Is there any such thing as 'road tax'?

Jawgap

Well, no is the obvious answer, but for a more long winded treatment of the subject, this has just appeared on the Beeb....

It refers, obviously enough, to the UK but a lot of what's discussed is relevant on this side of the Irish Sea too.

Is there any such thing as 'road tax'?

Cyclists often report that aggressive motorists justify their behaviour on the basis that they alone pay "road tax". But, there is no such thing.

A young driver who boasted on Twitter about hitting a cyclist appears in court on Friday. Her tweet enraged cyclists - not just because of its tone, but because she claimed right of way because #bloodycyclists "don't pay road tax".

The tweet went viral and she's being charged with driving carelessly and failing to report an accident. She said in a TV interview that she regrets the tweet and didn't drive badly.

It seems motor tax is the description attached in Ireland

Plastik

There is no tax for road usage here. The tax is on vehicle ownership. It's as simple as that.

Sam Kade

Most minor roads in Ireland are the property of the land owner. Tax payers pay for maintaining them.

Skrynesaver

Ah your fascinating attempt to get logic through to Spook_ie has led you to doubt your correctness.

The proposal that someone who uses more fuel is giving more to the exchequer without counting the knock on effects of both their driving and their twin brother's cycling, thus gross rather than net figures examined...

I've given up that individual as either a troll or incapable of listening to be honest.

To address your actual question, no there isn't such a thing as road tax, there is motor tax and excise taxes which are intended to act as a disincentive to frivolous fuel use.

ThisRegard

Jawgap, you may have unleashed hell upon the Cycling forum

If there was to be a 'proper' road tax that was to be solely used for the maintenance and building of roads, nothing else, no other tax revenues or grants were to go into that pool, so as to back up that stupid argument that motorists pay for the roads, I would expect to see Motor Tax increase massively and we'd probably see a lot more cyclists as a result.

SomeFool

Tenzor07

Jawgap

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Ah your fascinating attempt to get logic through to Spook_ie has led you to doubt your correctness.

The proposal that someone who uses more fuel is giving more to the exchequer without counting the knock on effects of both their driving and their twin brother's cycling, thus gross rather than net figures examined...

I've given up that individual as either a troll or incapable of listening to be honest.

To address your actual question, no there isn't such a thing as road tax, there is motor tax and excise taxes which are intended to act as a disincentive to frivolous fuel use.

Sorry, could you explain that algebraically:D

ThisRegard wrote: »

Jawgap, you may have unleashed hell upon the Cycling forum

If there was to be a 'proper' road tax that was to be solely used for the maintenance and building of roads, nothing else, no other tax revenues or grants were to go into that pool, so as to back up that stupid argument that motorists pay for the roads, I would expect to see Motor Tax increase massively and we'd probably see a lot more cyclists as a result.

Pigeons cast among cats.......

On a more serious note, if motor tax was used only to pay for roads - wouldn't it decrease given only the road building and maintenance budget is only a fraction of it (I think)?

Of course, it wouldn't be used to build cycle lanes, cyclists would have to pay for those.

ThisRegard

Jawgap wrote: »

On a more serious note, if motor tax was used only to pay for roads - wouldn't it decrease given only the road building and maintenance budget is only a fraction of it (I think)?

I'm actually waiting for someone to come along with the facts and figures to disprove my argument.

Even during the boom the state went into PPP to get the roads built as well as the usual EU grants, so could they have just used all the motor tax from the massive amount of cars bought at the time to fund these ?

I know motor tax is not ring fenced for anything in particular but there was a surplus at the time with our large with VAT receipts, income tax, stamp duty etc


Edit, just found these figures for 2011, end of Oct, The total motor tax take was €708 million, can't find out what the total cost of maintenance and road building is, probably because they're done on a per local authority basis.

kenmc

Plastik wrote: »

There is no tax for road usage here. The tax is on vehicle ownership. It's as simple as that.

not really, you can own a car and never pay a cent of motor tax, quite legally, so long as you never have it on the road. so its not a tax on vehicle ownership

studiorat

I generally avoid this tax by cycling on the path. :pac:

PerrDub

Is a motor/road/tax discussion really appropriate on a cycling forum?

Plastik

kenmc wrote: »

not really, you can own a car and never pay a cent of motor tax, quite legally, so long as you never have it on the road. so its not a tax on vehicle ownership

Come next month, no you can't, so they have closed the loophole. You have to pay to declare it off the road, which is tax on ownership regardless of whether you use it or not.

Surveyor11

Well we've the highest motor tax rates and some of the highest fuel prices in Europe. The government also makes a killing on VRT and tolls on concessions that have expired (for example, the M50 and East Link Road bridges). So, given this, we should surely have the best roads in the EU, which is far from the case.

The motorist that is so ignorant to point this out to a cyclist who they feel has no right to use the roads had obviously not explored viable alternatives.

To a motorist who points this out to me, if it's really bugging them that I'm not paying 'road tax# and therefore have no right to use the public highway, Their choices are simple: buy a smaller car, or a car who's tax is calculated on CO2 emissions, use public transport, cycle, or (shock horror!) walk. I work with people who the two latter alternatives would be perfectly viable.

valleyoftheunos

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry, could you explain that algebraically:D



Pigeons cast among cats.......

On a more serious note, if motor tax was used only to pay for roads - wouldn't it decrease given only the road building and maintenance budget is only a fraction of it (I think)?

Of course, it wouldn't be used to build cycle lanes, cyclists would have to pay for those.

Its actually the other way around, the Costs of building and maintaining the road network is a significant multiple of the revenue from Motor Tax.

Everyone benefits from the road network even if they never use the network personally thus its cost is spread across various sources within the exchequer.

kenmc

Plastik wrote: »

Come next month, no you can't, so they have closed the loophole. You have to pay to declare it off the road, which is tax on ownership regardless of whether you use it or not.

if you declare it off the road, you don't pay tax.
likewise, if you have a car you only race in mondello, no tax. a clapped out landy you use on the farm, never sees the public road - no tax, no nct, green diesel,

Seweryn

Strange debate, but we can also ask how to claim excise duty on petrol used in a lawnmower. Surely, why do I have to pay that tax, if I do not ride my lawnmower on public roads?

kenmc

Seweryn wrote: »

Strange debate, but we can also ask how to claim excise duty on petrol used in a lawnmower. Surely, why do I have to pay that tax, if I do not ride my lawnmower on public roads?

good question, also for petrolbombs, arson etc, defo should be a rebate.

magicbastarder

Surveyor11 wrote: »

The government also makes a killing on VRT and tolls on concessions that have expired (for example, the M50 and East Link Road bridges).

speaking of the M50, i'd argue that it's a lost opportunity that there was not a cycle track laid alongside the M50; obviously it'd need some clever engineering to deal with junctions, but it'd be a very safe way to travel (with the debate about bike thieves mugging cyclists put to one side).

studiorat

Seweryn wrote: »

Strange debate, but we can also ask how to claim excise duty on petrol used in a lawnmower.

Claim the VAT back on it and claim against expenses.

letape

Plastik wrote: »

Come next month, no you can't, so they have closed the loophole. You have to pay to declare it off the road, which is tax on ownership regardless of whether you use it or not.

This isn't correct. The change is that you are required to declare the car as being off the road in advance and then you are not liable to pay motor tax for the period it will not be used. So you can still own a car and not be required to pay motor tax.

cdaly_

Plastik wrote: »

Come next month, no you can't, so they have closed the loophole. You have to pay to declare it off the road, which is tax on ownership regardless of whether you use it or not.

motortax.ie wrote:

# Q7. Will I have to pay an administration charge for making an off the road declaration?
A7. No.

Still a PITA though...

Spook_ie

Plastik wrote: »

Come next month, no you can't, so they have closed the loophole. You have to pay to declare it off the road, which is tax on ownership regardless of whether you use it or not.

Originally Posted by motortax.ie
# Q7. Will I have to pay an administration charge for making an off the road declaration?
A7. No.

cdaly_ wrote: »

Still a PITA though...

You don't pay an admin, however, you do have to have the vehicle taxed before you can take it "off the road" rather than "off anything else"

Q2. If my vehicle is not in use, when do I need to declare it off the road?

A2. You must make your off the road declaration in advance. The declaration must be made in the month of expiry of your current motor tax disc. All correctly completed applications will receive confirmation of their transaction, either by post or on the spot if the declaration is submitted in person at your local motor tax office.
http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/MotorTax/VehicleOffRoadProcedures/FAQs/

letape

Spook_ie wrote: »

You don't pay an admin, however, you do have to have the vehicle taxed before you can take it "off the road" rather than "off anything else"

Not the case if it is already off the road - then yoiu just complete and submit the declaration ie there is no need to now tax a car that is off the road; you just make the declaration prospectively. I am in this poisiton myself.

No Pants

ThisRegard wrote: »

Even during the boom the state went into PPP to get the roads built as well as the usual EU grants, so could they have just used all the motor tax from the massive amount of cars bought at the time to fund these ?

That's assuming that PPP was brought in to bridge a gap in funding. It's not. Upon scrutiny, the arguments for PPP generally fall and it looks more like a simple exercise in transferring public money to private pockets. In hindsight, most look like exceptionally bad value.

Surveyor11

No Pants wrote: »

That's assuming that PPP was brought in to bridge a gap in funding. It's not. Upon scrutiny, the arguments for PPP generally fall and it looks more like a simple exercise in transferring public money to private pockets. In hindsight, most look like exceptionally bad value.

Wouldn't agree with that - PPPs would have heavily financed motorway projects and recoup the expense through tolls etc with little or no expenditure from government funding. During the time of the concession (i.e. the time they are permitted to gather tolls - say 30 years or so) the local authority or NRA has no obligation to repair the road - this is done by the PPP co.

hfallada

The Irish government favours indirect taxes which are taxes on anything but income eg vat, custom duties. Very few people pay a large amount of income tax( the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of income tax). Therefore the government taxes the **** out of everything else to make up for the shortfall.

But it makes like logic for new cars to have low tax( generally wealthy people can afford newer cars) but a ton of tax
On old "unenvriomentally friendly cars" for the simple reasons they emit more co2 even though car making involve huge amounts of water and electrity

No Pants

Surveyor11 wrote: »

Wouldn't agree with that - PPPs would have heavily financed motorway projects and recoup the expense through tolls etc with little or no expenditure from government funding. During the time of the concession (i.e. the time they are permitted to gather tolls - say 30 years or so) the local authority or NRA has no obligation to repair the road - this is done by the PPP co.

I thought that only sections of the motorway were built by the PPP company, such as bridges, etc. Are you saying that they build and maintain the entire motorway?

Don't forget the compensation deals that they have for low traffic volumes.

magicbastarder

speaking of tax and cycling, it's curious that while the cycle to work scheme, laudable as it is, makes cycling cheaper for those best off.

i.e. if you're paying the top rate of tax, it halves the cost of the bike, if you're paying the next rate down, it takes about 30% off, and if you're unwaged, you've to pay full whack.

Surveyor11

No Pants wrote: »

I thought that only sections of the motorway were built by the PPP company, such as bridges, etc. Are you saying that they build and maintain the entire motorway?

Don't forget the compensation deals that they have for low traffic volumes.

Well, the section where the PPP applies. You might see a sign like 'PPP XYX Starts here' the next time you drive a motorway - this section to the designated ('PPP XYZ ends here) end would be financed, built and maintained by the PPP Co.

In terms of low traffic volumes, it's the opposite. The PPP Co would win it's bid based on traffic levels at the time - so the majority of these would have been done prior to the recession. So, a fall off in traffic through the toll bridges and the government pays the short fall.

ThisRegard

No Pants wrote: »

Are you saying that they build and maintain the entire motorway?

I'm pretty sure the M50 is, M50 Concessions is the company. They have the tow truck service with a depot on the bridge and another down the Kilmacanogue end and if you drive it in the evenings or at night you'll see they're pretty active at maintaining it.

No Pants

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the M50 is, M50 Concessions is the company. They have the tow truck service with a depot on the bridge and another down the Kilmacanogue end and if you drive it in the evenings or at night you'll see they're pretty active at maintaining it.

Didn't we buy the M50 back from the Doyle family for about €600m a number of years ago?

monument

PerrDub wrote: »

Is a motor/road/tax discussion really appropriate on a cycling forum?

Just don't move it to C&T.

No Pants

Surveyor11 wrote: »

Well, the section where the PPP applies. You might see a sign like 'PPP XYX Starts here' the next time you drive a motorway - this section to the designated ('PPP XYZ ends here) end would be financed, built and maintained by the PPP Co.

That's not the entire motorway then, just a small part, which we pay a toll for. Doesn't sound like value to me.

Surveyor11 wrote: »

In terms of low traffic volumes, it's the opposite. The PPP Co would win it's bid based on traffic levels at the time - so the majority of these would have been done prior to the recession. So, a fall off in traffic through the toll bridges and the government pays the short fall.

That's what I meant to say, but I made an arse of it. The M3 is the one that's usually quoted in relation to this.

Spook_ie

Where motor tax goes-

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/LocalGovernmentFinance/

Local Government Fund - General Purpose Grant

The Local Government Fund (LGF) is a special central fund which was established in 1999 under the Local Government Act 1998. It is financed by the full proceeds of motor tax and an Exchequer contribution. The Fund provides local authorities with the finance for general discretionary funding of their day-to-day activities and for non-national roads, and funding for certain local government initiatives.

So next time you avail of any of the above say a big thankyou to the motorists who are helping fund it, wonder if it includes the provision of cycle lanes? I assume it does unless they are on national roads

Edit Motor tax = Road Tax surely not!

AltAccount

Can we not just create a site-wide rule that it must be referred to "Tax for using a Motor Vehicle on a Public Road"?

Anything else just leads to pedantic arsery and spoils threads.

gufnork

studiorat wrote: »

I generally avoid this tax by cycling on the path. :pac:

I thought that was illegal?

monument

Local Government Fund - General Purpose Grant

The Local Government Fund (LGF) is a special central fund which was established in 1999 under the Local Government Act 1998. It is financed by the full proceeds of motor tax and an Exchequer contribution. The Fund provides local authorities with the finance for general discretionary funding of their day-to-day activities and for non-national roads, and funding for certain local government initiatives.

Motor tax isn't even enough to fund the LGF without extra funds from the tax pool. :rolleyes:

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Motor tax isn't even enough to fund the LGF without extra funds from the tax pool. :rolleyes:

Have I EVER in any thread said that motor /road tax is sufficent to pay for everything so perhaps a little less sarcasm.

The thread title " Is there any such thing as 'road tax'?" has been proven that there is

Bunnyhopper

Where was it proven that there is such a thing as road tax?

gufnork wrote: »

I thought that was illegal?

Only if you evade tax by cycling on the footpad.

Spook_ie

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Where was it proven that there is such a thing as road tax?



Only if you evade tax by cycling on the footpad.

Define a road tax as either a tax for the use of a road or as a means of raising funds for road building then

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86015923&postcount=35

The fact that as a norm you require motor tax to use a motorised vehicle on the road and the fact that ALL motor tax receipts go to LGF to part fund local repairs proves both sides of the argument, motor tax is road tax

tfrancer

This must be one of the most pointless threads I have encountered on this forum. It appears to start from the premise that, since motorists pay road tax and cyclists don't, cyclists should, like, get out of the way and generally stop irritating car-owners.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Have I EVER in any thread said that motor /road tax is sufficent to pay for everything so perhaps a little less sarcasm.

The thread title " Is there any such thing as 'road tax'?" has been proven that there is

Good point. The next logical step is increasing motor tax to come close to covering the cost of motoring. Or we could just add a road tax charge to Local Property Tax... everybody could pay.

Or just levy a footpath tax against all users older than 17 -- those younger would all have to carry ID to prove their age. There would be different rates of footpath tax for motorists and cyclists who want to use footpaths:

Half rate: Allows cyclists to jump up and down off footpaths to avoid traffic lights or congestion, and motorists to park just two wheels on footpaths without blocking prams or wheelchairs from getting past on the footpath.

Full rate: This allows motorists to fully park on the footpath but still not block other users (only good really for wide footpaths), and cyclists who pay are allowed to cycle slowly on footpaths as long as they give way to others.

A double rate: AKA: I own the footpath tax: Motorists who pay are allowed to park on the footpath regardless of blocking the full footpath, and cyclists who pay this rate are allowed cycle on the footpath at what ever speed they want and everybody else should jump out of their way.

Revenue would do spot checks on footpaths and would have the power to detain anybody without proof of payment or ID and they'd only be released when they are picked up by a motorist (proof of payment of motor tax would be needed).

EDIT: Something tells me none of this footpath tax will work, best just to levy it on the Local Property Tax.

hueylewis

Due to their weight and speeds, cars make much more of an impact on the surface quality of a road compared with pedestrians, cyclists, horses, etc. Only makes sense that there would be a motor tax that finds its way into a fund to repair the damage they do over time to the communal roads they share the use of.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Good point. The next logical step is increasing motor tax to come close to covering the cost of motoring. Or we could just add a road tax charge to Local Property Tax... everybody could pay.

Or just levy a footpath tax against all users older than 17 -- those younger would all have to carry ID to prove their age. There would be different rates of footpath tax for motorists and cyclists who want to use footpaths:

Half rate: Allows cyclists to jump up and down off footpaths to avoid traffic lights or congestion, and motorists to park just two wheels on footpaths without blocking prams or wheelchairs from getting past on the footpath.

Full rate: This allows motorists to fully park on the footpath but still not block other users (only good really for wide footpaths), and cyclists who pay are allowed to cycle slowly on footpaths as long as they give way to others.

A double rate: AKA: I own the footpath tax: Motorists who pay are allowed to park on the footpath regardless of blocking the full footpath, and cyclists who pay this rate are allowed cycle on the footpath at what ever speed they want and everybody else should jump out of their way.

Revenue would do spot checks on footpaths and would have the power to detain anybody without proof of payment or ID and they'd only be released when they are picked up by a motorist (proof of payment of motor tax would be needed).

EDIT: Something tells me none of this footpath tax will work, best just to levy it on the Local Property Tax.

QTR

Interesting but I'll resist the comments for now

Spook_ie

hueylewis wrote: »

Due to their weight and speeds, cars make much more of an impact on the surface quality of a road compared with pedestrians, cyclists, horses, etc. Only makes sense that there would be a motor tax that finds its way into a fund to repair the damage they do over time to the communal roads they share the use of.

No argument with that, but is motor tax a road tax?

Spook_ie

tfrancer wrote: »

This must be one of the most pointless threads I have encountered on this forum. It appears to start from the premise that, since motorists pay road tax and cyclists don't, cyclists should, like, get out of the way and generally stop irritating car-owners.

I missed that post perhaps you could highlight it for me?

tfrancer

Spook_ie wrote: »

I missed that post perhaps you could highlight it for me?

Look at the first post.

Spook_ie

tfrancer wrote: »

Look at the first post.

Apologies I hadn't realised you were refering to the UK court case but that someone had posted here, "I pay tax get out of my way"

However, that is not my intention, my intention is merely to expose the myth that there is no such thing as road tax when due to the fact that motor tax is paid directly to fund the LGF whose remit includes repair of local roads then clearly there is a road tax

ThisRegard

Therefore cyclists also contribute to this 'road tax'.

Beasty

Thread is going nowhere except rapidly downhill

The topic has been covered in the current C&T thread and there's no point going over the same ground again here