Is this an Elephant?

Max Headroom

macplaxton wrote: »

*cough*

It's been €56 for over a year-and-a-half now.





01 Jan 2013 > / €56
01 Jan 2012 to 31 Dec 2012 / €52
01 Jan 2009 to 31 Dec 2011 / €48
01 Feb 2008 to 31 Dec 2008 / €46
01 Jan 2004 to 31 Jan 2008 / €42
01 Jan 2003 to 31 Dec 2003 / €40

Someone that doesnt even own a classic would not know this.....;)

alastair

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Its contradictory because you say one solution is impractical because it requires enforcement, but the other is practical because it simply requires enforcement. I think we have already established that the 'elephant' issue is because laws arent being enforced as they should be.

As for the "Enforcement of a new law is, by definition, more costly than enforcing existing laws" - by what definition? Laws change all the time, Ive never heard of anyone saying we are not changing the alcohol limit because its 'too expensive'. If an existing law is NOT working, then you change it. Or do a crackdown. How would you do that? Check every car availing of the classic tax? Sounds expensive and entirely impractical.

Again, the problem is people falsifying the identity of a vehicle to reduce the road tax and then use it as their daily driver. Remove this incentive and you will eradicate the issue. Enforcement is simple - you see a zv car in rush hour, you stop it.If the owner wants to use it all day everyday, then they can pay what everyone else has to pay.

Dunno how to make this much simpler for you.

Introducing a law that impacts on all classic cars involves a greater enforcement overhead than a law that only applies to fraudulently registered cars. That's more costly in terms of time and money. That's aside from the basic issue of additional enforcement always having an impact on the enforcement of existing law. There is no contradiction. And again - the practicality of enforcing a curfew on specific types of car would be a complete nightmare.

There's no problem in people using their classic as a daily driver. You keep claiming this, but the actual problem is quite different. It's one of a minority breaking the law - while you focus on those who are not.

Capri

In Singapore, as I've mentioned before, there's a cheaper rate for cars used in the evenings/weekends and they have red plates

Cheaper tax - Red licence plates indicate that the car may be driven only during off-peak times unless a daily fee is paid. Off peak times are from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays and all day on Saturdays and Sundays

German rules

Car collectors: Red plates starting with the number 07 are reserved for collectors of vintage cars. Originally, vintage cars had a required minimum age of 20 years from first registering. Since April 2007 onwards the required minimum age has been 30 years. Plates issued under the old 20 years rule remained valid after this date. The collectors must get an official certificate of approval (such as no criminal records). They are allowed to use one set of plates on any of their cars under the condition that they keep a strict record of use. No day-to-day use of the cars is allowed. A valid official technical inspection is not mandatory but the cars have to be technical fit for use on public roads

Classic cars (known in German by the pseudo-English expression Oldtimer) can get an H (historisch, historic) at the end of the plate, such as K-AA 100H in order to preserve the so-called "vehicle of cultural value" (kraftfahrtechnisches Kulturgut"). It also includes a flat tax of appr. €190 per year. The requirements for a vehicle for an H-Plate are:
The first documented registration lies at least 30 years in the past.
The car must be in mostly original and preservation worthy condition. Preservation worthy means a grade C by popular car grading standards. The older the car, the more signs of usage it can show. This purely concerns the car's appearance, the road worthiness is established by separate mandatory safety inspections. Universally accepted modifications include changes that benefit safety, such as seat belts and disc brakes, and environmental friendliness, such as catalytic converters and LPG conversions (if invisible from the outside). Further modifications that are generally accepted are those contemporary of the car's first registration (plus and minus 10 years, burden of proof lies with the owner through historic material such as photographs) and new paintjobs of any color, including two tone paint if originally offered and historic company logos, but no murals or custom patterns.

Cars (or more often, motorbikes) with seasonal number plates have two numbers at the end of the plate indicating the months between which they are registered to drive, with the licence being valid from the start of the upper month until the end of the lower month. This results in lower car taxes, as well lower insurance premiums

Here, we have a skewed market - 85Merc worth €800, 84Merc worth€3000 and all for the sake of €1800 tax p/a :rolleyes:
About time there was a sensible revision of the rules - but it's Ireland, it'll never happen :mad:

26000 Elephants

macplaxton wrote: »

*cough*

It's been €56 for over a year-and-a-half now.

Genuine typo on my part. see my earlier post, where i quote the correct cost.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

Dunno how to make this much simpler for you.

Your argument is simple enough as it is. any simpler and you would reduce it to a mere gutteral noise, accompanied by some arm waving!! Im merely suggested that it was contradictory. But now I think its simply the polar opposite of reality.

Introducing a law that impacts on all classic cars involves a greater enforcement overhead than a law that only applies to fraudulently registered cars.

Thats assuming the fraudulant cars have large flashing signs on their roofs. How do you identify them? Otherwise gardai have to satisfy themselves of the bona fides of every classic they come across, which is impractical.

And again - the practicality of enforcing a curfew on specific types of car would be a complete nightmare.

Why? Its enforced the same way any other RTA law is enforced. If you are stopped in a zv plated car at 8.30am you are outside the terms of your reduced tax. As has been mentioned previously, there exist several precedents for this legislation.

There's no problem in people using their classic as a daily driver. You keep claiming this, but the actual problem is quite different. It's one of a minority breaking the law - while you focus on those who are not.

Those who are breaking the law are doing so because they get to drive a car on a daily basis at a reduced tax intended for classic enthusiasts to be able to enjoy their hobby (and im paraphrasing from earlier in this thread). Having a restriction would remove that incentive to defraud. And yes, I do feel that people who use a classic, with classic tax, as a daily driver, or worse as their sole vehicle may be as much part of the problem as the people who falsify the identity of their cars.


In essence, there is a risk that it will weaken the whole argument for classic tax, and will further damage our hobby by reducing several candidate classic cars to merely an extreme form of "Bangernomics"

26000 Elephants

John Larkin wrote: »

I have lobbied for change for many years. Between 1978 and 2000 I made three very detailed and fully costed submissions to the Government that road tax should be charged by increasing excise duty on petrol. It was clear from the responses that I received on each occasion that the civil service was against the idea, even when the ministers were in favour. I sought support from an established car club to promote the idea, but they considered the idea to be controversial and declined to help. This fear of rocking the boat is common among the "representative" car clubs. I gave up eventually --- I saw no point in tilting at windmills any longer.

The low tax rate that we enjoy on old cars was put in place by the late Albert Reynolds who listened to a small group of enthusiasts who made a good case which he supported and pushed through despite civil service resistance. Reasonable pragmatic politicians such as he are rare indeed.

I agree. Front loading tax on car ownership is bizarre. Especially so in the age of co2 based tax. A car that travels 10000km at a co2 of 115 puts out more co2 than a car that does only 3000km at 300co2's. SO move the tax from the possession of the car to the use of the car. However, the danger with that is the likely increase in fuel laundering and fraud that will occur as the price of the legitimate stuff goes up.

But again, thats about enforcement. Its not as easy as simply mugging motorists at the tax office.

At a stroke, it would solve the 'elephant' issue as well.

pablo128

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I agree. Front loading tax on car ownership is bizarre. Especially so in the age of co2 based tax. A car that travels 10000km at a co2 of 115 puts out more co2 than a car that does only 3000km at 300co2's. SO move the tax from the possession of the car to the use of the car. However, the danger with that is the likely increase in fuel laundering and fraud that will occur as the price of the legitimate stuff goes up.

But again, thats about enforcement. Its not as easy as simply mugging motorists at the tax office.

At a stroke, it would solve the 'elephant' issue as well.

A lad on another forum I frequent, managed to work out how much extra would have to be put on fuel to make it workable. I think it worked out at much less than 10 cent per litre. Not too bad if that was all they put on extra.

Testacalda

26000 Elephants wrote: »

My feeling is that its this usage pattern that will lead to the scrapping of the classic tax band before any furore over so called elephants. anyone who sees your car on a regular basis will be wondering why they are paying 700e in tax when you are 'getting away' with 52e. They may not be aware of the other cars in your collection, for which you pay full rate tax.

You're hardly suggesting that me driving one of my 1970's cars during the day on a Tuesday is going to jeopardise our cheaper tax rate some how?. I don't feel bad about driving my car during the day with its cheaper tax rate, that's why we have the cheaper tax rate, to make it feasible for enthusiast to have a classic on the road in the first place.

26000 Elephants

Testacalda wrote: »

You're hardly suggesting that me driving one of my 1970's cars during the day on a Tuesday is going to jeopardise our cheaper tax rate some how?. I don't feel bad about driving my car during the day with its cheaper tax rate, that's why we have the cheaper tax rate, to make it feasible for enthusiast to have a classic on the road in the first place.

I feel it will weaken the case for a blanket reduced tax aimed at supporting enthusiasts in their 'hobby'. I understand some enthusiasts want to drive their car all the time, but I feel its only fair that they pay the same rate as everyone else in that case.

But the PRIMARY problem with unrestricted use of classic tax, is that it makes it attractive for people to scam it by ringing, rebodying, etc. And thats the crux of this thread.

bbsrs

There's more debate in this forum about , vintage tax, dodgy logbooks and ringed cars than about classic cars. Maybe it should be renamed the the vintage tax forum!

Cleveland Hot Pocket

If the tax remained at the CC rate for the life of the car, there would be no more large engined classics left on the road.
And those that were left, would chance not paying the tax for what is a weekend car.

Silly to even contemplate removing the classic tax rate. What should be done is a clampdown on ringing and 2.0 on the book jobs, this happens in all cars, classics and not-so classics.

26000 Elephants

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

If the tax remained at the CC rate for the life of the car, there would be no more large engined classics left on the road.
And those that were left, would chance not paying the tax for what is a weekend car.

I think thats the point thats being made in the thread. Restricted classic tax would suit the above named case, making it perfectly legal.

Silly to even contemplate removing the classic tax rate. What should be done is a clampdown on ringing and 2.0 on the book jobs, this happens in all cars, classics and not-so classics.

Nobody suggested removing the tax rate. But the use of classic taxed vehicles for commuting and main car use, as well as the cases of ringing, could put the whole scheme in danger.

And yes, I agree, ringing and falsely declared cars are NOT an issue per se with classic cars. It just happens that criminals use the 30 year rule to pay less tax.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I think thats the point thats being made in the thread. Restricted classic tax would suit the above named case, making it perfectly legal.




Nobody suggested removing the tax rate. But the use of classic taxed vehicles for commuting and main car use, as well as the cases of ringing, could put the whole scheme in danger.

And yes, I agree, ringing and falsely declared cars are NOT an issue per se with classic cars. It just happens that criminals use the 30 year rule to pay less tax.

Why should it be restricted use?
The point of classic cars are for them to be enjoyed, and showed to the public. As well as maintaining them for historical record.
Why deny the owners the chance to drive them??
I have a 1989 nissan 300zx, it's not on classic tax yet but when it is I will drive it as I do now. Mostly at weekends, but the odd time I take it to work or for a spin of a weekday evening.

26000 Elephants

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

I have a 1989 nissan 300zx,.

Sorry, CHP, Cant help you with that. You could try counselling? :cool:

Im only mentioning this as a way of solving the 'Elephant' issue. Anyway, people like you arent an issue. However, people who drive cars with classic tax on a daily basis may weaken the case for unrestricted classic car tax.

alastair

However, people who drive cars with classic tax on a daily basis may weaken the case for unrestricted classic car tax.

You've a pretty strange notion about what 'unrestricted' actually means. But given that you struggle with the basic premis of an additional (unwarranted for good measure) law enforcement overhead costing more than enforcing the existing (and perfectly appropriate) law, I can't say I'm surprised.

swarlb

Why is it, than whenever this topic turns up for debate, there is a raft of argument as to the where's any why's, and 'what is a classic' nonsense.
It's perfectly simple....cars originally registered or manufactured before a certain date are exempt from 'normal' tax rates, that's it, plain and simple.
The logic behind it, is to encourage the use and maintenance of so called 'classics' for people to see, use and enjoy.
And as such, they (once they are taxed) are perfectly entitled to use the public road.
Because of the 'cute hoor' mentality in this country, we tend to see any law as an indication that it should be broken, bent or twisted to suit our means.
The particular car in question (original topic) is in breach of that regulation.
While it can be helpful for the public to report crimes and such to the authorities, this car should never have got a plate like that in the first place, so either the owner is committing fraud, or the authorities made a blunder.
Up till I sold it recently, I owned a car that was never registered by the dealership when it was new. Subsequently it was, when I bought it. The car originally was built in 2006, it was registered in 2008 and was given a tax rate based on emissions, which were cheaper than if it had been given a rate based on cc's. This was a clear and simple mistake, and they stood over it.
Mistakes do happen.

26000 Elephants

alastair wrote: »

You've a pretty strange notion about what 'unrestricted' actually means. But given that you struggle with the basic premis of an additional (unwarranted for good measure) law enforcement overhead costing more than enforcing the existing (and perfectly appropriate) law, I can't say I'm surprised.

Now you are just being petulant and childish. You might as well have said "... with knobs on..."

premise has a second e.

mannurse

It certainly raises some eyebrows (The Merc in question). Someone mentioned earlier that they see it often? If this is the case, could you (whoever it was) have a closer look to see if it is indeed a ringer or an actual modified modern body on w107 floor pan and running gear? Unlikely, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt, and like to see crazy projects like this.

Anything is possible with car modification,
check this out an 1985 Mercedes Benz 190E that is having it’s body transplanted onto a 2010 Mercedes Benz C63 AMG:

carbuildindex.com/15931/body-swap-1985-mercedes-benz-190e-grafted-onto-2010-c63-amg/

I imagine it would make more sense to do something similar to what's in the link above but with an efficient diesel i.e. classic body on a modern floor and running gear. In fact I have seen several threads with people asking about doing such conversions (from the UK, so not for tax reasons).

Cheaper tax rates have been in since 08, with some of these cars getting close to 60mpg+. With that you can get a post 08 relatively cheap, I imagine the incentive for ringing older cars is less of an attraction these days.

With that said, I would like to put a w123 body a 4x4 chassis.... NOT! :

youtube.com/watch?v=88Kdf_YWsJc

ba_barabus

mannurse wrote: »

If this is the case, could you (whoever it was) have a closer look to see if it is indeed a ringer or an actual modified modern body on w107 floor pan and running gear?

While I can't say for sure without looking underneath all the proportions, panels and interior are all as they should be including airbags. I'd eat the 3 pointed star on the bonnet if it's not a ringer (or at the very least just fitted with the wrong plates)

Capri

Did I post this - Polski 125p on a Lada Niva chassis
:eek:

pablo128

Capri wrote: »

Did I post this - Polski 125p on a Lada Niva chassis
:eek:

That's pretty cool, and the vehicles involved are from the same era.

unfit2006

I saw this last week and figured that it would probably be a Westmeath elephant if you ignored the French EU emblem ....:D

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Wow that's more than a little odd.
Interesting find!

homingbird

unfit2006 wrote: »

I saw this last week and figured that it would probably be a Westmeath elephant if you ignored the French EU emblem ....:D

Its not showing up on a donedeal reg check!!!!

Capri

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Wow that's more than a little odd.
Interesting find!

Interesting if a Garda ANPR picked on it. 28 is the departement of Eure et Loire in France in the old French license system. Not the first time I've seen 'doppelganger ' reg plates.

hi5

The British army use plates similar to some Irish plates, I think I've seen KK on some of them.

Capri

hi5 wrote: »

The British army use plates similar to some Irish plates, I think I've seen KK on some of them.

There's a Scammell S26 6x6 near me with something like 84 KK 68 on it - but it's a British Army style plate 2 over 2 or 2

http://ccmv.aecsouthall.co.uk/p85578901/h6CC5157D#h6cc5157d

mattroche

84 WH 28 is NOT a genuine Reg. No. It could be Stolen, or a Ringer, I wonder where it is residing? Is it a L.H.D.

corktina

It's French, did you not get that?

ianobrien

corktina wrote: »

It's French, did you not get that?

Yep, from Eure-et-Loir. The last two digits are the Department number. For example, 78 is Versailles and 75 is Paris.