Auditor-general's report on Motor tax

27-09-2012 10:30pm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

As usual the problem with this solution is that it assumes everyone lives in cities and/or has viable public transport options to get where they need to be which is rarely the case once you leave Dublin.

........

It doesn't assume that at all, it's a pay by use system, tough sh1t if you need to travel more than others

OU812 · 27-09-2012 10:33pm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

As usual the problem with this solution is that it assumes everyone lives in cities and/or has viable public transport options to get where they need to be which is rarely the case once you leave Dublin.

Besides they already take enough tax on fuel as it is

The point of it is that if you're using the roads, you're paying the tai. it's the ultimate "user pays". If you're car is off the road, no fuel used = no tax paid. All they have to do is put a couple of cent per litre on & it's sorted out. They'd have everyone who uses paying & no way of avoiding it & the best part is light road users would pay less & heavy users would pay more.

Supergurrier · 27-09-2012 10:36pm

It would be the perfect system, but however our government is so motor tax reliant atm they already have fuel taxes at very high levels.

They see a tax in another country that's used as part of an overall taxation system and totally ignore the system and charge it and ramp it up because "Shurrre other countries have the same tax"

_Kaiser_ · 27-09-2012 10:40pm

RoverJames wrote: »

It doesn't assume that at all, it's a pay by use system, tough sh1t if you need to travel more than others

Uh huh..

Explain to me though how giving a government (any Irish government really) more money for them to piss away is going to benefit anyone?

I'm being serious here - We've gone from a nation obsessed with keeping up with our neighbours, to obsessing about what they might be "getting away with" that we're not :rolleyes:

But by all means, lets keep fighting over scraps while our leaders enjoy the high life and hand over our hard-earned to their gambling buddies who lost but whose losses we're covering anyway

Guy:Incognito · 27-09-2012 10:45pm

CiniO wrote: »

Why should I need to prove to anyone that I'm not using my car.
If they want me to pay tax on it, it's up to them to prove I'm using it.

Keep to your own private roads and you dont have to prove anything to anyone. Use someone elses ( the public's) however......

27-09-2012 10:45pm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Uh huh..

Explain to me though how giving a government (any Irish government really) more money for them to piss away is going to benefit anyone?

I'm being serious here -................

Did I propose it?
I think not so I won't be replying to your request

Although if you think about it tax on fuel could be implemented so it's revenue neutral

Guy:Incognito · 27-09-2012 10:51pm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Uh huh..

Explain to me though how giving a government (any Irish government really) more money for them to piss away is going to benefit anyone?

How would you be? Take the motor tax take and divide it by the number of litres of motor fuel sold in the same year. Add the result to the price of fuel and on average the amount of tax given to the government is the same. Your paying the same amount just paying in a different way and in small installments.

Stinicker · 27-09-2012 11:17pm

I'd happily digest our current rates of taxation and fuel duty if we had the infrastructure or decent public transport instead match.

lau1247 · 28-09-2012 7:31am

Guess there will be more compliance when it comes into play..

PRIVATE speed cameras could be used to detect motor tax dodgers as the Government desperately tries to recover €100m worth of car tax lost each year.

Link

It was first argued that it is for safety, soon it will expand into tax collecting..

I can see that soon they will argue that in order to catch tax dodger, they will have to expand the location further, thus no longer placing the vans in blackspot areas (i.e. everywhere).

28-09-2012 9:17am

.... Sounds reasonable, two birds with one stone and all.

OU812 · 28-09-2012 9:18am

So they're going to spend money (presuming revenue share) to collect tax?

It's got to be easy to put it on the fuel & abandon disks.

Put it on at midnight tonight, everyone returns their disks for a rebate, EVERYONE pays road tax from tomorrow. Even people visiting the country would be contributing.

C'mon guys, it's simple. No more waste of Garda resources with tax checks, no more admin & security paper & capex spend on processing disks.

Put those who currently work there into place processing Garda paperwork & free up more Gardai for the streets.

Anyone know how I run for office, because changes like this are simple & could make a huge difference.

28-09-2012 9:24am

How much per litre are you proposing? What are the disadvantages of your proposal? You probably have no answers to either question.....

OU812 · 28-09-2012 9:36am

10¢ per litre.

I currently use about €45 per week. which at current pricing (€1.72 P/L) equates to 26 litres a week, which would mean my contribution would be €2.60 per week or €135.20 per year (figures are rounded up to nearest cent).

My tax is currently about €350, so I'd be better off by almost €215 per year which I could spend in the economy. In addition, I'm paying the tax in small increments per week, & have no way of avoiding paying it.

By putting the tax on the fuel, ensuring it's paid by everyone, the overall tax take would raise.

Regarding the transport industry which would be probably up in arms, work on a rebate system with them. Once they go over a specific amount (the maximum they're now paying for a disk for example), they're allowed claim back the difference on a monthly basis off their monthly tax returns. This would have the added benefit of ensuring they'e tax compliant.

I see no disadvantage in this.

darragh o meara · 28-09-2012 9:37am

RoverJames wrote: »

How much per litre are you proposing? What are the disadvantages of your proposal? You probably have no answers to either question.....

I remember reading a study on this and the author reckoned to make it work it would be in the region of 20-25 cent per litre but the fact that in some point in the future with oil prices rising so quick that the government may have to look at the duty charged on petrol/diesel and most likely reduce it making the motor tax irrelevant. It would be a great idea if it worked especially if you only drove the odd time but the highmilers would suffer expedentially.

CiniO · 28-09-2012 9:39am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Keep to your own private roads and you dont have to prove anything to anyone. Use someone elses ( the public's) however......

Wait a second.
You are saying that anyone owning a car should be automatically believed to be using it on public roads, and if he/she isn't then it's up to him/her to prove it.

Where did "not guilty unless proven" disappear.

Green Diesel · 28-09-2012 9:40am

OU812 wrote: »

10¢ per litre.

I currently use about €45 per week. which at current pricing (€1.72 P/L) equates to 26 litres a week, which would mean my contribution would be €2.60 per week or €135.20 per year (figures are rounded up to nearest cent).

My tax is currently about €350, so I'd be better off by almost €215 per year which I could spend in the economy. In addition, I'm paying the tax in small increments per week, & have no way of avoiding paying it.

By putting the tax on the fuel, ensuring it's paid by everyone, the overall tax take would raise.

You're being wildly optimistic. 10 cents a litre will never make up the shortfall.

astaines · 28-09-2012 9:45am

One of my concerns was that when the lower taxrates for more efficient cars were introdcued, they were only applied to nely registered cars. I got a Fiat Panda diesel - at the time one of the lowest carbon cars on the market, about six months before the tax change, and have got no motor tax benefit at all from it.

OU812 · 28-09-2012 9:59am

Green Diesel wrote: »

You're being wildly optimistic. 10 cents a litre will never make up the shortfall.

It was off the top of my head, using simple figures. Someone else posted it would need to be 20-25¢ per litre, that's equally acceptable.

28-09-2012 10:00am

OU812 wrote: »

10¢ per litre.

I currently use about €45 per week. which at current pricing (€1.72 P/L) equates to 26 litres a week, which would mean my contribution would be €2.60 per week or €135.20 per year (figures are rounded up to nearest cent).

My tax is currently about €350, so I'd be better off by almost €215 per year which I could spend in the economy. In addition, I'm paying the tax in small increments per week, & have no way of avoiding paying it.

By putting the tax on the fuel, ensuring it's paid by everyone, the overall tax take would raise.

Regarding the transport industry which would be probably up in arms, work on a rebate system with them. Once they go over a specific amount (the maximum they're now paying for a disk for example), they're allowed claim back the difference on a monthly basis off their monthly tax returns. This would have the added benefit of ensuring they'e tax compliant.

I see no disadvantage in this.

No disadvantage, how about the revenue shortfall, cheers for the laugh though.

Pawwed Rig · 28-09-2012 10:04am

lau1247 wrote: »

It was first argued that it is for safety, soon it will expand into tax collecting..

I can see that soon they will argue that in order to catch tax dodger, they will have to expand the location further, thus no longer placing the vans in blackspot areas (i.e. everywhere).

So lets hope they will drop the 'safety camera' title and call it what it really is ie a speed camera revenue generator

H3llR4iser · 28-09-2012 10:44am

RoverJames wrote: »

But there's Cork city, Galway City, Limerick City etc etc etc where the vast majority of people drive taxed cars...

Oh no, no, no...I noticed this a few days ago, walking back from Tesco in the Douglas area of Cork: a BIG chunk of the parked cars were out of tax, NCT, insurance or all of three alltogether. I was honestly shocked; A good 40% of the cars were illegally on the road in one way or the other.

Took a stroll to Mahon Point during lunch break yesterday and what do you expect, noticed the same in the parking lot...even flashy BMWs, Audis and Mercedes from 2008-2009 with tax that had expired 6 months ago.

awec wrote: »

...If I go out tomorrow and buy some sporty BMW I know that I'm going to be paying more tax than the guy in the nice efficient Ford, and that I'm always going to be paying more tax than him.

The cost of tax is part of the cost of the car. If you can't afford the tax you can't afford the car. Money dictates everything, that's like saying that the house people want to live in shouldn't be limited by the mortgage...

And that's where you go wrong. My 1.4 Renault, worth 1k, pays 358/year. A brand new BMW 320d, worth 45k, pays 160/year. Where is the equity in it? People that can't afford new cars have to pay more tax...and the same goes for the insurance. Is your car old? Pay more and shut up please, or get a loan and get a new car.

The whole system is really structured to put the following process in motion:

1. Paddy pays the tax for his 1999 Ford Mondeo;
2. Paddy is angry he has to pay almost 600€, when Connor down the road pays only 160 for his new BMW;
3. Paddy pays the insurance and again, he pays more than Connor;
4. Paddy is sick of paying "taxes to those government robbers" and decides he needs a new car like Connor's, so the government can stick it up their ...
5. Paddy goes to the bank and gets a loan for his new BMW;
6. THE BANK IS HAPPY ABOUT THE INTEREST RATES THEY'LL CHARGE;
7. Paddy goes to the dealership, pays for the car and VRT and drives off in his shiny new bavarian metal;
8. THE GOVERNMENT IS HAPPY WITH THE VRT;
9. BMW IS HAPPY THEY SOLD A YET ANOTHER CAR TO SOMEBODY THAT WOULD HAVE NEVER BOUGHT ONE;
10. Paddy thinks he's happy, but drives home experiencing an unexplained, slightly burning feeling around his anus;

Rest assured the whole tax system will change again once the entire circulating park has been replaced with post-2008 cars...

Bruthal · 28-09-2012 11:02am

OU812 wrote: »

10¢ per litre.

I currently use about €45 per week. which at current pricing (€1.72 P/L) equates to 26 litres a week, which would mean my contribution would be €2.60 per week or €135.20 per year (figures are rounded up to nearest cent).

My tax is currently about €350, so I'd be better off by almost €215 per year which I could spend in the economy. In addition, I'm paying the tax in small increments per week, & have no way of avoiding paying it.

That`s a calculation for yourself, not the countrywide average. You have it a fair bit too low I`d say.
You might be able to avoid paying it if you live near the border.

28-09-2012 11:05am

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Oh no, no, no...I noticed this a few days ago, walking back from Tesco in the Douglas area of Cork: a BIG chunk of the parked cars were out of tax, NCT, insurance or all of three alltogether. I was honestly shocked; A good 40% of the cars were illegally on the road in one way or the other.

.........

Are you trying to suggest that 40% is anywhere near a representative number?

How many cars did you actually survey?

Green Diesel · 28-09-2012 11:08am

H3llR4iser wrote: »

And that's where you go wrong. My 1.4 Renault, worth 1k, pays 358/year. A brand new BMW 320d, worth 45k, pays 160/year.

He did say a sporty BMW... a 335i is €1,129 a year to tax, and a 550i is €2,258.

It BeeMee · 28-09-2012 11:15am

H3llR4iser wrote: »

My 1.4 Renault, worth 1k, pays 358/year. A brand new BMW 320d, worth 45k, pays 160/year. Where is the equity in it?

How many years, at 358/year, will it take to cover the VRT and VAT on the new 45k BMW?

H3llR4iser wrote: »

People that can't afford new cars have to pay more tax...and the same goes for the insurance.

A 1k Renault is more expensive to insure than a 45k BMW?

Can you back that up?

Yakuza · 28-09-2012 11:16am

CiniO wrote: »

Wait a second.
Where did "not guilty unless proven" disappear.

When tax (income / motor) is concerned, I'm pretty sure there's an unwritten rule that the Revenue follow - guilty unless proven innocent :rolleyes:

CiniO · 28-09-2012 11:26am

Yakuza wrote: »

When tax (income / motor) is concerned, I'm pretty sure there's an unwritten rule that the Revenue follow - guilty unless proven innocent :rolleyes:

So far they don't in any way I know.
In relation to motortax they don't expect anyone to pay it.
But you are caught driving without it (proven guilty) they you can get prosecuted.
But I still can't see a reason why should it change, that I would have to prove I wasn't or that I won't be using my car, just to not pay my motortax.

CiniO · 28-09-2012 11:33am

awec wrote: »

If I go out tomorrow and buy some sporty BMW I know that I'm going to be paying more tax than the guy in the nice efficient Ford, and that I'm always going to be paying more tax than him.

No it's not that clear.
As at the moment with have 2 completely different tax systems which apply to cars of different age group, and they aren't even similar.
(f.e in older system car might pay big tax and small in new one, and vice versa).

The cost of tax is part of the cost of the car. If you can't afford the tax you can't afford the car. Money dictates everything, that's like saying that the house people want to live in shouldn't be limited by the mortgage.

That's not a good comparision.
Comparing motor tax to properties in your way, should be more to property tax. The more property is worth, the bigger the tax. (I know that system doesn't work in Ireland).
But with cars there's complete mess. It's neither tax on car value. It's neither tax on milage driven. It's neither tax on car size or weight.
Older tax system discouraged big engine vehicles, while newer discourages high emission vehicles. No one know what other ideas might come in in next 5 years, and possibly then a guy in nice efficient ford, is going to pay more than you pay for your BMW.

munchkin_utd · 28-09-2012 12:01pm

robbie7730 wrote: »

That`s a calculation for yourself, not the countrywide average. You have it a fair bit too low I`d say.
You might be able to avoid paying it if you live near the border.

I'd say the opposite.

Got stopped near Ballyconnell on the way to Northern Ireland last month by the guards. They were well suss on an irish lad driving a german car but I had all answers (and paperwork to back it up) so I was on my way after a barrage of questions.

Anyhow, being near the border you'd have more folks trying to get away with driving a northern reg car without importing it properly so they're be more garda checkpoints to detect this type of stuff, one of which I had the pleasure of encountering.

H3llR4iser · 28-09-2012 12:09pm

Green Diesel wrote: »

He did say a sporty BMW... a 335i is €1,129 a year to tax, and a 550i is €2,258.

Oh my...are you suggesting that a BMW 320 is not a better car than a 1.2 or 1.4 Fiat/Renault/Opel/Toyota runaround? Of course a 335i pays in the region of the 1,000 euro, it would be a scandal if it was otherwise. Still, is it in any way fair that somebody that can fork out a few thousands for a newer car has to pay less taxes than the guy that is forced to go around in a banger?

RoverJames wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that 40% is anywhere near a representative number?

How many cars did you actually survey?

It was quite a few; About 30-40 between the two occasions. Now, I don't want to affix labels but in the case of the first "survey" the cars I checked were parked in a certain estate, let's call it "government backed".

For the shopping mall parking lot, that was more shocking; Perhaps being lunch time the cars belonged mainly to housewives and self-employed people who might just drive to the supermarket for groceries and those driving more KMs on a daily basis pay all the due taxes/insurance etc.

Still, I had never seen so many cars with no insurance, test or tax - not in Ireland at least.

It BeeMee wrote: »

How many years, at 358/year, will it take to cover the VRT and VAT on the new 45k BMW?

If you buy the BMW as a recent second-hand (and in some cases the "0km" offers) you pay less than 45k, let's say 25-30, no VRT, no VAT and still pay much less yearly tax than somebody owning an old banger.
There's just no way the current system is fair, it's not a problem of "ah, sure, you pay more money for the car anyway, the little tax saving is irrelevant" as much as it's a matter of principle: taxes should be proportional to wealth, and current road tax is working exactly the other way around.

A 1k Renault is more expensive to insure than a 45k BMW?
Can you back that up?

I will admit that I am talking about a very peculiar case here - I am being shafted by the insurance because my car is older than 10 years and I own an EU license (pretty sure one could send a note to the EU committee because of this, but they'd just raise the prices for Irish license owners anyway). Had my car been a 2004 rather than a 2001 (with similar spec), the quote would have been HALF what I'll be paying. Of course, in the case of say a 40 years old driver with 3 years no claim, there's little or no difference at all - you got a very valid point.

Auditor-general's report on Motor tax

Comments