No such thing as road tax.

The Dagda · 12-02-2013 02:43PM

seamus wrote: »

Just to clarify Spook, Article 11 of the Irish Constitution states that

In order for you to prove that motor tax is ringfenced for the roads, you will need to present the law which ringfences it.

A glib line on the DCC website is not a law.

You know what your quote from the constitution "proves"? It "proves" that it's just as valid to call the tax "road tax" as it is to call it "motor tax". Which I think is what spook is trying to say...

seamus · 12-02-2013 02:50PM

The Dagda wrote: »

You know what your quote from the constitution "proves"? It "proves" that it's just as valid to call the tax "road tax" as it is to call it "motor tax". Which I think is what spook is trying to say...

How does it prove that?
Because the tax is used on roads? So is VAT, and excise. Should we rename these "road tax" too?

Spook is pedantically clinging onto a perpetual ignorance as some kind of evidence that motorists have a legal obligation to the roads which exceeds that of cyclists.

Ironically, being a SPSV driver, Spook himself pays far less motor tax than the vast majority of cyclists and motorists, and if the "road tax" logic plays out, he should be entitled to less rights on the road than a private driver.

Guy:Incognito · 12-02-2013 02:53PM

The Dagda wrote: »

You know what your quote from the constitution "proves"? It "proves" that it's just as valid to call the tax "road tax" as it is to call it "motor tax". Which I think is what spook is trying to say...

Its not valid though. Its called motor tax in law. Thats the only valid name.

Solair · 12-02-2013 02:56PM

Bad Santa wrote: »

No, it's not a bloody privilege tax.

It's an easy target environment based tax is what it is.

Which is why large engine sized / greater Co2 emissions cars get taxed more than small ones.

Yet, someone who drives their 2.0l car 10,000 miles per year, while having less of an effect on the environment that someone driving the same spec'd car for for 100,000 miles a year still gets charged the same amount of car tax, as our government sees no distinction between the two.

Motor tax / Car tax / Road Tax / Automo-fcuking-bile, call it what you like - it should be sought at the pumps, no where else.

You'd have to have some way of balancing that out though because otherwise it would just absolutely cripple the commuter belt (caused by bad planning / property price inflation) and rural Ireland.

We already load on vast amounts of tax at the pumps btw!

It's now at the stage in Ireland (and quite a few other countries notably the USA) where life without a car in many locations is literally impossible.

The Dagda · 12-02-2013 02:59PM

seamus wrote: »

How does it prove that?
Because the tax is used on roads? So is VAT, and excise. Should we rename these "road tax" too?

Spook is pedantically clinging onto a perpetual ignorance as some kind of evidence that motorists have a legal obligation to the roads which exceeds that of cyclists.

Ironically, being a SPSV driver, Spook himself pays far less motor tax than the vast majority of cyclists and motorists, and if the "road tax" logic plays out, he should be entitled to less rights on the road than a private driver.

I believe that all tax payers have equal rights to all services in this country, so I'm not getting into an argument about that.

My point is simply that the tax can be called either "motor" or "road", AFAIK it's not legally defined as either.

The Dagda · 12-02-2013 03:00PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Its not valid though. Its called motor tax in law. Thats the only valid name.

Where is it called "motor tax in law"?

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 03:09PM

seamus wrote: »

Just to clarify Spook, Article 11 of the Irish Constitution states that

In order for you to prove that motor tax is ringfenced for the roads, you will need to present the law which ringfences it.

A glib line on the DCC website is not a law.

Point taken, however, firstly I have NEVER said it's ringfenced.

Spook_ie wrote: »

One and only contribution to this thread....

Because it comes from a central fund and Road Fund License is paid into the central fund, it does go towards paying for roads, as well as hospitals, schools, bail outs etc.

Motorist paying €1000 income tax + €500 RFL Motor Tax though only payable if you use/keep the vehicle on a road

Cyclist paying €1000 income tax

Net gain to central fund €500

Edit

Not to mention the extra tax paid for the fuel to actually use it! which also goes into the central fund, so cyclists get off our ****ing roads and stick to the footpaths you lawbreaking criminals

2nd edit in relation to someone pedanticly refering RFL as motor tax

A tax name is all we a disputing here. If it's a tax for the use of a vehicle in a public place then it's a tax, roads are the primary public place for vehicles to be used on so therefore it is still defacto a road tax.

Would we being have the same debate if income tax was renamed as something else like earnings tax? it would still be a tax on earnings/income.

Is the Water Charge actually a charge for water, no because it goes into a central fund from where a portion of it MAY be doled out to the authorities for water treatment etc.

It's just a name, likewise motor tax/road tax/use of a vehicle in a public place tax, it's still a tax on motor owners primarily using the roads and as such is an extra input to the central fund from which roads are funded....ergo it is a road tax

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 03:11PM

The Dagda wrote: »

You know what your quote from the constitution "proves"? It "proves" that it's just as valid to call the tax "road tax" as it is to call it "motor tax". Which I think is what spook is trying to say...

Good point or even a "hospital tax" or a "refund cyclists income tax tax"

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 03:14PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

1Q. When must I pay motor tax?
1A. Liability for motor tax arises when a vehicle is used in a public place/road

Is parked the same as being used?

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 03:17PM

seamus wrote: »

How does it prove that?
Because the tax is used on roads? So is VAT, and excise. Should we rename these "road tax" too?

Spook is pedantically clinging onto a perpetual ignorance as some kind of evidence that motorists have a legal obligation to the roads which exceeds that of cyclists.

Ironically, being a SPSV driver, Spook himself pays far less motor tax than the vast majority of cyclists and motorists, and if the "road tax" logic plays out, he should be entitled to less rights on the road than a private driver.

No I don't, what I do say is that someone paying an extra €500 a year for the use of their vehicle in a "public place" regardless of the name of the tax is contributing €500 per year to the central fund, which ergo means they are paying more to the upkeep of the roads...

Spook_ie wrote: »

One and only contribution to this thread....

Because it comes from a central fund and Road Fund License is paid into the central fund, it does go towards paying for roads, as well as hospitals, schools, bail outs etc.

Motorist paying €1000 income tax + €500 RFL Motor Tax though only payable if you use/keep the vehicle on a road

Cyclist paying €1000 income tax

Net gain to central fund €500

Edit

Not to mention the extra tax paid for the fuel to actually use it! which also goes into the central fund, so cyclists get off our ****ing roads and stick to the footpaths you lawbreaking criminals

2nd edit in relation to someone pedanticly refering RFL as motor tax

roadrunner16 · 12-02-2013 03:22PM

Please Kill Me wrote: »

As above. The reality is (for me anyway) when cyclists pay costs/taxes the same as other road users, I'll have more respect for the mobile roadblocks.

This is a load of rubbish, I cycle to college every day 20 k round trip and the amount of abuse I get as a cyclist is crazy. I can't afford to buy a car and pay for petrol and insurance, I do have a provisional licence. but cant afford to go and get the means to be on the road , so I do have to cycle so why should I be subject to abuse on the roads ?

Knasher · 12-02-2013 03:28PM

This is a pointless argument. It really doesn't matter if you call it road tax or motor tax (as it does in the annual budget and on the Irish statue books(e.g. S.I. No. 265/1997)) or "Excise duties in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles used on public roads." as it did in the original statute introducing motor tax. Either way the point people are trying to argue is that paying "road tax" somehow bestows them some exclusive entitlements to the roads, which is simply nonsense.

rubadub · 12-02-2013 04:00PM

Knasher wrote: »

Either way the point people are trying to argue is that paying "road tax" somehow bestows them some exclusive entitlements to the roads, which is simply nonsense.

Fact is many do think it gives them special rights. So I do prefer the term motor tax as it can calm down some crazy idiots, at least a little. I was in a taxi a few months ago and the lunatic gobshite driver was bragging about how he purposely passes "bastard cyclists" very close to give them a scare, banging on about them not paying "road tax".

These gobshites never seem to moan about pedestrians using the roads. Most seem to be repressed prejudiced bigots, it is no longer acceptable to be openly prejudiced against race, sex, sexuality etc, so they need fair game to vent their pent up anger. As most of these cunts are also pedestrians they view them as "one of their own" and so will not moan about them. The other weird thing in these threads is how if somebody defends a cyclist/cycling many automatically presume they must be a cyclist, but if people are defending against racism or sexism they do not automatically presume the person is black or whatever.

Look at this "bastard", probably doesn't pay "road tax" but is moaning about the roads.
http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/wheelchair-user-claims-kenmare-road-is-too-rough-27405648.html

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 04:19PM

rubadub wrote: »

Fact is many do think it gives them special rights. So I do prefer the term motor tax as it can calm down some crazy idiots, at least a little. I was in a taxi a few months ago and the lunatic gobshite driver was bragging about how he purposely passes "bastard cyclists" very close to give them a scare, banging on about them not paying "road tax".

These gobshites never seem to moan about pedestrians using the roads. Most seem to be repressed prejudiced bigots, it is no longer acceptable to be openly prejudiced against race, sex, sexuality etc, so they need fair game to vent their pent up anger. As most of these cunts are also pedestrians they view them as "one of their own" and so will not moan about them. The other weird thing in these threads is how if somebody defends a cyclist/cycling many automatically presume they must be a cyclist, but if people are defending against racism or sexism they do not automatically presume the person is black or whatever.

Look at this "bastard", probably doesn't pay "road tax" but is moaning about the roads.
http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/wheelchair-user-claims-kenmare-road-is-too-rough-27405648.html

Yeah, yeah, yeah and the more people complain about paying extra taxes, be they water tax, household charges or some new tax on cyclists then the less will ever be spent on anything for anybody, so your point is?

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 04:26PM

Knasher wrote: »

This is a pointless argument. It really doesn't matter if you call it road tax or motor tax (as it does in the annual budget and on the Irish statue books(e.g. S.I. No. 265/1997)) or "Excise duties in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles used on public roads." as it did in the original statute introducing motor tax. Either way the point people are trying to argue is that paying "road tax" somehow bestows them some exclusive entitlements to the roads, which is simply nonsense.

Don't think so, the OP

stoneill wrote: »

I'm just posting this as it keeps coming up in the car hates cyclist hates car threads.

There is NO SUCH THING AS ROAD TAX.

Motor tax is for the privilege of owning a motor vehicle.
Road repairs come from central funds which ALL tax payers (including cyclists) fund.

Made a statement, disproving the basis of this statement by the fact that any extra tax on a vehicle goes into a central fund and is thereby providing extra funding that may be used towards the roads is all the reality here, to read anything else into it is pure speculation and conjecture.

Knasher · 12-02-2013 04:34PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't think so, the OP

Made a statement, disproving the basis of this statement by the fact that any extra tax on a vehicle goes into a central fund and is thereby providing extra funding that may be used towards the roads is all the reality here, to read anything else into it is pure speculation and conjecture.

It isn't conjecture. I could argue that you would have to be pretty naive not to understand what point the argument for road tax is trying to support.

Please Kill Me wrote: »

As above. The reality is (for me anyway) when cyclists pay costs/taxes the same as other road users, I'll have more respect for the mobile roadblocks.

But as somebody has already stated that point in this thread, it seems unnecessary.

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 04:44PM

Knasher wrote: »

It isn't conjecture. I could argue that you would have to be pretty naive not to understand what point the argument for road tax is trying to support.

But as somebody has already stated that argument in this thread, it seems unnecessary.

Likewise the reason for the OP's post, but at the end of the day the only thing that actually relates is fact, and the fact is that any extra taxation imposed on motor vehicles going into a central fund pays more towards road upkeep via the owning and use of that vehicle

Cienciano · 12-02-2013 05:10PM

rubadub wrote: »

Fact is many do think it gives them special rights. So I do prefer the term motor tax as it can calm down some crazy idiots, at least a little. I was in a taxi a few months ago and the lunatic gobshite driver was bragging about how he purposely passes "bastard cyclists" very close to give them a scare, banging on about them not paying "road tax".

These gobshites never seem to moan about pedestrians using the roads. Most seem to be repressed prejudiced bigots, it is no longer acceptable to be openly prejudiced against race, sex, sexuality etc, so they need fair game to vent their pent up anger. As most of these cunts are also pedestrians they view them as "one of their own" and so will not moan about them. The other weird thing in these threads is how if somebody defends a cyclist/cycling many automatically presume they must be a cyclist, but if people are defending against racism or sexism they do not automatically presume the person is black or whatever.

Look at this "bastard", probably doesn't pay "road tax" but is moaning about the roads.
http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/wheelchair-user-claims-kenmare-road-is-too-rough-27405648.html

Cyclists command very little respect from most other road users. And it's almost all down to the general behaviour of cyclists on the roads, nothing to do with the name of a tax.

dearg lady · 12-02-2013 05:12PM

Cienciano wrote: »

Cyclists command very little respect from most other road users. And it's almost all down to the general behaviour of cyclists on the roads, nothing to do with the name of a tax.

do you think it's acceptable to pass dangerously close to a cyclist because of 'the general behaviour of cyclists on the road'?

Knasher · 12-02-2013 05:15PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Likewise the reason for the OP's post, but at the end of the day the only thing that actually relates is fact, and the fact is that any extra taxation imposed on motor vehicles going into a central fund pays more towards road upkeep via the owning and use of that vehicle

And if the total taken through motor tax is less than the total spent on road upkeep, then the state is using other sources of income to subsidize repairing the damage caused primarily by motor vehicles.

Either way though, I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned, this argument is only to try and establish some sort of exclusive right to the road. Which is simply nonsense.

Ray Palmer · 12-02-2013 05:18PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Likewise the reason for the OP's post, but at the end of the day the only thing that actually relates is fact, and the fact is that any extra taxation imposed on motor vehicles going into a central fund pays more towards road upkeep via the owning and use of that vehicle

Paying extra does not equate to the use of roads. Drivers do not pay for the cost of roads or wear an tear as a result of their use. The government pay for carbon credits due to the use of petrol and diseal engines.
Vehicals are not paying for their actual costs. So in reality they pay less for road use than a cyclist and there is a legitimate argument to pay cyclists as it saves the government money!

It is motor tax and cheaper than actual cost

Iwannahurl · 12-02-2013 05:28PM

Cienciano wrote: »

Cyclists command very little respect from most other road users. And it's almost all down to the general behaviour of cyclists on the roads, nothing to do with the name of a tax.

Generalise much?

The general behaviour of motorists in my neck of the woods is routine (and often extreme) speeding, routine obstruction of footpaths, routine driving on footpaths in certain locations, and routine bad driving in certain situations such as negotiating roundabouts.

Which should I respect motorists for their general behaviour, therefore?

There are many renegade, careless and silly cyclists about too, but in my experience to date none of them have killed anybody or caused the amputation of their legs.

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 05:28PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Paying extra does not equate to the use of roads. Drivers do not pay for the cost of roads or wear an tear as a result of their use. The government pay for carbon credits due to the use of petrol and diseal engines.
Vehicals are not paying for their actual costs. So in reality they pay less for road use than a cyclist and there is a legitimate argument to pay cyclists as it saves the government money!

It is motor tax and cheaper than actual cost

But then you will need to apportion the %age of the tax take when you pay VAT on your TV/tin of chocolate biscuits/bicycle pump/lycra etc. that is for delivery via the road network.

Simply put, if the tax take for motorised vehicles were reduced then the government would raise taxes on other things including and not limited to cyclists, then you too would be paying more for the roads upkeep,

Yours is a circular argument

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 05:31PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Generalise much?

The general behaviour of motorists in my neck of the woods is routine (and often extreme) speeding, routine obstruction of footpaths, routine driving on footpaths in certain locations, and routine bad driving in certain situations such as negotiating roundabouts.

Which should I respect motorists for their general behaviour, therefore?

There are many renegade, careless and silly cyclists about too, but in my experience to date none of them have killed anybody or caused the amputation of their legs.

Mmmm taxation on crashes that's a new one, get your own thread if you wanna talk about driver/cyclist behavior this is supposed to be about road tax/motor tax

Iwannahurl · 12-02-2013 05:33PM

El Horseboxo wrote: »

But for the approx 5% you have it on the road you need tax.

It needs Motor Tax because it has a motor (with ensuing CO2 emissions etc).

Most of the time I travel on the road by bike or bus, or on the (car-filled) footpaths by Shanks Pony. No Motor Tax required because I'm not using a motor, though sometimes I thinks I'd like to have some tacks to accidentally drop under the wheels of the cars parking and driving on the footpaths.

Iwannahurl · 12-02-2013 05:35PM

ThreeLineWhip wrote: »

We all know your real intent. How is Gay Byrne?

That's to be discussed under AOB.

Spook_ie · 12-02-2013 05:37PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It needs Motor Tax because it has a motor (with ensuing CO2 emissions etc).

Most of the time I travel on the road by bike or bus, or on the (car-filled) footpaths by Shanks Pony. No Motor Tax required because I'm not using a motor, though sometimes I thinks I'd like to have some tacks to accidentally drop under the wheels of the cars parking and driving on the footpaths.

NO NO and again NO, you can park your motor and run the engine putting emissions out without the need for Motor Tax, the carbon emissions supposedly being offset by the fuel duties

Iwannahurl · 12-02-2013 05:38PM

Hijpo wrote: »

Theres a tax on toilet paper, does that discourge anyone from wiping there arse?

If you want to do something/need to do something, you will pay for it. Everyone always has and everyone always will.

Water will soon be charged for, will everyone start drinking from puddles and washing at the beach instead of turning on a tap?

I wipe my bum with €50 notes, me. Using all the money I saved by not paying Road Tax.

Water charges will reduce water wastage, just as a congestion charge/road pricing would quickly reduce car use in certain situations.

Hijpo · 12-02-2013 05:44PM

gibraltar wrote: »

Yes and if someone said lets increase that tax by 30% so people dont wipe their backsides as often so that the sewage system is used less, it would be equally as stupid as saying that adding another 30% tax on cycling accessories, as was suggested, would help with the issue of "road tax".

That point is void as the sewage system is used everytime you flush and not everytime you use toilet paper.

Revenue revenue revenue, more money in the pot for our roads.

12-02-2013 05:44PM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

just as a congestion charge/road pricing would quickly reduce car use in certain situations.

Causing unnecessary expense and hardship for people who need to use their car in these areas. Congestion charging or road pricing is a ridiculous and pathetic idea thought up by and promoted by idiots.

No such thing as road tax.

Comments