Best solution: just to add it on to the cost of fuel.
Agreed, but political suicide to introduce - lots of people commuting from the neighbouring counties into Dublin who would not be happy (1) the extra cost they would pay to commute and (2) the likely effect on the price of their home.
No. if the vehicle is to be used for non-commercial purposes, all you need to do is pay road tax at the appropriate rate.
My wife and I have one car between us. If, God forbid, I had to bring our child to the hospital while she was out, I'd have to get a taxi. If you're not prepared to pay road tax at the higher rate, couldn't you do that too? As for the pint of milk, I'd do without till she got back.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Why would it be political suicide. Drive more = pay more. Plenty of people who live in these counties and use public transport to get to work would be delighted. Why should they subsidise those who want to drive to Dublin, which is the most accessible via public transport anyway? Who could have an issue with that?
And why would an increase in the cost of motor fuel (offset by the abolition of flat rate motor tax) affect the cost of houses in the suburbs.
Anyway, Minister Gormley himself has effectively said that it won't be enforced by using the magic term "gardaí will use their discretion"
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0826/motor_tax.html
oh please!!!!!! so if you had a commerical you'd rather get a taxi than drive your sick child to the hospital? ha!
Surely the country has a lot more to worry about than stupid matters like this?
I should have qualified my view by addingi.e. they may have no alternative but to drive to work. This will add to their already high fuel bills. In addition, it would make where they live less desirable. Don't get me wrong..personally I'm all for the idea. It would be a very efficient way to collect tax and the polluter would pay. The cynic in me would believe that if this was introduced then a few years down the line a "motor levy" might be also introduced.that those areas not served by (adequate) public transport will suffer disproportionally,
why does he have to use the luas? he has the DART, he has a very regular bus service in the 4/4a/7/45, and rather than walking to sandyford if he walked to the N11 he has the most frequent bus service in the city the 46a. The 114 isn't the greatest service, granted, but there are services in the morning when most people would want them.One example ,is my brother who lives in blackrock, the nearest luas stop is sandyford,it is a half hour walk away.If they had a little bus running around the area,going from the luas to blackrock and surrounding areas, a lot more people would use the luas,this would mean that businesses along the luas line would have more customers.win win situation..but instead they have a double decker bus,which comes I think about every hour and hardly has any one on it..
Can understand why these vehicles are taxed any differently? Businesses and self employed can write off the cost as an expense in their accounts, so in theory, it doesnt matter how much road tax they are charged, because it will be written off against tax anyway.
My point is that if I felt there sufficient need for a back up car that I might need for emergencies, I'd ensure that it was appropriately taxed.
On the other hand, if I had the option to tax a second car at commercial rates, it would make it easier for me to acquire one.
As it is, someone who drives a commercially-taxed vehicle for social/domestic purposes enjoys a benefit that I can't avail of.
It's a form of tax evasion that seems to be on the increase. Whether you regard that as stupid is your own business.
What you are advocating would appear to eliminate the use of commercial vehicles full-stop. The husband in this case is a business owner and has a legitmate reason the have a commercial vehicle. Are you saying that because they might use it less that 5% of the time (example) that they should tax it as private just to get milk and or take a child to hospital?
I think a bit of realism is required here.
As it is, someone who drives a commercially-taxed vehicle for social/domestic purposes enjoys a benefit that I can't avail of.
This is a sensible policy as there is wholescale abuse of this 'loophole'; soemone wants a 4x4 but don't want to pay the tax so they get a crewcab version and tax it as a commercial vehicle.
I know of plenty who are doing this. Come to think of it I don't know one owner of one of these vehicles who isn't.
My point is that if said husband gets stopped and questioned en route to his local Spar for the milk, how can it be established EITHER WAY that his journry is the exception rather than the rule. How can it be established either way that he only uses his car 5% of the time for personal use. it's hard enough to police as it is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?