Abolish car tax

martyc5674

Caquas wrote: »

Irrelevant to motor tax which bears no relation to how much you drive.

If course it’s relevant to motor tax, if you decide to drive a higher polluting car per km, you pay more motor tax.
That’s the incentive to choose a lower polluting car.
Saying it’s irrelevant is incorrect and shows your lack of understanding.

ednwireland

JayZeus wrote: »

Yawn.

What a tiresome argument and one that will simply not win out.

Yawn

what a tiresome driver centric argument (i love my car btw).but we cant just replacee all the fossil fuel vehicles with electric that would be madness,if half the amount spent on roads in the last 20 years was spent on public transport then i think ireland wouldbe in a much better place now.

and jsut electrify the rail lines ffs stop wasting money on hybrid trains !

Seweryn

martyc5674 wrote: »

Possibly, but the current system at least gives an incentive for choosing a car which pollutes less per km. Just sticking all the tax on the fuel doesn’t discourage driving something which pollutes more km.
Eg an Eurostar 3 versus a Eurostar 5 car that both deliver the same mpg, the Eurostar 5 pollutes less.

Agree, but abolishing motor tax would encourage people to keep their existing cars for longer and that would be a lot better for the environment than replacing cars more often to save a tiny bit.

Also, having all taxes in fuels would reduce the car use. At present, the more you drive the more value you get from your motor tax which is not what we want here. It also generates a lot of administration costs. Then... you can still technically drive a car with no motor tax paid, but when all taxes are included in fuel you will not be able to start the engine without paying all the taxes.

martyc5674

Seweryn wrote: »

Agree, but abolishing motor tax would encourage people to keep their existing cars for longer and that would be a lot better for the environment than replacing cars more often to save a tiny bit.

Also, having all taxes in fuels would reduce the car use. At present, the more you drive the more value you get from your motor tax which is not what we want here. It also generates a lot of administration costs. Then... you can still technically drive a car with no motor tax paid, but when all taxes are included in fuel you will not be able to start the engine without paying all the taxes.

I agree with your first point. I got rid of a car 2 years partly because the tax was 800 a year. I’m sure replacing it had a higher carbon impact although I will say it uses less fuel and doesn’t stink half as bad.

However there needs now more than ever to incentivize sustainable transport as a priority and car reliance should be moved away from. Also new cars that are greener per km should carry the lower annual motor tax and VRT.

Caquas

martyc5674 wrote: »

If course it’s relevant to motor tax, if you decide to drive a higher polluting car per km, you pay more motor tax.
That’s the incentive to choose a lower polluting car.
Saying it’s irrelevant is incorrect and shows your lack of understanding.

Of course we all know the rate of motor tax varies by engine size and therefore is an incentive to buy a smaller engine but it is spurious to claim that this tax exists to make the polluter pay. It means you pay more for the bigger car even if it sits outside your door from one end of the week to the next. In that sense, it is sunk cost which acts as an incentive to use the car rather than walk or talk public transport

We also remember that motor tax changes promoted by the Greens in 2007 led to a massive adoption of diesel cars. So much for using motor tax to reduce pollution!

Every tax can be rationalised on some moral ground but motor tax is particularly regressive form of taxation whose burden falls disproportionately on poorer families who need a car (sorry, Greta!)

martyc5674

Caquas wrote: »

Of course we all know the rate of motor tax varies by engine size and therefore is an incentive to buy a smaller engine but it is spurious to claim that this tax exists to make the polluter pay.

No we all don’t know that, as it’s incorrect. And has been for 12 years. Motor tax since 08 has been based on grammes of CO2 per Km.

Caquas

martyc5674 wrote: »

No we all don’t know that, as it’s incorrect. And has been for 12 years. Motor tax since 08 has been based on grammes of CO2 per Km.

Thanks, an excellent example of the point I’m trying to make. As I said, there was a naive effort to change motor tax in 2008 which had the effect of pushing us to buy diesel vehicles which were falsely claiming to be more CO2 efficient. I fell for that one, like thousands of other who are now discovering the resale value. All the parties want to cosy up to the Greens who are everyone’s favourite coalition fodder so no-one will remind us of that fiasco.

My point remains- motor tax is excessive and regressive. I agree with the opening post - let’s abolish it and use tax on fuel to curb CO2. To be exact, We need a registration system but the NCT should do that (and stop harassing people over trivia).

Bruthal

saabsaab wrote: »

Much fairer the more you burn the more you pay.

They already have that, as well as the tax for people who hardly drive. They have best of both worlds on motorists.

No wouldn’t like to see it because any change would leave them a free run to double their intake and absolutely screw people even more than now.

martyc5674

Caquas wrote: »

Thanks, an excellent example of the point I’m trying to make. As I said, there was a naive effort to change motor tax in 2008 which had the effect of pushing us to buy diesel vehicles which were falsely claiming to be more CO2 efficient. I fell for that one, like thousands of other who are now discovering the resale value. All the parties want to cosy up to the Greens who are everyone’s favourite coalition fodder so no-one will remind us of that fiasco.

My point remains- motor tax is excessive and regressive. I agree with the opening post - let’s abolish it and use tax on fuel to curb CO2. To be exact, We need a registration system but the NCT should do that (and stop harassing people over trivia).

Sorry but your backtracking... you clearly said it was based on engine size.
Taxing the fuel alone is not a fair system.
Burning a litre of fuel in a euro 3 engine is more polluting than burning a litre of fuel in a euro star 5 engine. There has to be a penalty for using an ICE in public areas, and the penalty should increase as you pollute more be that through using more fuel or having a lower euro star engine. Both areas need to be taxed.
I get it that you don’t want to pay motor tax... I don’t either, but you must understand why it’s needed on fuel VRT and motor tax.

mikeecho

Let's scrap motor tax


And introduce a yearly motor registration fee.

Let's say, we calculate the amount payable by the level of co2 , or perhaps the power output, or perhaps by the weight of the vehicle.

No .no.. let's have
a fee for co2,
a fee for weight,
a fee for the power output,
and another charge for how closely you are located to a city centre.

And shur, just add extra tax to fossil fuel while we're at it.

And then if you convert your car to LPG, well.. that'll increase the weight of your car, so that means you pay more tax as well.

Interested.. look up motoring in the Netherlands.

Caquas

martyc5674 wrote: »

Sorry but your backtracking... you clearly said it was based on engine size.....

Yes, the Greens made a huge song and dance about their new emissions based tax in 2008. No more would we speak of engine size, now we would incentivise low emission cars, regardless of engine size. At the forthcoming election, let’s remind the voters about the Greens’ genius manoeuvre. Everyone who bought a diesel car back then will rush to the polls!

This makes no difference to the issue were trying to discuss: motor tax is excessive, regressive and should be abolished. Most posters here shrugged their shoulders - no point in abolition, the politicians would sneak it back in, like they did before. You and others argued that it helped reduce air pollution. I say BS to that.

Motor tax was introduced many years ago to tax a luxury but it was retained and massively increased even though a car is an everyday necessity for most families, especially those outside Dublin. Of course, politicians like to preach to us about the moral incentives in taxes - cut pollution, reduce drunkenness, stop smoking - and sometimes it’s true but that is not their real motive. Everywhere and always, the primary purpose of taxation is to bring money into the politicians’ hands. Have you ever heard a politician say we should cut some tax in order to incentivise some behaviour? No, weirdly enough, the only thing politicians do to change our behaviour is to impose taxes.

Our government sucked up twice as much of our money last year compared to 2010. What did they do with that €60,000,000,00? Did public service double in quantity or quality. That should be the central issue of the general election. Instead, all the politicians will try to outbid each other with schemes to spend ever more money on the HSE and various white elephants. Did you say rural broadband?

martyc5674

Caquas wrote: »

Yes, the Greens made a huge song and dance about their new emissions based tax in 2008. No more would we speak of engine size, now we would incentivise low emission cars, regardless of engine size. At the forthcoming election, let’s remind the voters about the Greens’ genius manoeuvre. Everyone who bought a diesel car back then will rush to the polls!

This makes no difference to the issue were trying to discuss: motor tax is excessive, regressive and should be abolished. Most posters here shrugged their shoulders - no point in abolition, the politicians would sneak it back in, like they did before. You and others argued that it helped reduce air pollution. I say BS to that.

Motor tax was introduced many years ago to tax a luxury but it was retained and massively increased even though a car is an everyday necessity for most families, especially those outside Dublin. Of course, politicians like to preach to us about the moral incentives in taxes - cut pollution, reduce drunkenness, stop smoking - and sometimes it’s true but that is not their real motive. Everywhere and always, the primary purpose of taxation is to bring money into the politicians’ hands. Have you ever heard a politician say we should cut some tax in order to incentivise some behaviour? No, weirdly enough, the only thing politicians do to change our behaviour is to impose taxes.

Our government sucked up twice as much of our money last year compared to 2010. What did they do with that €60,000,000,00? Did public service double in quantity or quality. That should be the central issue of the general election. Instead, all the politicians will try to outbid each other with schemes to spend ever more money on the HSE and various white elephants. Did you say rural broadband?

Your contradicting yourself over and over.
Statements like “ motor tax is excessive, regressive and should be abolished” with nothing to back it serve no purpose.

If we abolished motor tax you’d see a huge decline in air quality in our cities such is our car dependency.
We have put cars before people in our cities, our big cities are really unpleasant places to walk around- spend time in because of this.

We need to create clean and sustainable transport infrastructure and I think that money should at least partly come from current motorists who enjoy the freedom of driving wherever they like, where do you think the money should come from?

Bruthal

martyc5674 wrote: »

I think that money should at least partly come from current motorists who enjoy the freedom of driving wherever they like,

Do you drive where you like?

martyc5674

Bruthal wrote: »

Do you drive where you like?

I do sometimes because there is nothing to stop me. I try to cycle whenever possible but very often I’ll take the car into town when I could walk, in fact I’m just in the door from such a trip.

martyc5674

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Lol where are you getting that from?

What are you asking about in particular?

You must be under a rock if you can’t see that the air quality would be worse if there were less euro 5/6 cars on the road and in their place were euro 3/4. Because this is exactly what would happen if we abolished car tax.
Or is it that you can’t see that our cities are strangled by cars?

Caquas

martyc5674 wrote: »

Your contradicting yourself over and over.
Statements like “ motor tax is excessive, regressive and should be abolished” with nothing to back it serve no purpose.

If we abolished motor tax you’d see a huge decline in air quality in our cities such is our car dependency.
We have put cars before people in our cities, our big cities are really unpleasant places to walk around- spend time in because of this.

We need to create clean and sustainable transport infrastructure and I think that money should at least partly come from current motorists who enjoy the freedom of driving wherever they like, where do you think the money should come from?

I have been entirely consistent. It is easy to see that motor tax is regressive for the reason I have already explained repeatedly: it falls on those who need a car regardless of their ability to pay. If you don’t think e.g. that €750 a year is excessive for an ordinary car, you must have a vendetta against car owners.

I support and use public transport and alternatives to cars but, in any future scenario, people in rural Ireland will need cars.

Even with €60,000,000 in taxes annually, politicians believe every problem should be fixed by more tax and more public expenditure. This election is the time to break that habit and motor tax is a good place to start. And tackle the insurance scam.

martyc5674

Caquas wrote: »

I have been entirely consistent. It is easy to see that motor tax is regressive for the reason I have already explained repeatedly: it falls on those who need a car regardless of their ability to pay. If you don’t think e.g. that €750 a year is excessive for an ordinary car, you must have a vendetta against car owners.
.

It falls on those who choose to pollute, your argument held some weight up until about 5 years ago, but now there is no reason to have a car by choice where you are paying too much for the road tax. I have 08 diesel car in the yard... running perfect “chape tax”, I’d get maybe 500 quid for it, and it’s cheap to run.

Figerty

Caquas wrote: »

I have been entirely consistent. It is easy to see that motor tax is regressive for the reason I have already explained repeatedly: it falls on those who need a car regardless of their ability to pay. If you don’t think e.g. that €750 a year is excessive for an ordinary car, you must have a vendetta against car owners.

I support and use public transport and alternatives to cars but, in any future scenario, people in rural Ireland will need cars.

Even with €60,000,000 in taxes annually, politicians believe every problem should be fixed by more tax and more public expenditure. This election is the time to break that habit and motor tax is a good place to start. And tackle the insurance scam.

Lets all get a little real here. In the main, few people in Ireland drives for 'fun'. Most people are getting somewhere with a purpose. Put a tax on fuel will not change driving habits for most people. If you doing low mileage, then tax on fuel doesn't really matter. If you are doing high mileage it's probably work related. Add to that a car is one of the worst financial investments you can make.

However, Road tax rates on cars do majorly influence buying decisions. Tax rates based on emissions does work. VW and other being creative on emissions undermined this. Right now, there is major shift away from Diesel because a lot of low mileage diesel drivers are having DPF problems. They bought the wrong car. They should have bought petrol and possibly electric.

Any change to tax will be a token green gesture. The greens may not get the vote they expect if the electorate feel they will hit their pocket. Climate change is everyone else's problem!

joeysoap

I live in a border area with at least 6 fore courts over the border within a few kms. Bring it on and watch the revenue from norm motorists drop like a stone.

Markcheese

So it's euro six and ad blue now ... With particulate filters ....
A good few years ago the old smoky diesels ,weren't very responsive ,produced a lot of particulate (smoke ?) ,But not much nox ( I think ) , the cat largely takes care of the carbon monoxide .
..

So would the holy Grail of diesel be a big old peugot 1.9 with a really good particulate filter and sod all acceleration ?

decky1

maybe property tax as well.

Idbatterim

Massively increase motor tax on new petrol and particularly diesel from the next budget. Use it to reduce price of bev. What is the point of still encouraging diesel use , even if their emissions are a little lower!

martyc5674

Idbatterim wrote: »

Massively increase motor tax on new petrol and particularly diesel from the next budget. Use it to reduce price of bev. What is the point of still encouraging diesel use , even if their emissions are a little lower!

I agree with you re massive increase in tax on new ICE, but the money should be put into infrastructure, not encouraging people over to EVs, swapping ICE for EVs is not the right thing. We need less cars on the road, so the need for ownership needs to be reduced.

bazz26

Idbatterim wrote: »

Massively increase motor tax on new petrol and particularly diesel from the next budget. Use it to reduce price of bev. What is the point of still encouraging diesel use , even if their emissions are a little lower!

Why should extra tax payers money be used to subsidized to make EVs cheaper? Let the greedy manufacturers reduce their prices if they want to sell them. 38k including subsidies, for the Kona thing just because it's electric. You can buy a regular petrol one for 22k. You would want to be doing mega mileage to make that 16k difference back and I wouldn't fancy doing that driving in a Kona. 38k would actually buy you a nice 1 year old BMW 530e and I know which one I'd rather be spending my money on.

Caquas

decky1 wrote: »

maybe property tax as well.

A very different issue and, unlike motor tax, I would support a well-managed local property tax which restored some democracy to spending on local services, provided the tax rates were set so that ordinary families got a fair return in terms of local services, particularly waste disposal. The tax should be progressive I.e. those in bigger houses should pay more. Local tax would avoid the problems caused by massive differences in house prices across the country.

The current LPT is a national tax in all but name. No wonder Leo wanted FF to sign up! FF can fairly be blamed for abolishing rates on domestic dwellings in 1977, eviscerating local revenues.

mikeecho

As long as there is a need for cars, buses and trucks.
Motor tax will exist.

It's tried and tested.
It's a simple tax.
It's easily enforced.

It's not going away.

Yes early adopters will benefit from low rates.. diesels in 2008.
EVs recently.

But eventually, EVs will be paying big motor tax, and hefty charging costs.

Government need income, and the motorist is an easy touch. (no matter where in the world you are)

Diesel fuel isn't going away, it'll still be needed for farm machinery, shipping, generators, etc for years to come.. long beyond 2030.

saabsaab

Tried tested and found wanting.
Tax on fuel is simpler, 10 to 15 cent per litre extra.
Not so easily enforced as it would be as an add on to fuel, no GS involvement saving time.


As for not going away watch this space.


Yes I agree diesel is not going away anytime soon for many purposes and Governments need revenue.

sk8board

I'm all for the polluter pays, however FG see their support base as the folk who 'get up early in the morning' - those same people do high mileage - not a snowballs chance of motor tax being loaded on to fuel in the next election cycle

saabsaab

Wasn't thinking FG but other parties might. It would be a sure fire vote getter. All would get the removal of the car tax. The current system penalizes those who do less mileage or use more fuel efficient cars!