Huge hike in road tax as motor cash dries up

Sesshoumaru · 07-03-2012 11:00AM

creedp wrote: »

Its not the US we should be referring to any more but China .. I was listening to some documentary recently concerning the Chinese motor industry and the statistics for increasing car ownership are phenomenal. Even so they are not too concerned about car size/efficiency as apparently they have a penchant for stretched limos with petrol V6/V8's. As above we really would want to get a bit of perspective here ..

That only proves we need to diversify away from total dependency on OIL. Look at the supply and demand equation as it exists today:

Excluding Iran from the global oil market would increase the shortfall between worldwide supply and demand sixfold, based on February production and consumption estimates, the U.S. Energy Department said.
Global fuel use averaged 3 million barrels a day more than output when Iran is excluded from the calculations and 500,000 more when Iran is included, the department’s Energy Information Administration said in a report yesterday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/global-fuel-demand-outside-iran-outstrips-supply-u-s-says-1-.html

That's today, with continued growth in car ownership in SE Asia fuel is going to get a lot more expensive no matter what taxes we apply or don't apply.

This is why we should continue to use Motor Tax as a policy instrument to encourage more fuel efficient vehicles and ultimately to phase out vehicles that rely on OIL only for energy.

07-03-2012 11:07AM

listermint wrote: »

True, but would have left alot less negative equity hanging over the economy. which is something we still havent addressed yet.

Would you?
With juicy rents there would have been a lot of by to rent etc etc and still loads of folk would have bought for residential use. The crash may have been worse really.

Sesshoumaru · 07-03-2012 11:08AM

RoverJames wrote: »

Lots more people renting would have meant increases in rent (drastic, and they were very high in the mid 00s anyway while huge amounts of Dublin workers were moving out to Kildare, Laois and even Cavan).

Rent prices may well have stabilised, but at very high rates.

Rent prices have stabilised at the market distorted rate our government has set them at through rent allowances. I don't know the figures for the early noughties off the top of my head, but I would agree with what listermint said. At least people would be much less likely to have a massive negative equity debt hanging over them. We'd also have borrowed less money from overseas creditors to buy houses and our reduced borrowing needs would have meant the banks borrowing less. Perhaps not needing a NAMA bailout?

I know that's a bit "what if?" but I could see us being in a better place now if we had done more renting and less buying.

Sesshoumaru · 07-03-2012 11:09AM

RoverJames wrote: »

Would you?
With juicy rents there would have been a lot of by to rent etc etc and still loads of folk would have bought for residential use. The crash may have been worse really.

Buy to rent is just another way of buying without having to save a deposit. A 100% mortgage under a different name.

07-03-2012 11:20AM

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Buy to rent is just another way of buying without having to save a deposit. A 100% mortgage under a different name.

A deposit was often (mostly actually I would say) required and the mortgage was at a higher rate over a shorter term.

Sesshoumaru · 07-03-2012 11:43AM

RoverJames wrote: »

A deposit was often (mostly actually I would say) required and the mortgage was at a higher rate over a shorter term.

Perhaps so

However I'm talking about a scenario where people did not have the automatic attitude that rent was dead money, which is perhaps a lot less prevalent these days. An Ireland where people thought more deeply about borrowing 10 times their wage to purchase a shoe box. How that would translate to mean people would have opted for "buy to rent" instead, I don't see how we get there?

That's all going a bit more off topic. But whether you buy or rent, you definitely have a choice. People could have chosen to live nearer where they work. They didn't and now we are where we are. Lets make sure it never happens again!

creedp · 07-03-2012 11:59AM

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

That's all going a bit more off topic. But whether you buy or rent, you definitely have a choice. People could have chosen to live nearer where they work. They didn't and now we are where we are. Lets make sure it never happens again!

Who are you referring to here? Are you saying that the smug ones who didn't go an buy a house which because of developers/planners/Govt/banks conspiring together to make a killing was massively overpriced can now publicly flog the people who did simply to set up a home for their families. This is ridiculous tat in my view ... easy to blame the little man while the guys that made the decisions that got us in this mess walk away untouched.

Let's make sure the little people don't ruin it for the important people so that the latter can continue to enjoy their perfect urban latte sipping lives while content in the knowledge that their activies in no way contribute to wasting scarce natural resources. It must be great to be that happy with ones lot and so confident that if Irish people just didn't commute the world would be a better place. If only it was so simple ..

Now back to Motor Tax rates which, in my simple and homely opinion, any level of tinkering won't save the world

07-03-2012 11:59AM

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

...........How that would translate to mean people would have opted for "buy to rent" instead, I don't see how we get there?........

Rents go up investors get interested, lots of folk buy to rent, ie become investors. If all the folks who became long distance commuters opted to live near work there would have been a huge increased demand on property in urban areas

The same number of actual dwellings would have been required.

Sonnenblumen · 07-03-2012 12:14PM

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Oh, but I do pay my taxes, and if you're doing high mileage an '08+ car in tax band A or B I'm paying some of your share too!;)

Thanks but we'll enjoy your sponsorship. Hope I don't forget to give you a wave when I pass you in my high performance, fuel efficient and low tax new car. But you'll probably be busy and bent over pumping fuel into a Dino?

Tea 1000 · 07-03-2012 12:20PM

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Thanks but we'll enjoy your sponsorship. Hope I don't forget to give you a wave when I pass you in my high performance, fuel efficient and low tax new car. But you'll probably be busy and bent over pumping fuel into a Dino?

Unless the Golf is an R then it isn't high performance!!

But then it wouldn't have low tax...

listermint · 07-03-2012 12:29PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Unless the Golf is an R then it isn't high performance!! But then it wouldn't have low tax...

Massive burn

07-03-2012 12:32PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

.........But then it wouldn't have low tax...

mightn't be low tax in a year or so either

keithclancy · 07-03-2012 12:55PM

RoverJames wrote: »

Imagine what house prices and rents would have been like if no one commuted more than a few miles to work.

Imagine what rents and house prices would have been like if everyone didnt go nuts buying houses.

Sesshoumaru · 07-03-2012 12:58PM

creedp wrote: »

Who are you referring to here? Are you saying that the smug ones who didn't go an buy a house which because of developers/planners/Govt/banks conspiring together to make a killing was massively overpriced can now publicly flog the people who did simply to set up a home for their families. This is ridiculous tat in my view ... easy to blame the little man while the guys that made the decisions that got us in this mess walk away untouched.

Let's make sure the little people don't ruin it for the important people so that the latter can continue to enjoy their perfect urban latte sipping lives while content in the knowledge that their activies in no way contribute to wasting scarce natural resources. It must be great to be that happy with ones lot and so confident that if Irish people just didn't commute the world would be a better place. If only it was so simple ..

Now back to Motor Tax rates which, in my simple and homely opinion, any level of tinkering won't save the world

Who are you replying to? and also nice bit of history revision. I think it's well established renting was generally considered for poor people who couldn't afford a house, that or they were stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-WJEcN0Fy8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4CtWb4tJBg

As for the rest of your post, well none of it seems to have anything to do with opinions I've voiced. So once again please stop quoting me and then talking about random stuff like the weather. Thanks!

creedp · 07-03-2012 01:31PM

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Who are you replying to? and also nice bit of history revision. I think it's well established renting was generally considered for poor people who couldn't afford a house, that or they were stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-WJEcN0Fy8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4CtWb4tJBg

As for the rest of your post, well none of it seems to have anything to do with opinions I've voiced. So once again please stop quoting me and then talking about random stuff like the weather. Thanks!

I know I'm quoting you again and risking your wrath for misinterpreting your musings. I'm not sure who you are referring to when you refer to renting/weather .. I don't recall mentioning either. Don't worry I won't get all indignant over it.

I may have got it completely wrong but I think its fair to say you consistently single out for criticism people who decided to buy a house resulting in them having to commute and consider that everything we do in future should be directed at making them pay for this stupid decision. So hike road tax, fuel tax and whatever else to punish these people and make them pay. I'm not clear what outcome you see from all this but it seems one might be that we would be less reliant in IMPORTED OIL. A more immediate one would be though that you put more pressure on people that are already under severe pressure but I suppose the end justifies the means for you.

Sesshoumaru · 07-03-2012 01:52PM

creedp wrote: »

I know I'm quoting you again and risking your wrath for misinterpreting your musings. I'm not sure who you are referring to when you refer to renting/weather .. I don't recall mentioning either. Don't worry I won't get all indignant over it.

I may have got it completely wrong but I think its fair to say you consistently single out for criticism people who decided to buy a house resulting in them having to commute and consider that everything we do in future should be directed at making them pay for this stupid decision. So hike road tax, fuel tax and whatever else to punish these people and make them pay. I'm not clear what outcome you see from all this but it seems one might be that we would be less reliant in IMPORTED OIL. A more immediate one would be though that you put more pressure on people that are already under severe pressure but I suppose the end justifies the means for you.

I don't get indignant, just the ordinary type of angry that you quote me and then go off on a rant involving your personal ideology. But aside from me not desiring to punish people, lets try and get to the heart of what you're saying.

Are you arguing against the benefits of economies of scale that we gain from people living in higher density housing? Before you go off on a rant, I'm not suggesting higher density automatically equals tower blocks. I'm saying people live in villages instead of one off housing. Towns instead of villages. Cities instead of towns. There is a sliding scale here! To me it seems obvious that a world class hospital can be provided at lower cost per citizen in its service area if it is located in a large city. The same hospital located in a rural setting, how many citizens will be in its service area? Clearly the cost per citizen goes up and less people benefit from it.

How about the social cost of people spending large amounts of time commuting in their little boxes instead of spending time with their family? Do you not see that long distance commuting is a choice with social consequences?

Despite your populist rant, this isn't about making life difficult for people who made choices that don't fit with current economic realities. It is about dealing with the above points. Do we want a country that suffers the social cost of long distance commuting? A country that suffers the economic costs of having a dispersed population?

I mean if you were designing a community from the ground up, would you put peoples living quarters randomly dispersed 10's of kilometers from where they work and then put services like schools, medical facilities, community centers all over the place? Do you not see that we need policies in place now so we can build a better, happier and more close knit communities in the future?

Clearly making it easy for people to live wherever they want and the increased cost to the rest of society in providing services for those people is not beneficial for the country as a whole. Motor Tax is a useful policy instrument for making it less attractive to pick to a place to live in that's far away from the community and where you work.

TestTransmission · 07-03-2012 01:57PM

creedp wrote: »

I know I'm quoting you again and risking your wrath for misinterpreting your musings. I'm not sure who you are referring to when you refer to renting/weather .. I don't recall mentioning either. Don't worry I won't get all indignant over it.

I may have got it completely wrong but I think its fair to say you consistently single out for criticism people who decided to buy a house resulting in them having to commute and consider that everything we do in future should be directed at making them pay for this stupid decision. So hike road tax, fuel tax and whatever else to punish these people and make them pay. I'm not clear what outcome you see from all this but it seems one might be that we would be less reliant in IMPORTED OIL. A more immediate one would be though that you put more pressure on people that are already under severe pressure but I suppose the end justifies the means for you.

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I don't get indignant, just the ordinary type of angry that you quote me and then go off on a rant involving your personal ideology. But aside from me not desiring to punish people, lets try and get to the heart of what you're saying.

Are you arguing against the benefits of economies of scale that we gain from people living in higher density housing? Before you go off on a rant, I'm not suggesting higher density automatically equals tower blocks. I'm saying people live in villages instead of one off housing. Towns instead of villages. Cities instead of towns. There is a sliding scale here! To me it seems obvious that a world class hospital can be provided at lower cost per citizen in its service area if it is located in a large city. The same hospital located in a rural setting, how many citizens will be in its service area? Clearly the cost per citizen goes up and less people benefit from it.

How about the social cost of people spending large amounts of time commuting in their little boxes instead of spending time with their family? Do you not see that long distance commuting is a choice with social consequences?

Despite your populist rant, this isn't about making life difficult for people who made choices that don't fit with current economic realities. It is about dealing with the above points. Do we want a country that suffers the social cost of long distance commuting? A country that suffers the economic costs of having a dispersed population?

I mean if you were designing a community from the ground up, would you put peoples living quarters randomly dispersed 10's of kilometers from where they work and then put services like schools, medical facilities, community centers all over the place? Do you not see that we need policies in place now so we can build a better, happier and more close knit communities in the future?

Clearly making it easy for people to live wherever they want and the increased cost to the rest of society in providing services for those people is not beneficial for the country as a whole. Motor Tax is a useful policy instrument for making it less attractive to pick to a place to live in that's far away from the community and where you work.

Will the 2 of ye just grow up please and get back on topic.We're low on mods and can't be dealing with the flurry of reported posts from this thread

creedp · 07-03-2012 02:05PM

I'm not going to quote you this time but all I can say is that we are not dealing here with a model and a green field site. Decisions were made in this country over a period of time which have resulted in too many people ending up in very difficult circumstances both financially and socially. Now if we could delete the past and start again I'm sure we would do it differently and then implement policy measures to encourage people to live in an optimal fashion or else pay for non compliant decision making.

However, the horse has bolted and people are in difficulty and inconveniently they cannot re-write history so to a great extent they are stuck with what they have. In these circumstances, punishing them further by greatly increasing the cost of commuting will only serve to increase their pain in the short term with no significant gain for anyone. It may be populist ranting but I simply don't agree with that policy. Just like I don't agree with the polulist policy of giving tax relief to a few mostly well healed persons to be early adopters of EV. There are better ways to give tax relief or to reduce the tax burden. Again, that's my opinion and I don't expect you to agree with it.

creedp · 07-03-2012 02:06PM

TestTransmission wrote: »

Will the 2 of ye just grow up please and get back on topic.We're low on mods and can't be dealing with the flurry of reported posts from this thread

Sorry I posted again before I read this.

Sesshoumaru · 07-03-2012 02:20PM

creedp wrote: »

I'm not going to quote you this time but all I can say is that we are not dealing here with a model and a green field site. Decisions were made in this country over a period of time which have resulted in too many people ending up in very difficult circumstances both financially and socially. Now if we could delete the past and start again I'm sure we would do it differently and then implement policy measures to encourage people to live in an optimal fashion or else pay for non compliant decision making.

However, the horse has bolted and people are in difficulty and inconveniently they cannot re-write history so to a great extent they are stuck with what they have. In these circumstances, punishing them further by greatly increasing the cost of commuting will only serve to increase their pain in the short term with no significant gain for anyone. It may be populist ranting but I simply don't agree with that policy. Just like I don't agree with the polulist policy of giving tax relief to a few mostly well healed persons to be early adopters of EV. There are better ways to give tax relief or to reduce the tax burden. Again, that's my opinion and I don't expect you to agree with it.

No matter what decisions and mistakes were made in the past, you have to at some point draw a line in the sand and start correcting the mistakes of the past. That doesn't mean ignoring current reality. Putting people in a miserable and dark place also has a social cost. In the past it clearly was very cheap to live anywhere you wanted, I give you ghost estates located miles from any other population center as evidence of this and people bought and lived in these places!

We can decide now where we want to get to, the kind of country we want. We don't have to try and get there at 100m Olympic sprint pace. But IMO leaving in place policies or creating new policies that benefit those in the unfortunate circumstances we are discussing is no more fair on those who didn't end up like that, than having it the other way around. It's certainly no benefit to me to have people in our society who feel they've lost everything and have nothing else to lose.

The VAT collected on an EV purchase more than cancels out the 5k grant, it is a revenue neutral grant. Which is not quite the same as getting a grant for installing solar heating in your home or insulating it.

Sesshoumaru · 07-03-2012 02:21PM

creedp wrote: »

Sorry I posted again before I read this.

I'm not a MOD, but I thought your last post was reasonable. I've got no problem debating with you.

Big Nasty · 07-03-2012 02:24PM

Hey, Sesshoumaru!

Maybe you should re-apply for the EV sub forum. I would be glad to vote for you this time 'round!

Sesshoumaru · 07-03-2012 02:28PM

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Hey, Sesshoumaru!

Maybe you should re-apply for the EV sub forum. I would be glad to vote for you this time 'round!

HA! I was going to reapply in summer. Some rule about waiting a period of time before applying again. But thanks! I'll be tapping you for that promised support when I do make a new request

Big Nasty · 07-03-2012 02:30PM

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

HA! I was going to reapply in summer. Some rule about waiting a period of time before applying again. But thanks! I'll be tapping you for that promised support when I do make a new request

Make damn sure you do! :cool:

TestTransmission · 07-03-2012 02:41PM

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I'm not a MOD, but I thought your last post was reasonable. I've got no problem debating with you.

How many of his posts did you report?

Sesshoumaru · 07-03-2012 03:00PM

TestTransmission wrote: »

How many of his posts did you report?

All the posts that attempted to caricature me as an upper class snob with my boot heel placed firmly on the back of the ordinary Joe Soap. How is that related to me not having an issue with debating this person? I have nothing personal against creedp, how could I? I don't even know who he or she is!

The last post from creedp was good, I don't have a problem discussing like this. Creedp definitely has a good point about the number of people who are in the situation they are in. As a society we can't just throw them under the bus and my point was we also have to move forward in a positive direction. It all relates to motor tax as a policy instrument and I'm happy to debate these issues with anyone as long as I'm not demonised.

Farmer Pudsey · 07-03-2012 04:06PM

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

How about making a different lifestyle choice and moving closer to where you work?

Sesshoumaru it is not about changeing livestyles the reality is that not everyone goes to the same place to start work ever morning or they may have changed jobs and have to commute the reality is that Motor tax is an equlity tax everone who had a car had to tax it before the Greens made a dogs dinner of it it is ridiclous that someone that can spend 40,000 on a bmw or a high preformance car with a big diesel engine has to pay only a little more car tax than joe soap who has a small 1.3 family petrol car costing 16,000 ( by the way I have neither as I drive a company van)

Tax on fuel IN IRELAND hits the person that is working unfairly as we do not have a good public transport system. So it is another disincentive for the unemployed person to return to work and maybe have to fork out 50 euro+ every week to get to work. It also hit our transport industry we are an island nation and needto get our goods to market in europe

runawaybishop · 07-03-2012 04:09PM

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Tax on fuel IN IRELAND hits the person that is working unfairly as we do not have a good public transport system. So it is another disincentive for the unemployed person to return to work and maybe have to fork out 50 euro+ every week to get to work. It also hit our transport industry we are an island nation and needto get our goods to market in europe

People queued up to shop up north for christmas (http://blog.aaireland.ie/index.php/2011/11/28/cross-border-shopping/2-vat-increase-would-sway-many-christmas-shoppers-to-go-north-poll-reveals) - taxing the fuel wont work. I don't get why people don't factor this in.

Sonnenblumen · 07-03-2012 04:20PM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Unless the Golf is an R then it isn't high performance!! But then it wouldn't have low tax...

Golf, I don't drive a golf?

listermint · 07-03-2012 04:38PM

runawaybishop wrote: »

People queued up to shop up north for christmas (http://blog.aaireland.ie/index.php/2011/11/28/cross-border-shopping/2-vat-increase-would-sway-many-christmas-shoppers-to-go-north-poll-reveals) - taxing the fuel wont work. I don't get why people don't factor this in.

Who the hell would drive up the north to get fuel. Yeah it might be some around the border counties. but come on like!

Huge hike in road tax as motor cash dries up

Comments