A girl I work with lives in Blanchardstown, she drives daily to Summerhill in her car. Why t f?
What’s wrong with a modest hatch back?
She’s unmarried and no kids. What the f does she need it for?
Because this thread is all over the place already, I'd like to point out that it's actually illegal to drive a commercially taxed vehicle on a Sunday, or so a dealership owner told my father in 1998 when he was buying a 2 year old commercially taxed Land Rover Discovery (that had 7 seats btw) .
Don't know if it's actually true or not but when my dad asked him if the tax would stay commercially with change of ownership he said yes, the only thing is you're technically not meant to drive them on Sundays!
Well, there you go, then.
Correct that strictly speaking and according to the law, a vehicle that's taxed according to commercial rates must be used solely and wholly for commercial purposes. If the owner uses it even only occasionally for domestic/personal purposes, they obviously don't comply with this.
But If you're not going to sweat it over a "commerical" vehicle being used for occasional domestic/personal purposes, then you're not sticking to your guns on this one. You're instead accepting the Irish solution to the Irish problem: "ah sure, if it's only the odd time, then what's the harm?"
This shows why it was one of the silly arguments here in the first place.
If I had the energy, I'd tackle another one, involving dear old Andy, who has yet again misinterpreted, misunderstood, or chosen to ignore something that's actually been written, and who's instead continuing to portray it as what he thinks has been written.
The big saving come with the high spec crew cabs which would cost a fortune to buy as a private car due to exorbitant vrt and co2 based motor tax as well as very high running costs. The cost of a private Ford Raptor 3l v6 petrol would be eye watering compared to the benefit of buying and taxing as a commercial vehicle
Yes the advantages can be overstated.
I haven't seen any of the current model RAV4 commercialed or the previous model for that matter.
Even if you did one you'd also be looking at annual CVRT at €131.41 not to mention only having two seats.
Those who think SUVs should be banned because they’ll kill and maim all round them better avert their gaze from the top 20 EV sales to date 2025
A Rav4 is around 200 to tax privately. Or 333 to tax commercially. How on gods green earth are you gaining an advantage by taxing it commercially?
Yes, Guilty, I had misunderstood.
I think you may be misunderstanding my position.
I think the rules need to be changed to make life easier for businesses and self employed.
Just accept that the vehicles will be used to some extent for private purposes.
So just lump businesses with more cost…who will that also affect?
Of course commercial vehicle drivers can't avail of the same private tax rates as car drivers.
The private tax rates for commercial vehicles are still based on the old engine capacity rates.
It's completely impractical and almost unenforceable.
Any self employed person ie. farmer/tradesman who drives a commercially taxed vehicle is going to use it for some amount of private use.
The sooner this law is revised the better.
I'm not a hypocrite, unlike many posters. I'll tell you straight out I've had many crew cabs taxed, insured and used for some private purposes outside of work.
Saying it but ignoring the practicalities and reality of it.
you very occasionally use it for a trip to the shop or for some other private/domestic need. Should you be paying the private motor tax rate on it instead, for the sake of this 1% of use?If "yes", then that would be a pretty extreme view.
you very occasionally use it for a trip to the shop or for some other private/domestic need. Should you be paying the private motor tax rate on it instead, for the sake of this 1% of use?
If "yes", then that would be a pretty extreme view.
AFAIK, according to the law, if it's used at all for private purposes, it should be taxed privately. as in, you're not allowed used it for private benefit and the moment you do so, that's when the tax fraud (or whatever you want to call it) occurs. but we know there's zero policing of that.
i'm hardly going to sweat an 'oh ****, the car has a flat tyre and i need to get the dinner for tonight, will use the work van' sort of use myself.
If they tax it privately then it’s perfectly legal.
that's what i've been saying all along.
Some are, others aren't. It's not always about passengers either.
It still does nothing to answer the realistic practicalities. The result would be to do away with commercial tax altogether, who would pay the costs of businesses having additional costs - the consumer.
I am glad no one supporting the "just pay the private tax" to justify the minimal private use ever conduct personal business during work time….
If they tax it privately then it’s perfectly legal. No need for the whataboutery.
They are 5 seater vehicles.
This is one of a number of silly arguments going on here.
Say you have a van on which you pay commercial tax rates. 99% of your use of the van is indeed for commercial purposes connected to your trade or business, but you very occasionally use it for a trip to the shop or for some other private/domestic need. Should you be paying the private motor tax rate on it instead, for the sake of this 1% of use?
If "no, just occasional use like that would be tolerable, albeit not strictly legal", then please tell at what percentage you'd draw the limit for personal use.
😯This is beyond silly.
The poster was clearly and correctly, albeit somewhat sardonically, pointing out the fact that SUV-child pedestrian collisions were extremely rare. They did not claim that such collisions never occurred. That was a strawman.
As to this other nonsense suggesting it's OK for SUVs to ram a small number of children … where to start. First of all, there isn't exactly a fixed quota anyone has in mind. If a driver causes the death of a child, regardless of whether they did so intentionally (i.e. actually using their vehicle as a ram) or through gross negligence, they are to blame. That's not OK.
On the other hand, if the driver had been acting in a reasonable manner and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, then that's a tragedy, but it doesn't really make sense to put them emphasis on the driver or their vehicle. Obviously, the fewer of these cases, the better.
Outside of that, all we can do is look at the data and evidence - or in your case, use absurd language and use dead children as props in your theatrics.
did you think it was not possible to do so?
I've literally stated a few posts ago that some do tax them as private. I specifically mentioned the justification requirements to avail of this and the alternate being private.
did you think it was not possible to do so? you buy the vehicle you need for your business, and then if you intend to use it privately too, tax it privately.
This just dodges what I wrote though. Dual use is acknowledged and catered for by insurance companies knowing full well they are primarily used for the users business/trade/profession. Going by your wishes, I'd be up for tax fraud for stopping at the shop on my way home in a commercially taxed vehicle. The practicalities and enforcement are laughable really.
I'll repeat myself in saying this is not a 'tax' issue. It's curtain twitching judgement.
you can tax it privately if you want. it's perfectly possible to tax a van, for example - a vehicle designed for commercial use - with a private tax designation.
e.g.
https://www.completecar.ie/askusanything/question/17292/Can-I-insure-and-tax-a-van-privately-in-Ireland
The need of a commercial vehicle relates to its design/performance and features etc. It's not all about 'cheap tax'. The cost of private tax would be passed on to business customers; we all end up paying more.
I and others would require a second/third car, otherwise you'd have me up for committing tax fraud for stopping at the shop. It would be so impractical that commercial tax would become unviable for all; why have it then for any vehicle - make it the same across the board.
You're also ignoring the classic cars, but are they somehow 'better'?
But that's a misrepresentation of my argument. If I have a commercially taxed vehicle, I have justified the requirements. Your argument of zero tolerance for private use would require me to then have a second/third vehicle despite the reality and practicality of life. If it were to be enforced in its strictest terms, I could not pick up shopping on my way home. I'd have to go home passing the shops, take my private car and go back to where I was…. Is traffic not bad enough?
But that's a misrepresentation of my argument. If I have a commercially taxed vehicle, I have justified the requirements. Your argument of zero tolerance for private use would require me to then have a second/third vehicle despite the reality and practicality of life.
If it were to be enforced in its strictest terms, I could not pick up shopping on my way home. I'd have to go home passing the shops, take my private car and go back to where I was…. Is traffic not bad enough?
uhh.. i don't know how many different ways i can phrase this? you should then just pay private tax on your 'commercial' vehicle instead of commercial tax, and not need an extra car. and use your 'commercial' vehicle both commercially and privately.
if you are using your commercial vehicle for private use, you are technically committing tax fraud.
why do you keep going on about sports cars?
As others have brought up the necessity for car/4x4 simply for practicality and familial use - "I don't need one, so no one else should have one". As I said, it's not a singular tax issue.
Same with vintage cars - why not scrap them? Cheaper tax yet same benefit.
why should you (or whoever) get the benefit of a vehicle for private use without having to pay private tax rates on it? because i have to pay private tax rates for the use of my car. you're enjoying an unfair advantage.
if you have (say) a toyota corolla taxed privately in your driveway, and a RAV4 taxed commercially in your driveway, and use both for private purposes, i am not saying you should get a third car if you want two cars for private use. i am saying tax the RAV4 at private rates and let you use it privately. this is what the law allows for.
If it were to be enforced in its strictest terms, I could not pick up shopping on my way home. I'd have to go home passing the shops, take my private car and go back to where I was…. Is traffic not bad enough? Do people not have enough expense on their plate without adding another car+tax+insurance+maintenance+running costs on top? Was the goal not to reduce cars on the road? We've had plenty on here bemoaning the environmental impact, yet the solution would be worse. Who would the additional costs be passed on to?
This is little to do with tax and/or the environment. It's personal preferences dressed up.
your neighbour who has two private cars for private use could well be paying 2 x private tax for that - why should you get the use of the second car for cheaper than them?
Because it's use is primarily commercial use and I've justified it as such I pay other costs private don't. Just because they are pay private tax and are insured as same, is there an automatic guarantee that they aren't using their cars for business use? No, but nothing said.
I'm still yet to see a practical solution. The key justification has been - "I don't like them". Fine, don't buy one.
It's evolution.... the Irish weather and tools being stolen from the back of a Ford Ranger... this will solve the problem.
Otherwise, taxation on private vehicles that have the same fuel consumption as a garbage truck.
Based on the NCAP safety results, also the Volvo
76% pedestrian rating against 66%
Newer mini has improved
But now barely beats the old Volvo, just 1% higher. Can't find newer results for the later big Volvos, but the Polestar 3 is a big SUV (I think it shares the same platform as the Volvo EX90)
So it's safer in every way, including for Pedestrians.
You can no longer say that SUVs are less safe for pedestrians, the facts are they are not. These days it is far more relevant what safety systems are in the car, the bigger SUVs tend to be more luxurious which generally come with more safety tech.
Thankfully the UK HMRC's recent tax changes are probably the only thing that will affect this new trend of driving pick-up trucks.
Hopefully sales of Double cabs will dry up and they'll stop being imported into RHD markets in Europe.
it's simple, and the law states it. if the vehicle is used at all for private use it should be taxed privately.
I've never hinted or suggested anything about 'being better than everyone else'. It's fairly ghoulish again how people need to make up stuff to argue with it, rather than arguing with the actual words that I've said. I'm not parading anyone around, but I'm not going to let others sweep deaths and injuries of children and adults under the carpet, because it doesn't their need to feel superior over their neighbours.
I'm not going to let you drag me down into your gutter. I can spot a sealion coming at 100 metres. The idea that the average Boards poster knows better than the expert authors of medical research doesn't stand up. The old patronising parent trick of 'we're so disappointed in you' doesn't really work either.
So what's the solution? A person would then have to have a second car simply for private use despite the reality and practicalities. Or, as was suggested, rent a commercial wherein it becomes practically and financially unviable very quickly, adds cars on the road when our cities are congested as is and from an non existent fleet.
It makes no sense in either cost to consumers & business and/or trying to enforce it. Commercial tax also comes with CVRT requirements that private cars don't.
Those who tax their cars as private are not automatically infallible in their use for solely private use, never seem to get the same treatment; why -because the level of system abuse is minimal, just like those who have commercially taxed vehicles that cater to their personal and/or family needs.
But again (and again), this isn't about tax - this is about some peoples personal preferences and the wish to impose their choices on others. "It's an ugly car so they shouldn't have one" - I'll ask again; where does this end? Houses/food/utilities/
Sports cars - no need for them (not even commercially) - Tax them out of existence and stop selling them - why not?
Vintage cars - no need for them and they pay less tax yet get the same use out of the car the rest of us are, and are paying private rate for - Get rid of them too?
