Abolish car tax

Caquas

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It's not a mandate for anything. Don't be silly.

It's merely a bunch of relatively high contributors to road tax expressing a desire to pay less.

Not a mandate but why dismiss their desire to pay less tax?

The central problem in this country is that our politicians claim they can solve every problem but the only way they know is to spend public money. Now that Europe blocks deficit spending, that means taxes and more taxes. Our media play the same game.

If you think this online survey is unrepresentative, let’s have a referendum. An unheard of suggestion but why not ask the people if they want this tax? This should be an election issue but instead all the parties will make unfunded promises and renege on their tax promises.

Charles Babbage

It isn't hard to get people to agree on reducing a tax.
What is hard is getting them to agree on which other tax should be increased or which item of public expenditure should be reduced.

saabsaab

Let's see, this proposal is


More Popular
Greener
Simpler
Revenue neutral (if done properly)
Cost saving


We can't be doing that! Can we!

Henry Ford III

Caquas wrote: »

Not a mandate but why dismiss their desire to pay less tax?

The central problem in this country is that our politicians claim they can solve every problem but the only way they know is to spend public money. Now that Europe blocks deficit spending, that means taxes and more taxes. Our media play the same game.

If you think this online survey is unrepresentative, let’s have a referendum. An unheard of suggestion but why not ask the people if they want this tax? This should be an election issue but instead all the parties will make unfunded promises and renege on their tax promises.

I want to pay less tax too but live rurally. This tax on fuel idea will be popular in cities for obvious reasons.

Doesn't mean it's right, or reasonable.

bazz26

Maybe Leo or Michael will ring you OP in a few weeks time to see if your interested in forming a government with them, after all you have a mandate now from a few randomers on a public forum.

Don't forget to report back when you have it all sorted.

Rodin

Id vote for a fuel tax when water charges come back.

The more you consume, the more you should pay.
Food, electricity, fuel, phone data....

saabsaab

bazz26 wrote: »

Maybe Leo or Michael will ring you OP in a few weeks time to see if your interested in forming a government with them, after all you have a mandate now from a few randomers on a public forum.

Don't forget to report back when you have it all sorted.

Fair enough, you'll be the first to know!

bazz26

Super.

saabsaab

Attack the waste of fuel and axe the tax.

User142

A motoring forum that advocates merits of getting rid of motor tax for the betterment of the working class and saving Mother Earth. Not because they want to own a lovely powerful car without paying the high rates currently associated with them. A motoring forum full of Green Social Democrats.... amazing.

kirving

As someone suggested on another thread that a lot of our country's emissions are due to completely unnecessary SUV's....

How about a tax on the vehicle's weight, sliding scale with no bands.
Then a multiplier for age in months, with direct debit per month available.

Bigger car = more tax.
Larger EV battery = more tax. (prevents unnecessary batteries being manufactured which are never used, and encourages efficiency)

saabsaab

Kevin Irving wrote: »

As someone suggested on another thread that a lot of our country's emissions are due to completely unnecessary SUV's....

How about a tax on the vehicle's weight, sliding scale with no bands.
Then a multiplier for age in months, with direct debit per month available.

Bigger car = more tax.
Larger EV battery = more tax. (prevents unnecessary batteries being manufactured which are never used, and encourages efficiency)

Much simpler to just tax the fuel. The heavier the vehicle, the more fuel used. The heavier the foot, the more fuel used. Unnecessary journeys, the more fuel used.

bazz26

runawaybishop

saabsaab wrote: »

Much simpler to just tax the fuel. The heavier the vehicle, the more fuel used. The heavier the foot, the more fuel used. Unnecessary journeys, the more fuel used.

And the 400k people that live near the border, as well as every trucking business in the country. What are you doing to do about them?

martyc5674

Kevin Irving wrote: »

As someone suggested on another thread that a lot of our country's emissions are due to completely unnecessary SUV's....

How about a tax on the vehicle's weight, sliding scale with no bands.
Then a multiplier for age in months, with direct debit per month available.

Bigger car = more tax.
Larger EV battery = more tax. (prevents unnecessary batteries being manufactured which are never used, and encourages efficiency)

I’d agree with a lot of that. Way too many SUVs on the road, 4*4s shouldn’t be allowed near city’s at all. Cars are getting wider roads aren’t.

Seweryn

runawaybishop wrote: »

And the 400k people that live near the border, as well as every trucking business in the country. What are you doing to do about them?

They are not much different to millions of people living near the borders around Europe.

runawaybishop

Seweryn wrote: »

They are not much different to millions of people living near the borders around Europe.

And how do those countries deal with the loss of revenue from people crossing the border to avoid the tax on fuel?

Seweryn

runawaybishop wrote: »

And how do those countries deal with the loss of revenue from people crossing the border to avoid the tax on fuel?

By increasing the price they increase the revenue in their own country. Anyway, it is a non-existing problem. If it was a problem, we would know about it. Same for any other product across the boarder. Some goods sell better on one side of the boarder, other goods or services - on the other side. The market adjusts to it.

saabsaab

See below changes proposed already. Current system can't last..





https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/motorists-may-be-taxed-on-distance-driven-rather-than-paying-excise-on-fuel-1.3588114







'Directive 2003/96/EC on restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity sets out the EU’s rules on taxes on electricity, all propellant fuels and most fuel oils. The aforementioned Directive provides that national governments may apply lower levels of excise duty in respect of commercial diesel fuel than in respect of diesel fuel for non-commercial use, where such fuel is used by carriers or for the carriage of passengers.
Some Member States have been following such practices for years. However, the EU’s climate policy and the commitments it has taken on under the Paris Accord, as well as the Commission’s ‘Europe on the Move’ package for safe, clean and connected mobility, dictate a completely different approach, including the abolition of subsidies for fossil fuels and EU rules that will cover, for the first time, the area of CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles (trucks and buses).
CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles account for about a quarter of road transport emissions, and achieving EU targets in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not be possible without the inclusion of heavy-duty vehicles.
In view of the above, when does the Commission intend to amend Directive 2003/96/EC, which permits the reimbursement of excise duties paid on diesel used for commercial purposes, in order to fulfil the obligations under the Paris Accord and to bring the aforementioned Directive into line with EU climate and energy policies?'

runawaybishop

Seweryn wrote: »

By increasing the price they increase the revenue in their own country. Anyway, it is a non-existing problem. If it was a problem, we would know about it. Same for any other product across the boarder. Some goods sell better on one side of the boarder, other goods or services - on the other side. The market adjusts to it.

Yeah, businesses shut down, as I said earlier. That's exactly what Donegal needs.

Seweryn

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yeah, businesses shut down, as I said earlier. That's exactly what Donegal needs.

Jeeyzis, there are dozens of borders around Europe. Many businesses went down, but others have opened instead. They sell what customers buy.

runawaybishop

Seweryn wrote: »

Jeeyzis, there are dozens of borders around Europe. Many businesses went down, but others have opened instead. They sell what customers buy.

Many businesses will open, in northern Ireland. Meanwhile here the cost of fuel will have to rise even more to counter the losses across the border.

It's a **** idea. If you want to beat people that have to drive maybe consider decent public transport first.

Seweryn

runawaybishop wrote: »

If you want to beat people that have to drive maybe consider decent public transport first.

That is a very good idea, however seems like a futuristic vision for our Government to even consider. There is no future planning by the Government.

martyc5674

saabsaab wrote: »

See below changes proposed already. Current system can't last..





https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/motorists-may-be-taxed-on-distance-driven-rather-than-paying-excise-on-fuel-1.3588114







'Directive 2003/96/EC on restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity sets out the EU’s rules on taxes on electricity, all propellant fuels and most fuel oils. The aforementioned Directive provides that national governments may apply lower levels of excise duty in respect of commercial diesel fuel than in respect of diesel fuel for non-commercial use, where such fuel is used by carriers or for the carriage of passengers.
Some Member States have been following such practices for years. However, the EU’s climate policy and the commitments it has taken on under the Paris Accord, as well as the Commission’s ‘Europe on the Move’ package for safe, clean and connected mobility, dictate a completely different approach, including the abolition of subsidies for fossil fuels and EU rules that will cover, for the first time, the area of CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles (trucks and buses).
CO2 emissions from heavy-duty vehicles account for about a quarter of road transport emissions, and achieving EU targets in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not be possible without the inclusion of heavy-duty vehicles.
In view of the above, when does the Commission intend to amend Directive 2003/96/EC, which permits the reimbursement of excise duties paid on diesel used for commercial purposes, in order to fulfil the obligations under the Paris Accord and to bring the aforementioned Directive into line with EU climate and energy policies?'

The sooner the better, there’s too many trucks on the road.

galwaytt

martyc5674 wrote: »

The sooner the better, there’s too many trucks on the road.

No, there aren't.

Unless of course you're going to give up, oh, I dunno..........food ? Clothes? Medicines ? Housebuilding ? All that stuff you just bought on Amazon and needs to get to your door ....(at the expense of the local business btw..) ?

..and that's just a start.

saabsaab

To be fair what he said was 'Too many' trucks. A lot of what is being transported long distance isn't really necessary stuff off the internet etc. We should buy local and use local materials more. Not buy stuff that is used a few times and then dumped, this cycle being repeated as infinitum until the earths resources are exhausted. I'd say that a lot of the time trucks are traveling empty anyhow on return journeys which is a total waste.

Seweryn

saabsaab wrote: »

To be fair what he said was 'Too many' trucks. A lot of what is being transported long distance isn't really necessary stuff off the internet etc. We should buy local and use local materials more. Not buy stuff that is used a few times and then dumped, this cycle being repeated as infinitum until the earths resources are exhausted. I'd say that a lot of the time trucks are traveling empty anyhow on return journeys which is a total waste.

True to some extent. Just go to your local supermarket and try to buy apples. I quite often go back with empty basket, even when there are seven varieties for sale. It is half as bad when they are from France or Germany or Poland, but they are quite often imported from Brazil, Chile, New Zealand, South Africa...
I guess they sell Italian apples in Australia.
Other nonsenses - potatoes from New Zealand, garlic from China, etc. Sure, we do not grow bananas here, but the obvious nonsense should be avoided by the customers, so there is less demand for them and as a result we have less transport on global scale and lower environmental impact.

martyc5674

galwaytt wrote: »

No, there aren't.

Unless of course you're going to give up, oh, I dunno..........food ? Clothes? Medicines ? Housebuilding ? All that stuff you just bought on Amazon and needs to get to your door ....(at the expense of the local business btw..) ?

..and that's just a start.

I didn’t say remove them all.. but we have become commercial beyond belief. Buying disposable crap from god knows where just because we can, not because we need it. I stand behind that comment, there are too many trucks on the road. We certainly shouldn’t be subsidizing them.

Rodin

LIGHTNING wrote: »

The water tax on top of the tax that you already pay towards infrastructure, property tax. And we already know how well Irish Water used the money it got

Irish Water spent over €800,000 on high-end documentary
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-water-spent-over-800-000-on-high-end-documentary-1.4133311

Irish Water staff pocket €5m in bonuses as families endure more boil notice chaos
https://extra.ie/2019/12/15/news/irish-news/irish-water-staff-bonuses-as-families

That the money was misspent is a different matter.
The philosophy of paying per consumption is unconnected to that. We waste water massively in society and we need to reduce our consumption.

mikeecho