A reasonable alternative to tax, nct and insurance.

Commotion Ocean

Slap an extra 20 cent onto the price of petrol and diesel, a person who'd put 20 litres a week into their tank will be paying approx e200 a year on motor tax, seems fair, someone putting 50 litres a week into their tank will be paying approximately e500 a year in tax, the more you drive, the more you pay.

The NCT should be changed a bit, it should be a mandatory yearly test and cost e500, but this will also include a full service, oil change, bulb fitting, etc. So many people don't bother their holes getting serviced. The e500 test fee will also cover a government third party insurance policy.

Both the NCT and insurance are then covered by a single disc with severe penalties for evasion, car being crushed etc. Fully comprehensive insurance will be optional and tendered to private companies.

mickdw

I agree with a basic end party insurance being provided by government and thing it to the test is a reasonable idea too. I'd not to sure what a reasonable charge would be though.
The servicing idea couldn't work as a random trained mechanics in the test centre would neither have the knowledge or tools to work on more exotic stuff not to mention service parts.
Tax being added to fuel is well debated at this stage. It has good and bad points. It kills the high mileage driver but would be a godsend to the weekend porsche driver.

Seth Brundle

Increased tax on fuel would not be good for the likes of the haulage sector (possibly a good thing) and so would drive up prices and therefore inflation. I suspect that there would be a sharp demand for laundered diesel also.
It's a good idea nonetheless.
Anyhow the cynic in me would presume that the government would first increase the tax on fuel. Then when looking at the annual motor tax, they would change their mind and we would have high fuel tax plus annual motor tax.

NCT should remain an independent test. If it came to it, the tester servicing your car would be accused of finding faults simply to get more money. The current test keeps the onus on the vehicle owner to ensure the car is roadworthy. By having the NCT service the car would result in people taking less ownership of their cars condition.
Also, might it mean that high mileage drivers such as taxi drivers would become more neglectful of the service requirements of their car?

As for insurance, an open market makes it more competitive. Having the government become a single insurer would probably lead to yet another wasteful service offered by the public service.

Del2005

I service my own car and replace the bulbs when they blow. Why should I pay €500 for something I do myself better. Our current laws are fine it's just that they are universally ignored. The current NCT fails for bulbs and wipers so doesn't need to go backwards and start replacing them, this system has been shown to be more corrupt than only testing.

Alanstrainor

Del2005 wrote: »

I service my own car and replace the bulbs when they blow. Why should I pay €500 for something I do myself better. Our current laws are fine it's just that they are universally ignored. The current NCT fails for bulbs and wipers so doesn't need to go backwards and start replacing them, this system has been shown to be more corrupt than only testing.

I wouldn't put 500 of maintenance into my car in 2 years, never mind one!

Ubbquittious

They'll slap the 20c on one year and 2 budgets later you'll see Michael Noonan on the tellybox with his big slutherpus moping on about the drop in revenue and the insurance+tax+nct will come back in and the 20c will stay on diesel and maybe even become 30c

Cee-Jay-Cee

I do my own servicing, why would I want to pay some numpty in the NCT to do it, yes they do have mechanic qualifications but I wouldn't let them next or near my car to do repairs.

I agree with the tax on fuel to cover road tax but your idea about the NCT is a non starter and quite honestly, ridiculous apart from the obvious reasons why its such a bad idea, how do you suppose all those garages and dealers would react to the loss of business?

Atlantic Dawn

Tax and NCT should be a single disc where it's updated when you pay for either.

Mint Sauce

Del2005 wrote: »

I service my own car and replace the bulbs when they blow. Why should I pay €500 for something I do myself better. Our current laws are fine it's just that they are universally ignored. The current NCT fails for bulbs and wipers so doesn't need to go backwards and start replacing them, this system has been shown to be more corrupt than only testing.

This. Whilst I don't service my own car, I am happy to pay a trusted indy to do it for me once a year, and replace tyres, wipers, lights, my self when needed.

Although my current insurance has been in and around 500 for the last few years, fully comp, think I would be having an annual panic attack at the above proposed above NCT/Insurance/Service offer.

The fuel suggestion I would probably go with, don't do massive miles, and would probably not come to what I currently pay for Tax.

Henry Ford III

I'm just amazed nobody has suggested such a novel approach before now.

Harry Palmr

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I'm just amazed nobody has suggested such a novel approach before now.

:pac:

South Africa has a fuel levy while Australia has whacked personal injury third party on the registration of the car you own for many years.

Broadly the pay for what you use principle should be applied for private motorists - commercial operators esp of good vehicles should be able to recover an amount through a tax rebate but only a certain amount, it's not as if inflation is rampant or anything.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dr.fuzzenstein

Ubbquittious wrote: »

They'll slap the 20c on one year and 2 budgets later you'll see Michael Noonan on the tellybox with his big slutherpus moping on about the drop in revenue and the insurance+tax+nct will come back in and the 20c will stay on diesel and maybe even become 30c

This. And: Oh god, not this again. This pops up once a month. It won't happen, no matter how much of a hard on some posters have for fuel at €2+. Maybe we shouldn't piss about with a few cents, make fuel €5 and be done with it. :rolleyes:

CiniO

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They won't be able to, due to EU regulations.

They just can't split third party personal injury cover from thrid party property damage.

However I do agree, that third party cover (personal injury and property damage) should be
a) obligatory on every single car at all times
b) provided by government organisation instead of private insurers
c) should cover everyone to drive the car
d) should be reasonably priced

That way there'd be no uninsured cars on our roads.

The Rape of Lucretia

There is an argument to be made for NCT and Tax alright. But not for insurance. The risk spread is enormous and it is only just that the risky pay more than the less risky. The market works well on this element.

CiniO

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The risk spread is enormous and it is only just that the risky pay more than the less risky. The market works well on this element.

I disagree that market works well on this element.

The way they judge risk by driver, his driving record, penalty points, offences, convictions, is wrong in the first place, firstly by the fact that I would love to see a proof that drivers with previous convictions or more penalty points are more likely to cause big claim, and secondly purely because it requires all drivers to be named on policies, and causes big issue of no guaranteed insurance as not named drivers might drive uninsured.

I'm all for system, where every car must have a policy and that policy covers everyone to drive it, and there are no silly exception or policy voiding by not disclosing modifications, relevant facts, etc...

It should be as simple as if you own a car, you need to buy a policy for it and have it active at all times, and that policy should cover anyone to drive.
That way there'd be no uninsured cars and drivers on the road.
Such systems work in other countries very well, so why can't they work here?

Currently people who are considered high risk by insurers have crazy premiums imposed which they can't afford and driver uninsured.

There's plenty of people who are not even high risk, but still drive uninsured purely by mistake (f.e. driving a car they though they were covered on, or misuderstanding policy t&c, etc), or just because they need to drive but can't arrange cover or policy amendment during weekend, etc...

Claims caused by all those people are being paid by MIBI which is funded from nothing else than our insurance premiums...

Current system is just rubbish.

JohnBoy26

CiniO wrote: »

I disagree that market works well on this element.

The way they judge risk by driver, his driving record, penalty points, offences, convictions, is wrong in the first place, firstly by the fact that I would love to see a proof that drivers with previous convictions or more penalty points are more likely to cause big claim, and secondly purely because it requires all drivers to be named on policies, and causes big issue of no guaranteed insurance as not named drivers might drive uninsured.

I'm all for system, where every car must have a policy and that policy covers everyone to drive it, and there are no silly exception or policy voiding by not disclosing modifications, relevant facts, etc...

It should be as simple as if you own a car, you need to buy a policy for it and have it active at all times, and that policy should cover anyone to drive.
That way there'd be no uninsured cars and drivers on the road.
Such systems work in other countries very well, so why can't they work here?

Currently people who are considered high risk by insurers have crazy premiums imposed which they can't afford and driver uninsured.

There's plenty of people who are not even high risk, but still drive uninsured purely by mistake (f.e. driving a car they though they were covered on, or misuderstanding policy t&c, etc), or just because they need to drive but can't arrange cover or policy amendment during weekend, etc...

Claims caused by all those people are being paid by MIBI which is funded from nothing else than our insurance premiums...

Current system is just rubbish.

But why should I have to pay insurance for a car that is parked in a shed and is declared off the road?

Nody

CiniO wrote: »

I disagree that market works well on this element.

The way they judge risk by driver, his driving record, penalty points, offences, convictions, is wrong in the first place, firstly by the fact that I would love to see a proof that drivers with previous convictions or more penalty points are more likely to cause big claim.

Here you go.

I'm all for system, where every car must have a policy and that policy covers everyone to drive it, and there are no silly exception or policy voiding by not disclosing modifications, relevant facts, etc...

You know you're claiming that I can claim to have a Micra 1.0 and drive a non NCTed certrified modified homebuild V12 with this paragraph, right? There's a reason they have certain requirements in place to LOWER the rate; if not they have to assume the worst for every car and charge accordingly to the howls of the public's drastically increased insurances.

It should be as simple as if you own a car, you need to buy a policy for it and have it active at all times, and that policy should cover anyone to drive.

Sure; I'll let my 10 year old pop down to the store to buy milk; I bought a policy so anyone can drive no matter what inc. the guy with 20 penalty points, the guy without driving license, drinking problem etc.

Such systems work in other countries very well, so why can't they work here?

Greed in short. From the people who'll refuse to pay it to the people who'll abuse it to the constantly reocurring weak necks of the Irish to the high payouts for minor incidents.

Currently people who are considered high risk by insurers have crazy premiums imposed which they can't afford and driver uninsured.

That's only a problem due to lack of enforcement and the insurance rates would be crazy high for everyone under your system seeing how anyone can drive any car that's modified in any way they want without any checks in place. Talk about asking for not only more insurance claims but way way bigger payouts on top of it when the "I'm really a mechanic even if I only saw it on the internet" crowd starts modding and driving without paying the premium for their failed modding in the first place.

Current system is just rubbish.

This we can agree on; but you don't fix that part by removing the few stops from moving it from bad to insane. Fix the bloody payouts in Irish courts and you'd go a long way to seeing things going in the right direction for a more general insurance set up (if you'd ever trust the government to implement it).

goz83

Nody wrote: »

You know you're claiming that I can claim to have a Micra 1.0 and drive a non NCTed certrified modified homebuild V12 with this paragraph, right? There's a reason they have certain requirements in place to LOWER the rate; if not they have to assume the worst for every car and charge accordingly to the howls of the public's drastically increased insurances.

That's not what I got from the paragraph. He was talking about all cars needing their own policy. I believe the model in Poland is what he referred to, which I also think has good merit.

Nody wrote: »

Sure; I'll let my 10 year old pop down to the store to buy milk; I bought a policy so anyone can drive no matter what inc. the guy with 20 penalty points, the guy without driving license, drinking problem etc.

Come on, at least put in some effort. Clearly he doesn't mean "anyone". It would apply to license holders. And the guy with 20 penalty points will pay for his points in fines. Our current points system is shambolic. I have zero points and I promise you that I don't always stay below the limit.

Nody wrote: »

Fix the bloody payouts in Irish courts and you'd go a long way to seeing things going in the right direction for a more general insurance set up (if you'd ever trust the government to implement it).

That muck gets thrown around way too much. The pay outs have little to do with the premium hikes and that has been shown. The insurance companies need a scapegoat to justify the mass rape of our bank accounts.

Ubbquittious

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I am starting to think it may be a good idea to sticky this as this comes up every 2/3 weeks. Petrol already is most tax/duty. How much more do people want it on :rolleyes:

What are those figures for LPG?

Chuchote

The beauty of putting tax, insurance and NCT cost (for the first NCT) on the price of fuel is that

• everyone will automatically be insured, no scammers
• tax will be related to use of fuel
• no one will put off having the NCT because they can't afford the price.

It's a no-brainer.

fancy pigeon

Chuchote wrote: »

The beauty of putting tax, insurance and NCT cost (for the first NCT) on the price of fuel is that

• everyone will automatically be insured, no scammers
• tax will be related to use of fuel
• no one will put off having the NCT because they can't afford the price.

It's a no-brainer.

Tax on fuel would only go up. And up.

Shortage in the budget? Hike it onto fuel!

Coming from someone who pays 2.2 tax on the cc system

Atlantic Dawn

Chuchote wrote: »

The beauty of putting tax, insurance and NCT cost (for the first NCT) on the price of fuel is that

• everyone will automatically be insured, no scammers
• tax will be related to use of fuel
• no one will put off having the NCT because they can't afford the price.

It's a no-brainer.

If someone can't afford the NCT test fee of €55 they can't afford to be on the road, even more so if they are going for the first NCT and the €55 will cover them for 2 years.

Chuchote

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If someone can't afford the NCT test fee of €55 they can't afford to be on the road, even more so if they are going for the first NCT and the €55 will cover them for 2 years.

Very righteous, but not realistic. Plenty of out-of-date NCT certs are on display.

Oh, and there's another two things to add to the list if the cost were on the fuel:

• No more need for display and inspection of tax, NCT and insurance discs
• No more need for administration staff to issue and check these.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Chuchote wrote: »

The beauty of putting tax, insurance and NCT cost (for the first NCT) on the price of fuel is that

• everyone will automatically be insured, no scammers
• tax will be related to use of fuel
• no one will put off having the NCT because they can't afford the price.

It's a no-brainer.

Your making an assumption that a couple of pennies on a litre of fuel will cover the costs of claims and the scammers will stop having a sore neck

Ubbquittious

LIGHTNING wrote: »

^

Not sure but the five people who use LPG in Ireland can probably chime in

I tried to contact them but one of them is sick, one is up the wall with work and 3 of them are gone on a LPG-burning trip across Europe together with their camper vans

Chuchote

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Your making an assumption that a couple of pennies on a litre of fuel will cover the costs of claims and the scammers will stop having a sore neck

Not at all. I'm guessing that the scammers will be dealt with by the courts as they are now; however, there will no longer be crashes by uninsured drivers.

Some big companies with huge fleets have mass insurance on their vehicles already.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Chuchote wrote: »

Not at all. I'm guessing that the scammers will be dealt with by the courts as they are now; however, there will no longer be crashes by uninsured drivers.

Some big companies with huge fleets have mass insurance on their vehicles already.

So, for instance, the maths worked out an extra Euro per litre to cover Insurance, NCT and Tax, you would be happy with that? I agree, in principle, that it appears to be an equitable solution, however, people will still be allowed draw 15k out of the fund for a neck twinge unless the awards change. Letting the State administer collection and legal procedures will not make it more efficient

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

I love Sean nos

This thread again? Excellent. :rolleyes:

I love Sean nos

fancy pigeon wrote: »

Tax on fuel would only go up. And up.

Shortage in the budget? Hike it onto fuel!

Coming from someone who pays 2.2 tax on the cc system

So no different from the way it is now.
Motoring is still inexpensive.

Eric Cartman

madatory 500 euro service and test, if I could get all that for a guaranteed 500 at a main land rover dealer then sign me up haha.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So why don't they do that now and solve the problem immediately? The State can simply say, as you put it, anything it likes. That doesn't mean squat without a change in the law

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

CiniO

Chuchote wrote: »

The beauty of putting tax, insurance and NCT cost (for the first NCT) on the price of fuel is that

• everyone will automatically be insured, no scammers
• tax will be related to use of fuel
• no one will put off having the NCT because they can't afford the price.

It's a no-brainer.

How do you imagine putting insurance in the price of fuel?
Everyone would need to be issued with a policy on the assumption they will be driving and filling up their fuel... Because how else could that work?


Tax on fuel - we already have tax on fuel - let's just scrap the bloody motortax alltogether like many other countries did, and forget about it. It's a prehistoric tax not needed anymore.

NCT in the price of fuel - I can't imagine how could that work? Makes no sense to me whatsoever...

Sue Pa Key Pa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The parasitic insurance companies would be popping the champagne corks in every boardroom, if the State took over the 3rd party aspect of motor insurance, leaving them to compete hard against each other for the own damage, fire & theft market.

Have you ever wondered why the State hasn't done this until now? Do you seriously think the State has accidentally overlooked the vast sums involved if there was a buck in it? Nonsense, they looked and ran away

Seth Brundle

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The state can simply say you are not getting 15K for your neck pain. Checkmate.

Why have insurance if claims are just going to be fecked out the window anyhow?
Or is your post simply an ill-thought-out soundbite?

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Well then the parasitic insurance companies would be out of business. Vested interests in keeping the status quo.

:rolleyes:

_Brian

Adding tax to fuel would be particularly unfair to rural dwellers who would carry the burden as they do more mileage.

neris

_Brian wrote: »

Adding tax to fuel would be particularly unfair to rural dwellers who would carry the burden as they do more mileage.

Think you'll find hauliers would do alot more