 520d can be in the cheapest ranges and pay 25% of the standard tax on a pre 08 family car?

kdevitt

colm_mcm wrote: »

How far back do you reckon they'd have co2 data?

You can calculate it based on the MPG figures -

Where the fuel consumption is shown as miles per gallon the figures must be converted to kms per litre as follows:
mpg/2.82485 = km per litre.
CO2 emissions are then calculated using the formula in c above.
e.g. If the fuel consumption is shown as 48.7 mpg then
48.7/2.82485 = 17.2 km per litre and
2320/17.2 = CO2 emissions of 134.88 or 135

To add my 2c's worth - I'm not happy paying 2k a year in road tax for my M3 - but I was aware of the high tax when I bought it. What is an issue, which Max Power hasn't addressed is that the new C02 system (of which owners like myself weren't aware of when purchasing) has totally skewed the market towards diesels - and further devalued cars which people bought in some cases making them unsellable.

colm_mcm

beauf wrote: »

I always assumed that it's a tax that assumes if you run a car that's expensive to run you can afford to pay more tax than someone who runs a car that's cheaper to run.

If you take an economical old car like an avensis TD, that's €700 to tax. In every other respect this is a cheap car to run. The cc has as little significance as the number of windows.

Max Power1

kdevitt wrote: »

You can calculate it based on the MPG figures -



To add my 2c's worth - I'm not happy paying 2k a year in road tax for my M3 - but I was aware of the high tax when I bought it. What is an issue, which Max Power hasn't addressed is that the new C02 system (of which owners like myself weren't aware of when purchasing) has totally skewed the market towards diesels - and further devalued cars which people bought in some cases making them unsellable.

That's a fair call. Id be pretty peeved if I bought a petrol car in 2007 tbh. The likes of a 1.8/1.6 family car will be pretty unsellable now.

kdevitt

beauf wrote: »

I always assumed that it's a tax that assumes if you run a car that's expensive to run you can afford to pay more tax than someone who runs a car that's cheaper to run.

Which makes it a(n assumed) Luxury tax - as opposed to the C02 based version, which is an environmental based tax. (Spotting a 640d Grand Coupe for 106k in Murphy and Gunns which has 300 per year road tax is pretty farcical I guess - anyone buying that car new can obviously afford to pay more than 300 per year in road tax)

colm_mcm

One thing to bear in mind is that if rates were perceived as better value, people might get higher cc cars and pay more.
The main concern for the gov is loss of revenue. I would have thought that a fairer system enforced properly would yield more.

colm_mcm

kdevitt wrote: »

Which makes it a(n assumed) Luxury tax - as opposed to the C02 based version, which is an environmental based tax. (Spotting a 640d Grand Coupe for 106k in Murphy and Gunns which has 300 per year road tax is pretty farcical I guess - anyone buying that car new can obviously afford to pay more than 300 per year in road tax)

I think the issue here is that whoever devised the tax system forgot that we aren't the only country in the world and that manufacturers had been working towards low co2 cars or a long time before July 08. They totally underestimated what the car makers were capable of.

I wonder would a rate for pre 08 cars based on kerbweight be fair and workable? Reasoning being heavier cars must cause marginally more wear on the roads

eringobragh

Its a joke tbh they hammered the CC in the last few budgets while the emmissions are barely touched

My 2L has gone up nearly 100euro since 2011 - and if you want to pay every 6 months add some more to that.

2011 614
2012 660
2013 710

Depriciation is Zero on my car and nothings owed on it, but where do you draw the line? I only do about 5000mls per anum

CiniO

In motortax (both CC and CO2 rates) what's bad is a difference between highest and smallest rate.

F.e. for 1.0 litre car you pay less than 200euros while for 3.0 litre you pay nearly 2000, so pretty much 10 times more.
Same story with CO2 rates.

If the highest rate would be something about double the lowest rate, it would look more normal IMHO.

Henry Ford III

eringobragh wrote: »

Its a joke tbh they hammered the CC in the last few budgets while the emmissions are barely touched...

They were doubled in many cases.

beauf

kdevitt wrote: »

Which makes it a(n assumed) Luxury tax - as opposed to the C02 based version, which is an environmental based tax. (Spotting a 640d Grand Coupe for 106k in Murphy and Gunns which has 300 per year road tax is pretty farcical I guess - anyone buying that car new can obviously afford to pay more than 300 per year in road tax)

Isn't that obvious?

I assume, the CO2 system was designed as a environmental policy but also to drive the sales of new cars.

No matter what system you use, theres always going to be some losers, be the the car owner or the states tax income. Wasn't there moves to increase the take from the CO2 system because revenue had fallen?

If you lessen the tax take from one section you have increase it on another. Do you make people change their cars, or make them old on to their own, or get ride of them entirely. The Govt has to see how it effects the tax take. In the end it comes down to numbers, and votes, which is the greatest number of people to be effected. Its not going to be older big capacity owners.

colm_mcm

CiniO wrote: »

If the highest rate would be something about double the lowest rate, it would look more normal IMHO.

To do that, the lowest rate would have to be quite high though, and the incentive to buy or produce a car with lower co2 isn't really there

galwaytt

Henry Ford III wrote: »

They were doubled in many cases.

2 x s.f.a. = SFA (still), though

beauf

CiniO wrote: »

In motortax (both CC and CO2 rates) what's bad is a difference between highest and smallest rate.

F.e. for 1.0 litre car you pay less than 200euros while for 3.0 litre you pay nearly 2000, so pretty much 10 times more.
Same story with CO2 rates.

If the highest rate would be something about double the lowest rate, it would look more normal IMHO.

Whats the likely ratio between, a set of 14" tires on a 1.0 vs the tires on a 3.0?

Max Power1

Henry Ford III wrote: »

They were doubled in many cases.

Doubled from 100 isnt much when compared to the 700 odd euro that a 1.9 is now.

I know that the 3.0 rate went up by more than the initial emissions rate for a new 520d.

kdevitt

colm_mcm wrote: »

One thing to bear in mind is that if rates were perceived as better value, people might get higher cc cars and pay more.

I reckon you could more or less dismiss this based on the BMW 5 series alone - the bigger engined variants are exceptionally economical when compared to previous variants, a 528i M Sport is in Band D for example - which is a reasonably low cost band and should encourage buyers who want something a bit more interesting that an entry level diesel. Check out the sales figures though - no one is buying anything other than 520d's.

I reckon Irish buyers are just inclined to look at paying the least amount of tax per annum they can.

beauf

You see this effect in the UK where traditionally they would run higher capacity motors than in Ireland (as a generalisation) as running costs were lower.

Thats changing now, especially for older cars, and indeed the changes there had a big impact on older high CO2 cars, which is often older high capacity motors.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/apr/17/road-tax-carbon-emissions

Atlantic Dawn

Should be fuel based, that way heavy users pay most and the foreign drivers will maintain our roads they use currently for free.

colm_mcm

Kdevitt, how does the list price of the 528i compare as a result of vrt?
I can't see a change in post 08 system, but a lot of Irish people drive 02-07 cars and it'll be a while before the 08 cars come into budget for them, ironically because of the lower tax the 08 has.

eringobragh

Henry Ford III wrote: »

They were doubled in many cases.

Double of fuck all is still fuck all

Tails142

I'm totally behind this, the current system is flawed and penalises pre-2008 cars, give it another 5 years and it wont be as big an issue but the whole c02 system is ill thought out green party garbage. Lung cancer rates probably going to rise due to all the extra diesel cars in circulation.

beauf

kdevitt wrote: »

I reckon you could more or less dismiss this based on the BMW 5 series alone - the bigger engined variants are exceptionally economical when compared to previous variants, a 528i M Sport is in Band D for example - which is a reasonably low cost band and should encourage buyers who want something a bit more interesting that an entry level diesel. Check out the sales figures though - no one is buying anything other than 520d's.

I reckon Irish buyers are just inclined to look at paying the least amount of tax per annum they can.

You're forgetting the retail price difference between a 528i M (62K) and 520d (45~50K). Thats going to have impact right there.

beauf

Tails142 wrote: »

I'm totally behind this, the current system is flawed and penalises pre-2008 cars,...

Depends, you might have an older engine with high CO2 and you might be worse off under CO2.

kdevitt

beauf wrote: »

Isn't that obvious?

No, not really? Someone who can afford a new diesel car for 50k is a more worthy target for a luxury tax than someone who has held onto their older (worthless) car which incurs high tax. So who is the intended target for a luxury tax here? Furthermore - an older car with a bigger engine which is used at weekends only can incur massive tax amounts, while a newer diesel car which does massive mileage might get away with 150 per year. So if is truly a luxury tax, its not targeting the correct audience. In fact its probably targeting the total opposite - those who cannot afford to buy new.

beauf wrote: »

I assume, the CO2 system was designed as a environmental policy but also to drive the sales of new cars.

No matter what system you use, theres always going to be some losers, be the the car owner or the states tax income. Wasn't there moves to increase the take from the CO2 system because revenue had fallen?

If you lessen the tax take from one section you have increase it on another. Do you make people change their cars, or make them old on to their own, or get ride of them entirely. The Govt has to see how it effects the tax take. In the end it comes down to numbers, and votes, which is the greatest number of people to be effected. Its not going to be older big capacity owners.

Changes to the tax system should generally be revenue neutral - but in this case they shot themselves in the foot, manufacturers upped their game and now the vast majority of new cars sold in the country pay miniscule tax.

A fair environmental system would be based on actual Co2 emissions - i.e at the pump. It will never happen though.

djimi

I'm quite happy to leave it as it is thanks; my car would cost more to tax on the co2 system...

kdevitt

beauf wrote: »

You're forgetting the retail price difference between a 528i M (62K) and 520d (45~50K). Thats going to have impact right there.

Colms point was that if higher CC / C02 stuff got more affordable to tax annually, then more people might buy them - my point is that the higher CC / Co2 stuff is already cheap enough to tax - and they're still not selling.

Purchase price will obviously be a factor - but there were 1000 5 series sold and 989 of those were 520d's. I'd be pretty willing to bet money that a good chunk of those 989 could afford the extra initial outlay for a 528 - but are fully aware that they'd never sell it, because the second hand market only wants diesels - and the garages will be reminding people of that at every opportunity.

CiniO

colm_mcm wrote: »

To do that, the lowest rate would have to be quite high though, and the incentive to buy or produce a car with lower co2 isn't really there

Yes. And that's how it should be.

Previous tax system encouraged buying small engined cars, so most Irish drivers had underpowered petrol cars.
Also as most manufacturer made the smallest engine cars with smallest trim level, we all ended up with paddy-spec low power tiny ****boxes.

Current CO2 tax system, encourage small diesels, so we are flooded with them.
People use diesels everywhere including for short distance city driving.
Small CO2 emissions doesn't mean that cars are clean. You surely know that CO2 makes no harm to people, while diesel fumes all around you in the city does.
Another few years, and most of those cars will suffer from DPF trouble and will require costly repairs, due to complexity of diesels in general (injectors, dmf, turbos, etc).

Any way of forcing people to buy certain cars by applying high tax only to some of them is no good.

kdevitt

colm_mcm wrote: »

I wonder would a rate for pre 08 cars based on kerbweight be fair and workable? Reasoning being heavier cars must cause marginally more wear on the roads

Its how it works in Australia - but the tax is for the roads, so the correlation makes perfect sense. Motor tax here tends to go into government coffers to be spend on absolutety everything except the roads.

beauf

kdevitt wrote: »

No, not really? Someone who can afford a new diesel car for 50k is a more worthy target for a luxury tax than someone who has held onto their older (worthless) car which incurs high tax. So who is the intended target for a luxury tax here? Furthermore - an older car with a bigger engine which is used at weekends only can incur massive tax amounts, while a newer diesel car which does massive mileage might get away with 150 per year. So if is truly a luxury tax, its not targeting the correct audience. In fact its probably targeting the total opposite - those who cannot afford to buy new.....

The two systems have different objectives. I don't really see the point in comparing them, on the same objectives as you are doing.

maidhc

CiniO wrote: »

Another few years, and most of those cars will suffer from DPF trouble and will require costly repairs, due to complexity of diesels in general (injectors, dmf, turbos, etc).

And will have DPFs deleted along with EGR valves blocked and will be belching out copious amounts of soot!

beauf

CiniO wrote: »

...
Small CO2 emissions doesn't mean that cars are clean. You surely know that CO2 makes no harm to people, while diesel fumes all around you in the city does.
Another few years, and most of those cars will suffer from DPF trouble and will require costly repairs, due to complexity of diesels in general (injectors, dmf, turbos, etc)....

Its not a very well thought out policy. Mainly focused on how much fuel is used, not how much resources is consumed in dumping and old car, and making a new one.

kdevitt

beauf wrote: »

The two systems have different objectives. I don't really see the point in comparing them, on the same objectives as you are doing.

So in your opinion, whats the actual objective of each system?

And its a very valid comparison - its a fixed cost of running a car. It should be consistently calculated.

Soarer

Flat rate of €300 per annum for everyone.
Add 10c per litre to fuel ( or there abouts. Haven't worked that out yet!)
When a car turns 6, it's tax is reduced by 10% every year until its costs nothing to tax.
Make NCT more stringent, and penalties for not having one more serious, since tax rate is so low.

Something like that.

beauf

kdevitt wrote: »

So in your opinion, whats the actual objective of each system?

And its a very valid comparison - its a fixed cost of running a car. It should be consistently calculated.

We've already covered that. The tax system isn't consistent. It changes. Sometimes not in a fair or logical way. Which is why they do U-Turns on a regular basis.

From 2008

http://www.politics.ie/forum/green-party/28125-gormley-welcomes-survey-results-motor-tax-changes.html

Local Government Minister John Gormley has welcomed the results of a survey showing 65% of people would be more likely to buy a lower emissions car because of changes to the motor tax system.

The Red C Poll was conducted by the Irish Taxation Institute on the new Motor Tax/VRT systems operational from 1 July 2008.

Minister Gormley said: "I welcome the results of this Red C Poll as it shows that the Irish people will respond positively to smart green taxation measures. In making the changes to an emissions based system it was my intention to incentivise those that made the right decision to purchase cars with low emissions. The results of the Poll are proof positive that the changes to the Motor Tax /VRT will have the desired effect."

Of course this was just before the crash when car sales fell for other reasons.

Atlantic Dawn

When the €1k plus rate of tax cars get to a stage where the tax is costing more than the car is worth to tax it makes little financial sense to keep them. Scraping a perfectly good car because the tax is too high and replacing it with another car is far worse damage to the environment than the emissions for the car ever will be.

beauf

djimi wrote: »

I'm quite happy to leave it as it is thanks; my car would cost more to tax on the co2 system...

It really comes down to that. Its really an engine by engine basis. Say a 1.6 Golf from 2006, its €1200 under CO2, €514 under Engine size. I'm sure the people looking to change the rules probably are better off under CO2 rules. Say a 06 530i would be €1809 under CO2, but €2350 under Engine size. (I'm not 100% on capacities so thats approx)

beauf

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

When the €1k plus rate of tax cars get to a stage where the tax is costing more than the car is worth to tax it makes little financial sense to keep them. Scraping a perfectly good car because the tax is too high and replacing it with another car is far worse damage to the environment than the emissions for the car ever will be.

Why would someone scrap a car to save €1k in tax when a newer car would cost them €2K+ in depreciation alone. if a new car, maybe 5k or 10k the first year or so. I assume what usually scraps an older car is not simply the tax alone, its the death of 1000 paper cuts when you need to do major work, and the other costs combined.

Of course people aren't always rational.

Atlantic Dawn

beauf wrote: »

Why would someone scrap a car to save €1k in tax when a newer car would cost them €2K+ in depreciation alone. if a new car, maybe 5k or 10k the first year or so. I assume what usually scraps an older car is not simply the tax alone, its the death of 1000 paper cuts when you need to do major work, and the other costs combined.

Of course people aren't always rational.

Yes there's people I personally know who have spent €35k plus on cars to cut their tax bill, going from a 2 litre cc based car to a sub €200 diesel yoke. They don't seem to grasp depreciation as a part of the cost of motoring.