Thursday, 20th November 2008
Penalised for owning an older car
By what I understood from this year's budget, I am to be penalised because:
1. I have a small family car which I use on and off, on average two/three times a month.
2. It is in shipshape condition with a very good motor.
3. I have just spent €1,630.56 (Lm700) to have it re-sprayed, ending up with a car which is nearly new.
4. ...But is in fact some 14 years old!
Now that I am a pensioner trying to make ends meet, am I to be forced to sell my car and saddle myself with the expense and bother of a new car?
The option is I will have to pay extra road fees on my "old" car! Are cars which are over five years old to be considered public enemy No 1?
What is the VRT for? As the test is supposed to identify cars with high CO2 emissions, if my car is within the low bracket, why should I be made to sell it or pay more by way of road tax? There is something wrong here! Could this be a shot in the arm for car dealers?
And what about those youngsters who are still struggling to pay their first "old" car? Are they to be burdened by the purchase of a new car?
I call these "blanket" decisions which do more harm than good.
Decision makers please note: Penalising people for taking good care of their property is no just way to do things.
RSS
Comments
Probably, you have suddenly stopped thinking like mortals living in Malta, since you have probably started tasting Luxembourg salaries! Try to realise that there are people here in Malta who work much more than you do ... and get paid less.
smiled. She told me that here everybody change their car every 5 year the most, because they are tested and you can get
fined which can also be hundreds of euros. So I totally agree with Dr. Fenech. The polution in our country is very high
and I can assure you that when you live in a country with much less fuses, you feel it immediately. You can breathe much
better . So all old cars that cause a lot of harm should be scraped from our country.
Pollution and the environment are only excuses to tax the people beyond their means so that they will not be able to afford a car which would only be affordable to the high well-to-do class and to fill the pockets of the owners of car factories by those who migt still have to try to buy a new car because they cannot do without one even if they have to make the greatest sacrifices of their lives.
"more active people travel more, buy more, pollute more" ...
... therefore they should pay more.
The new regulations make no provision for this factor. Loading the 'payment for pollution' onto the fuel costs at the pump would ensure that this is paid for and would automatically apportion it more equitably than an increased circulation tax. This is what we are saying.
As you rightly say, "What's so difficult to understand?"
Your analogy with insurance does not hold water: the older the car, the less is its book value and the less becomes its premium.
The creation of the Industrial Revolution in the early 19th Century polluted the whole world and not one word has been said about.
Today the shopper (plastic bags) and the road user have to pay for it.
Crazy, but there you have it.
I was not responding to you but since you intruded, then I shall answer your comments.
Does Ms. Muscat pay less for insurance because she only uses the car 'occasionally'?
So she (and I don't want to sound personal) only pollutes occasionally. How occasionally?
You only spend e30 per month but more active people travel more, buy more, pollute more and now, if their engines are old and bigger, they pay more. What's so difficult to understand?
@ J Debono - There is no such thing that a 30 year old engine does not harm the environment irrespective of how well kept. That age of an engine simply does not have anti-pollution equipment such as catalytic converters. What the British do, or did, is not an argument. Some countries mandate an emission test bi-annually.
Nobody is suggesting that old cars should be replaced irrespective of how affordable new cars would be. Those who need to or prefer to keep old cars should pay a premium on their licence fee and help finance alternate sources of energy. It is like buying a 'carbon credit' to make up for the extra pollution from the older engine.
Liam Kelly - who are you preaching to? In the UK, companies are encouraged to use 'classic' cars as company cars by being given tax credits and accelerated depreciation rates, etc. In Malta, we're only seeing one side of the coin. But that's normal, I guess.
The budget proposals exclude route buses from all these revisions. That's offending our intelligence, as I see it.
And if you think that the so-called clean new buses are any more frugal with the fuel, you are wrong - their consumption is outrageous! Speak to one of the owners and see.
So I have a 6 year old 1500cc diesel car whose VRT emission test was below the minimum. I keep it in tip-top condition, why should I change it in a few year's time? It's only covered 46,000 kms so far (28,750miles). Yes, Mileage matters, and how!
All your excuses about how much mileage, how old, how new, the size, weight (thats a good one)!, how often you use it bla bla bla bla...just cut them out.
The fact is that the dirtiest car is and should be paying extra. To suggest otherwise is just pedantic and quite literally burying your head in denial.
cost of new cars. Few Maltese can afford to change their car every 4 or 5 years!
Sant Cassia - very good line of thought.
What's being missed (locally) is the mielage covered by the vehicle. What about commercial vehicles that work (almost) round the clock? What's worse, these are rarely services, as a commercial vehicle parked in a service garage is money lost for the owner. What happens then....? See recent accidents involving commecial vans and trucks!
As for those who advcate the replacement fof cars with new ones...well...a couple of weeks ago I ruined a tyre becaue I accidentally went over one of the many potholes in our roads. I still have to chack the car's toe-in and camber for any further damage and the ADT says they can't accept liability (they'd go bust if they did!).
Well if we want to imitate other EU countries, then why not emulate their GOOD habits and services instead????
No, Mr Martinelli, that does NOT sound reasonable and, NO, I do NOT "prefer to let lesser polluters pay up for (me)".
The point that we are trying to make is that the owner of an old car who only uses it occasionally, pollutes far less, in absolute terms, than the owner of a newer vehicle who uses his every day. Pollution is not just a function of the age but is largely a function of the frequency of use. As I said in my previous post, I only spend some €30 on diesel each month; younger, more active people commonly spend more than that each week - even though their cars are newer.
So, I ask, which one of us is the "lesser polluter" in absolute terms?
With the wages in Malta, nobody can afford to replace the car every 8 years. Maltese do not replace the car often, as we tend to get attached to our cars too. Maltese have feelings towards their cars. And still, with the new registration tax systems, new cars prices are not the same as other EU countires. Cars in Malta are still more expensive than in Italy.
The commercial vehicles circulation tax is not fair. How could an owner of a small panel van pay the same amount like a truck. To be fair, payment should be according to gross weight or the net payload capacity the van or truck carries. Having a fiesta van or a small "toaster" van like suzuki or subaru, means I have to pay euro 185 licence fee, the same like a larger van or truck, just because it is considered as commercial. But the small van can only carry 250 Kg while the large van or truck could carry 5000Kg or more.
The comments presented are all valid. I would like to add that the authorities should have consulted motor mechanics, VRT garages and car owners clubs like Old Motors Club, VW owners club, Alfa Romeo owners club, the classic car museum, etc. These would be competent perosns to give advice on how the emission system could be operated. Why should an owner of a 20 or 30 years old car be penalised, if it is only used once a month and is restored an kept in good condition. You could have an old car with a fully reconditioned engine that would work perfectly without any negative effects on the environment.
I would like to ask the authorities, what license fee are old car owners to pay?
In England classic cars are exempt from paying any road licence fee. This is how much the British government appreciated old cars on the road.
The two stroke engines are the ones that do the most damage to the environment and to our health by emitting toxic or carcinogenis fumes. After comes the old buses and trucks.
If you love the old bucket so much, then the added licence costs are the price you have to pay while you continue to pollute more than the owner of a newer vehicle.
Does that not sound reasonable, unless you prefer to let lesser polluters pay up for you?
I think not.
I have an 8-year old diesel car. Let us say, for argument's sake, that my car spouts 10 units of 'pollution' per kilometer. Let us further assume that a new car emits only 5 units. I only use my car 3 or 4 times a week and my monthly fuel bill is less than €30. Compare this with someone who uses his 'new' car every day. Even though his car is 'cleaner', surely the amount of pollution that he is causing is immensely more than my bit.
So what has happened to the 'Polluter Pays' principle?
It would make more sense to do away with circulation tax and, instead, put a loading on the quantity of fuel that is consumed. Government would still net the equivalent income because the 'polluter' would be 'paying' at the pump in direct proportion to what he is doing to the environment. The ideal of going for an economical car would still be retained.
A car is the second most expensive thing we buy in our lives after our houses and now after they got the purchase tax from us buying these cars, they want us to get rid of them and use public transport.
Talking of putting the cart before the horse, why not bring the public transport system to our modern day requirements and then convince us to use them?
But no, this is the mickey mouse Island, and when we are given power we punish all those who worked hard and paid their taxes all their lives, and the others who can afford it get away scott free!
And then they claim that this is fair? Fair for who?
You have all my sympathy.
Unfortunately, the budget was prepared by people who are totally ignorant about cars, and I don't have much hope in their 'consultants', either. I don't think they asked for Hugh Arnett or Joe Anastasi for input.
I spent 20 years servicing/repairing cars, up to a few years ago drove a 20 year old car myself on daily basis, doing 35mpg, and only replaced it for one with power steering.It's still on the road.
As far as the VRT is concerned - it's becoming a joke. You dont need to be an engineer to realise that there are plenty of non-roadworthy cars running about. But it is always so difficult to make enforements work in Malta - so the alternative is....TAX them!
The other day I was driving behind a car of similar age as my present one (6 yrs) and had to close the windows and vents because of the fumes. I sms'd Emission alert. Others have non operating lights, noisy exhausts, etc. I am quite sure that if the VRT operated well, it would be effective.
Instead we want to copy other countries (with taxes), yet we're so different!