VRT on larger engines

B

bamboozle

Registered User
Messages
536
Just to start a good ould debate on budget morning, how would folk respond to VRT on engines greater than 2 liters being substantially increased for people living in Urban areas but no increase on VRT for the same car in Rural Areas….. the rational being to target carbon emissions released when cars are sitting in traffic…

From hearing Morning Ireland this morning it seems that moves are under foot to tax cars according to carbon emissions
 
Noise and air pollution from rural driving affects less people than an equivalent mileage of urban driving. This would support your suggestion.

On the other hand, many rural dwellers work and shop in a city and use the country as a dormitory, profitiing from the arbitrage opportunity of obtaining cheap housing and externalising their costs on society with long distance commutes on interurban roads or railways. It is not clear that tax policy should encourage this lifestyle.

Truly rural business people such as farmers and foresters can already obtain commercial vehicles without VRT or VAT.

Large cars are more comfortable and safer for their occupants when they crash but not for other road users. Even a 1 litre car can now exceed motorway speed limits so a 2 litre car can legitimately be regarded as a wasteful luxury, nearly the functional equivalent of a small car but at far higher cost to the environment.

Lastly, taxes are meant to be equitable and administrable. Where would we draw the line between rural, exurban and suburban? What about the opportunities that would open up for registering a city car in the name of your rural brother?

The car tax changes appear to have been flagged in advance. The Sunday Pravda published the new VRT rates based on CO2 emissions and there's going to be around 10% extra on annual motor tax.
 
on a 2nd hand car its an illegal tax given that a tax would have already been applied when it entered the EU - as indicated to the Gov by the EU - and given that in a referendum we agreed to join the EU and abide by the EU laws and directives and changed our constitution as such, surely any VRT on 2nd hand cars is in direct contavention of our constitutional rights??
 
bamboozle said:
Just to start a good ould debate on budget morning, how would folk respond to VRT on engines greater than 2 liters being substantially increased for people living in Urban areas but no increase on VRT for the same car in Rural Areas….. the rational being to target carbon emissions released when cars are sitting in traffic…

From hearing Morning Ireland this morning it seems that moves are under foot to tax cars according to carbon emissions
Click to expand...
as long as engine size isn't the determining factor, emissions based vrt is the way to go, most diesel cars have larger engines but are much more fuel efficient and subsequently have hugely lower carbon emission.
 
Doing 20k miles in a 1 litre car per year will give more emissions that doing 10k in a 2 litre car.. but how do you tax based on usage other than put more duty on fuel..?
 
Road Tax should be incorporated into the purchase price of the petrol or diesel and this would ensure that everyone pays their fair share based on the amount of km that they do. (as if we don't pay enought tax already)
 
I think incorporationg the tax into fuel prices is the way to go.

It's unfair that the pension doing about 3k miles a year in their micra pays the same road tax as the boy racer with the souped up micra who does 15k a year.
 
If this is meant to be an 'environment' or green tax, then cars should be taxed on how old they are. The older the car, the less the tax.

This is because a car does most damage to the environment at the time of manufacture. A car that lasts 15 years is more friendly than a car that lasts two years.

Scrap VRT, and replace it with an annual reducing amount, such as;

year 1: €5000
year 2: €3000
year 3: €2000
year 4: €1000
year 5: €500
year 6: €250
year 7: €200
year 8: €150
year 9: €100
year 10: €100
year 11 onwards = zero

This scale could be based on engine size etc, factors.
It would encourage people to hang onto cars longer, and repair rather than scrap.
 
i drove to dublin last week in my 2. litre diesel and as an experiment managed to average 65mpg over 10 miles according to the onboard computer from it by driving on the m-way at a constant 60mph about 100 feet behind an artic. under normal heavy footed conditions it averages high 40's so it would be considered an economical car. on the m-50 the fc dropped to 15-18 mpg which was probably more than most drivers were getting. home in the sticks my wifes car is an evil eco-destroying range rover which does about 20-25 mpg . it does howerver travel less miles per annum, does not sit in jams and usually has 4-5 occupants. i look forward to the day that some tree hugger attempts to criticise my gas-guzzling suv (both stupid trendy terms that have been stolen from america)
 
xt40 said:
home in the sticks my wifes car is an evil eco-destroying range rover which does about 20-25 mpg . it does howerver travel less miles per annum, does not sit in jams and usually has 4-5 occupants. i look forward to the day that some tree hugger attempts to criticise my gas-guzzling suv (both stupid trendy terms that have been stolen from america)
Click to expand...

I dont hug trees (stupid trendy terms that have been stolen from america) but your wifes car making an excessive contribution to the decline of the environment.
 
arry said:
I dont hug trees (stupid trendy terms that have been stolen from america) but your wifes car making an excessive contribution to the decline of the environment.
Click to expand...
As the poster said, his wifes' RR (stolen from the UK) is not poluting as much as a much smaller car in traffic with one single occupant
 
leghorn said:
If this is meant to be an 'environment' or green tax, then cars should be taxed on how old they are. The older the car, the less the tax.

This is because a car does most damage to the environment at the time of manufacture. A car that lasts 15 years is more friendly than a car that lasts two years.
This scale could be based on engine size etc, factors.
It would encourage people to hang onto cars longer, and repair rather than scrap.
Click to expand...

I agree with the principle, but argue that there is a significant minority on the road busy driving their cars into the dirt without doing the repair part.
Wasn't there an article on The Last Word last night about the evils of older cars killing people due to lack of brakes etc.? Twas polemic, but there is a valid point in among the detritus.
 
the environment is not on my list of priorities. my families comfort and safety are much more important to me. having said that, ill bet it outputs far less pollution per passenger mile travelled than your average corolla/astra etc crawling around dublin.
 
xt40 said:
the environment is not on my list of priorities. my families comfort and safety are much more important to me. having said that, ill bet it outputs far less pollution per passenger mile travelled than your average corolla/astra etc crawling around dublin.
Click to expand...

Are Corolla’s and Astra’s unsafe???
 
bamboozle said:
Just to start a good ould debate on budget morning, how would folk respond to VRT on engines greater than 2 liters being substantially increased for people living in Urban areas but no increase on VRT for the same car in Rural Areas….. the rational being to target carbon emissions released when cars are sitting in traffic…

From hearing Morning Ireland this morning it seems that moves are under foot to tax cars according to carbon emissions
Click to expand...

Someone driving a high mileage because they live in a rural area easily produces more co2 in a modest 1.4litre that a 3.5 litre SUV driver doing the school run in a city.

The rural driver could easily be clocking up 20-25k a year in mileage
The urban driver 5 to 6k a year yet have to pay a higher vrt charge whilst producung less pollution.

It highlights the idiocy of the so called "Green" policies and their failure to do anything for the environment.

VRT is a rip off

Irish motorists are not just hit by one, but two taxes. Remember VAT is first charged on its import price, at 21%. It’s then that vehicle registration tax (VRT) is applied.
VRT isn’t a straight tax on cars, totally illegal under EU rules. Revenue bends the tax rules by making VRT a tax you pay to make your car legal to drive on Irish roads.

The rate of VRT paid depends on the car’s engine size, with cars up to 1400cc paying 22.5%, cars between 1401cc and 1900cc paying 25% and cars over 1900cc paying 30%. Obviously this is being adjusted to keep the rip off going in budget 2008

The nauseating thins is that VRT is not charged on the car’s pre-tax price but on its "open market selling price", ie the price the car is expected to make on the open market once all taxes and duties are added on. With this rip off you’re being taxed on tax already paid.

This double taxation means that a modest five-door Nissan Almera, which costs approximately €12,870 before tax, ends up costing €20,095 after tax is added on.

In Germany, the pre-tax price of an Almera is actually more expensive than in Ireland, at €13,224, but costs only €15,340 after tax.

I wish the EU would force the Gov to get in align its car taxes with other member nations.

The only valid "Green" tax would be on fuel consumption
 
The rural driver could easily be clocking up 20-25k a year in mileage
The urban driver 5 to 6k a year yet have to pay a higher vrt charge whilst producung less pollution
Click to expand...

Do people really think that rural drivers easily do c.25k a year. I wouldn't have thought that was the norm really, more so half that and wouldn't the urban driver using the 3.5 for short mileage really want to wonder what they need all the power for if they are simply making the short run to the school (in 50km zones) and only doing 6k per annum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top