Why am I punished for having an old car?

Synthol

I have an old piece of crap Honda that still runs fine but because it's has a ''massive'' 2l engine I have to pay €710 for the tax which is basically more than the car is worth. However if I bought a 2008 3l bmw or mercedes, I would be paying maximum of €300 per year. I am being punished for being poor and not being able to afford a new car.

colm_mcm

A 2008 car is 9 years old.

Synthol

colm_mcm wrote: »

A 2008 car is 9 years old.

My car is 2001

colm_mcm

Worth pointing out that your own car would be €2350 if it was taxed based on emissions, and an 09 Accord 2.0 petrol would be €1200 a year.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

_Brian

Synthol wrote: »

I have an old piece of crap Honda that still runs fine but because it's has a ''massive'' 2l engine I have to pay €710 for the tax which is basically more than the car is worth. However if I bought a 2008 3l bmw or mercedes, I would be paying maximum of €300 per year. I am being punished for being poor and not being able to afford a new car.

Where does the €300 max come from.

I have an 09 2l diesel and pay over €500

theteal

I can't imagine your insurance is great on that either.

Something does have to give. I can only imagine the level of non-payments is rising significantly.

Synthol

_Brian wrote: »

Where does the €300 max come from.

I have an 09 2l diesel and pay over €500

Just got a random reg from 2014 bmw 330d I saw on the street and put it into motor tax website, it showed €280

Synthol

theteal wrote: »

I can't imagine your insurance is great on that either.

Something does have to give. I can only imagine the level of non-payments is rising significantly.

Not that bad as I am already insured with the same company for quite a while, however getting a new quote would probably be impossible.

Arthur Daley

Thank Eamonn Ryan and the insurance cartel of ireland for the debacle. It is a concerted effort now to get people to scrap cars rather than fix them.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

AndyBoBandy

Patww79 wrote: »

We should really introduce a test of roadworthiness for all older cars to make sure they should be driven.

And give it a catchy name, something like National Car Test

Or Old Car Roadworthiness Test - OCRT

delboythedub

NCT

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

boardsuser1

OP, until recently I drove a 2009 1.6 diesel car, I had to change it due to it not being viable for my family, I subsequently purchased a 2013 2.0 diesel, my tax bill is now €570.

It ain't all plain sailing. I'm only saving €140 compared to the old tax system, and that's if I pay it up front, if I don't then I'm penalised for not being able to afford it in one go.

I have a 00 car Which is a spare, 1.4 Petrol, the tax on that is €108 per quarter or €385 per year.

Firewalkwithme

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not sure if serious

Rigor Mortis

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

National Car Test is a test on one day over a year. The problem with the NCT is that a week later, issues that would have passed a test may fail in the car. The older the car the significantly more likely it is to have an incident and the greater the liklihood it is that that incident will involve far greater injury.

As to the OP's original point. You aren't being taxed for being poor. There are lower emission vehicles you could have chosen. You chose a large engine that is going to be high on emissions. Even if you need a big car, which if you have a family you will, you can still get a large car with a smaller engine. You made the choice, not any of us.

The purpose of the tax is to say, if you want to make that choice fine, but the rest of society has to pay in terms of greater levels of asthma and respiratory illness caused by the Nox and Sox that kind of car produces. Therefore if you want to make that choice, you have to pay more.

grogi

Synthol wrote: »

I have an old piece of crap Honda that still runs fine but because it's has a ''massive'' 2l engine I have to pay €710 for the tax which is basically more than the car is worth. However if I bought a 2008 3l bmw or mercedes, I would be paying maximum of €300 per year. I am being punished for being poor and not being able to afford a new car.

Nice try...

Rigor Mortis

grogi wrote: »

Nice try...

Ahhhhhh. I see.

racso1975

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

The purpose of the tax is to say, if you want to make that choice fine, but the rest of society has to pay in terms of greater levels of asthma and respiratory illness caused by the Nox and Sox that kind of car produces. Therefore if you want to make that choice, you have to pay more.

Yeah but you know that's complete BS given the car companies altered to emmisions in order to get cheaper tax. Added to that we now know how unfriendly diesel actually is!!!

grogi

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

Ahhhhhh. I see.

I am pretty sure many motorists are 'punished' with increased fuel consumption, reduced reliability and higher maintenance bills as well.

Cheap cars are cheap because they cost more to run. It really is that simple.

Paulw

Synthol wrote: »

I have an old piece of crap Honda that still runs fine

I thought you had a Suzuki?

Wibbs

Why are you punished for having an old car? Economics and the optics of same. People being pushed into new cars is good for the dealers, the manufacturers, the financial sector and the government. These are all very influential pressure groups and for the government it makes the economy look more buoyant than it is(never mind the tax take).

What the insurance industry gets out of it is more nebulous. They claim higher payouts on older cars, but are not exactly transparent on the figures and stats for that(or much else, which is a scandal with a legally mandated requirement), so frankly I smell a rat. Considering that in a "fender bender" an old car being damaged will result in a far smaller bill and in the case of theft significantly smaller payouts(and thefts of new(er) cars are on the rise). On personal injury claims they may have more valid reasons, but even here I smell a rat. There are far fewer twenty year old cars on the road than new, or five year old cars and all in between and I find it hard to believe such a small percentage are affecting figures so much that the industry is refusing to insure them.

One thing is certain, it has pretty much nothing to do the "green" or "safety" concerns that are trundled out as reasons by the powers that be. The green angle is clearly bullsh1te of the highest order and the safety angle has holes in it too. EG the new Ford Mustang has come away with a well dodgy safety rating, yet will be cheaper to insure than say a mid noughties Volvo that is more survivable and provably so.

In short, forget reasons given and always follow the money and the money wants the constant churn of new cars to satisfy the consumerist model.

Squall Leonhart

KC161 wrote: »

It ain't all plain sailing. I'm only saving €140 compared to the old tax system, and that's if I pay it up front, if I don't then I'm penalised for not being able to afford it in one go.

This is my gripe. Why do they charge extra for not purchasing 12 months upfront.

My tax is 211 for 3 months, 416 for 6 months or 750 for 12 months.
I don't have the 750 'spare' to put it into the 12 months immediately.

Wibbs

grogi wrote: »

Cheap cars are cheap because they cost more to run. It really is that simple.

It's nowhere near that simple, though is promoted as such by those for whom it is advantageous to push the new car mantra. I'm also running an "old Honda", a car that will this December be twenty years since it rolled off the production line. I've owned it for over ten years now and my maintenance bills spread over that time have amounted to 200 euros per annum(I note all the bills involved). That includes servicing BTW. Granted I do the spannering myself on servicing, but even if I didn't it would still be a low figure and when the purchase price is included it has been extremely cheap motoring as far as the car is concerned*. And it gets mid to high 30Mpg on the go juice. When overall costs are included there are quite the number of older car models that are more frugal than buying new(er).

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

National Car Test is a test on one day over a year. The problem with the NCT is that a week later, issues that would have passed a test may fail in the car. The older the car the significantly more likely it is to have an incident and the greater the liklihood it is that that incident will involve far greater injury.

One might think that and we are being fed that as a reason, but... Have an oul read of this. The salient bit in the article is this;

About 10 years ago, when the NCT was in its infancy just finding its little feet, the RSA released their analysis of the contributory factors in fatal crashes. Unsurprisingly, drivers were the biggest contributors. Somewhat more unexpected was the vehicles themselves played only a tiny, tiny role. The smallest contributors of all. Only 0.7pc of all road deaths in the five years they studied had the vehicle (tyres, brakes and so forth) as a contributor.

It would have been easy at that point to decide there was no point in chasing a factor that caused about one in every 200 road deaths. In part that's what the RSA did, they largely ignored vehicle quality in favour of influencing the things which really kill people - speed, drink, being young and male, and not wearing a seatbelt. Plus, there was little need for them to target vehicles as the NCT had been introduced - so logic suggested we'd see that 0.7pc reduce to nothing over the coming years.

That did not happen. Vehicle factors as a contributor to road deaths did not decrease. They increased. Massively. The Road Safety Authority told us this week that 12pc of all fatal crashes are contributed to by the state of the vehicles. That's nearly twenty times as many. A 2000% increase. What the hell?

We introduced a car test to address a problem which barely existed, and since that test was introduced, the problem has become epidemic.

Does not compute does it? When faced with such contradictory information and results I have found it prudent to a) reckon the truth is somewhere in the middle and b) again follow the money. Which "result" is more financially advantageous? Or we should introduce an NCT for drivers as they're by far the biggest causes of death and injuries on our roads.

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

This is my gripe. Why do they charge extra for not purchasing 12 months upfront.

They make more money from doing so SL. It is quite as simple as that.




*And now my particular car is appreciating in value and I could sell it in the UK for more than I paid for it(couldn't give it away here because of the "get old cars off the road" drive). To be fair that would be a rare outcome compared to most cars of that vintage.

Sam Kade

Synthol wrote: »

I have an old piece of crap Honda that still runs fine but because it's has a ''massive'' 2l engine I have to pay €710 for the tax which is basically more than the car is worth. However if I bought a 2008 3l bmw or mercedes, I would be paying maximum of €300 per year. I am being punished for being poor and not being able to afford a new car.

€410 extra in tax is life changing, surely. It's €7.88/week just think about how much you are saving by not buying a new car. I hope you don't have leather seats in that car

uck51js9zml2yt

Squall Leonhart wrote: »

This is my gripe. Why do they charge extra for not purchasing 12 months upfront.

My tax is 211 for 3 months, 416 for 6 months or 750 for 12 months.
I don't have the 750 'spare' to put it into the 12 months immediately.

It costs money to process a motor tax application, in terms of people, time, computers, telephone calls when someone leaves out a bit of info on the form ( when posted), postage. Having done the job the charge is justified (runs away and takes cover;))

Squall Leonhart

OSI wrote: »

There's more administration costs in processing 4 tax discs a year, than just the one. It's also an incentive to pay it all up at once so you're less likely to play cheeky buggers with 3 months on, 3 months off etc.

I get what you're saying, but why do we still need the physical tax disc. Allow me to pay monthly by standing order, or facilitate deduction at source in wages, etc. That way you can't even 'forget' to pay!

morritty

How is this still an issue to some people 9 years later?

Synthol wrote: »

I have an old piece of crap Honda that still runs fine but because it's has a ''massive'' 2l engine I have to pay €710 for the tax which is basically more than the car is worth. However if I bought a 2008 3l bmw or mercedes, I would be paying maximum of €300 per year. I am being punished for being poor and not being able to afford a new car.

Find me a 2008 BMW or Mercedes, with a 3 litre engine, petrol or diesel that's taxed at 300 euro or less.

You won't.

Synthol

morritty wrote: »

How is this still an issue to some people 9 years later?



Find me a 2008 BMW or Mercedes, with a 3 litre engine, petrol or diesel that's taxed at 300 euro or less.

You won't.

You don't get it do you? I used it as figure of speech by saying new cars cost less to tax, basically the more money you have the less you have to pay. I can't afford a new car and I am being punished for it.

MetzgerMeister

morritty wrote: »

Find me a 2008 BMW or Mercedes, with a 3 litre engine, petrol or diesel that's taxed at 300 euro or less.

You won't.

True. It's only in recent years that the tax on these cars has come down to c. €300.

grogi

Wibbs wrote: »

It's nowhere near that simple, though is promoted as such by those for whom it is advantageous to push the new car mantra.

Of course it is that simple. Exception happen, but they don't change the average.

If there was a car that cost absolutely nothing to run, the demand would drive its purchase price to the roof.

db

My car is in Band F 190-225g/km and costs €1200 per year. I could run two cars in Band D 155-170g/km for €1140 per year combined. How does that make sense?

morritty

Synthol wrote: »

You don't get it do you? I used it as figure of speech by saying new cars cost less to tax, basically the more money you have the less you have to pay. I can't afford a new car and I am being punished for it.

Oh I get it perfectly, If its too much to pay, trade it in for a 1 litre of the same year. 199 a year to tax.

Truckermal

Buy a newer car op I changed from a 08 with 390 euro tax to a 151 with 200 euro cheeep tax for only 30K euro it's a no brainer!

Squall Leonhart

Synthol wrote: »

You don't get it do you? I used it as figure of speech by saying new cars cost less to tax, basically the more money you have the less you have to pay. I can't afford a new car and I am being punished for it.

That's not quite true though is it..

You certainly pay far more for a new car than you'll ever recoup from having your tax 200 euro cheaper than you will driving an older car and paying the extra money in tax. You're being disingenuous.

morritty

It's gas isnt it?

"look at how much im saving on tax costs in me new daaaaysul, sure it only cost me 20k to change"

and it'll take 40+ years to actually see the saving.....

blade1

morritty wrote: »

It's gas isnt it?

"look at how much im saving on tax costs in me new daaaaysul, sure it only cost me 20k to change"

and it'll take 40+ years to actually see the saving.....

Ah, I reckon it more like, I got a nice new car and as a bonus, low tax.
You'd want to be stupid to buy a new car just for lower tax.

Wibbs

grogi wrote: »

Of course it is that simple. Exception happen, but they don't change the average.

If there was a car that cost absolutely nothing to run, the demand would drive its purchase price to the roof.

All cars incur costs to run, so that's a daft comparison, but do you honestly believe that say a 2002/3 Toyota Yaris costs more to buy and run than a brand new car of a similar type? Eh...

Alanstrainor

:mad:*Must not start ranting about insurance companies...*:mad:

07Lapierre

Breaking news!


http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/raids-on-main-motor-insurance-providers-over-alleged-cartel-activity-35893446.html

Gazzmonkey

racso1975 wrote: »

Yeah but you know that's complete BS given the car companies altered to emmisions in order to get cheaper tax. Added to that we now know how unfriendly diesel actually is!!!

So I take it there are a lot of folk driving around in cars that should have a much higher tax bill?

Lucky feckers :pac:

MetzgerMeister

morritty wrote: »

"look at how much im saving on tax costs in me new daaaaysul, sure it only cost me 20k to change"

and it'll take 40+ years to actually see the saving.....

For me it's easier at least in the short term. I was always paying back car loans over the same term with an annual tax bill of €1,494 on my last car at least. Current car is €280 per year and insurance is way down also due to it being a newer car and more saleable in the future compared to my last one.

Background - I switched from a 2007 335i to 2013 330d.

bazz26

Ah, we haven't had one of these threads in a few months.

bmwguy

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

For me it's easier at least in the short term. I was always paying back car loans over the same term with an annual tax bill of €1,494 on my last car at least. Current car is €280 per year and insurance is way down also due to it being a newer car and more saleable in the future compared to my last one.

Background - I switched from a 2007 335i to 2013 330d.

How do you find the 2 cars compared to each other? On a whole ownership point of view? Total cost inc. expected depreciation and running costs day to day? And is the 330d a match for the 335i in your opinion?

MetzgerMeister

bmwguy wrote: »

How do you find the 2 cars compared to each other? On a whole ownership point of view? Total cost inc. expected depreciation and running costs day to day? And is the 330d a match for the 335i in your opinion?

The 330d obviously has a lot more torque and with a remap will have more bhp than the 335 but I really miss the roar of the 335. The 330 does sound good (for a diesel) in the high revs and it's very quiet at idle and under normal load/acceleration.

The 335 was depreciating from when I bought it being a 2007 3 litre twin turbo petrol with high annual tax in a country like Ireland. I used fill up once a week in the 335 but now it's once every 2 weeks in the 330. I don't do much mileage, certainly not enough to actually warrant a diesel but I wanted something newer with power and 6 cylinders so it fitted the bill.

Having looked into buying an e92 M3 recently it would have been a worse case insurance wise, tax wise and depreciation wise compared to the 330. I love the 330 but I'm not a snob when it comes to knowing what you have when owning an M3.

Synthol

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

The 330d obviously has a lot more torque and with a remap will have more bhp than the 335 but I really miss the roar of the 335. The 330 does sound good (for a diesel) in the high revs and it's very quiet at idle and under normal load/acceleration.

The 335 was depreciating from when I bought it being a 2007 3 litre twin turbo petrol with high annual tax in a country like Ireland. I used fill up once a week in the 335 but now it's once every 2 weeks in the 330. I don't do much mileage, certainly not enough to actually warrant a diesel but I wanted something newer with power and 6 cylinders so it fitted the bill.

Having looked into buying an e92 M3 recently it would have been a worse case insurance wise, tax wise and depreciation wise compared to the 330. I love the 330 but I'm not a snob when it comes to knowing what you have when owning an M3.

And what's the point? I would obliterate any m3 with my busa ant you wouldn't even realise what had happened. And it's not even 1/3 of the price of the m3.

Synthol

Paulw wrote: »

I thought you had a Suzuki?

If you have a motorbike then you are not allowed to have a car???

memphiz

people should be rich and buy new cars then they have no problem with tax insurance,

beauf

memphiz wrote: »

people should be rich and buy new cars then they have no problem with tax insurance,

That is really what is happening.

jimmycrackcorm

Rigor Mortis wrote:

National Car Test is a test on one day over a year. The problem with the NCT is that a week later, issues that would have passed a test may fail in the car. The older the car the significantly more likely it is to have an incident and the greater the liklihood it is that that incident will involve far greater injury.

This really grates me as I'm paying 700 tax on an 11 year old car that I don't drive very much. I can't see how driving 3000 miles over the last year has made it more dangerous.

Angelique Savory Steamer wrote:

It costs money to process a motor tax application, in terms of people, time, computers, telephone calls when someone leaves out a bit of info on the form ( when posted), postage. Having done the job the charge is justified (runs away and takes cover )

For online motor tax it isn't the same scope. It's more like you driving 1 km but then deciding to drive another 3km, the extra cost is minimal.