Penalised for owning an older car

Mary Doris Azzopardi

Nov 24th 2008, 10:05

If I tasted the salaries of Luxembourg, I can assure you that I tasted also the high standard of living and most of all, the high cost of living, example 2 oranges cost 2.5 euros. But health is very important and is also the first priority of the government. So if we want that people, many of them are our children to continue get sick with asthma, lung cancers and other sickness caused by the bad fumes, then we can permit these old cars run in our streets. In our country health is not a priority because we refer to get sick instead of having a healthy environment

Franco Farrugia

Nov 21st 2008, 18:25

@ Ms Azzopardi Mary Doris - Are you comparing Maltese salaries with those in Luxembourg? So, do you honestly think that people here in Malta can afford to change their cars every 5 years?

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.

AZZOPARDI Mary Doris

Nov 21st 2008, 12:39

I am living in Luxembourg and when I told my friend that I have a very good small car and that it is 9 years old she
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.

Ronnie Gauci

Nov 21st 2008, 02:12

I really would have loved to read the pro-budget writers below if this budget was a Labour one. Somebody believes they would still be consistent with what they wrote? I have many doubts.

lgalea

Nov 20th 2008, 21:52

Liam Kelly
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.

wally vella-zarb

Nov 20th 2008, 20:03

@ Mr Martinelli

"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.

laurence schembri

Nov 20th 2008, 18:53

Let us put this argument in simple terms.
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.

J Martinelli

Nov 20th 2008, 18:19

@ wally vella-zarb

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.

Evarist Saliba

Nov 20th 2008, 17:39

I think that enough sensible comments have been made to influence the authorities -if they are receptive to public opinion - to reconsider the thinking behind their decision that an older car must, of necessity, pollute more than a newer one irrespective of size, maintenance and frequency of use. Buying a new car is not an easy option in Malta, especially for pensioners.

Leo Bartolo

Nov 20th 2008, 17:29

@Liam Kelly.......HA HA HA HA HA HA. Oh boy! How much funnier can you be

J Micallef

Nov 20th 2008, 16:53

Reno Psaila - Perfect, well done! At least there's someone on my waveleangth. That was just what I had written in The Times back in March of this year - yet nobody's managed to give a reply. Furthermore, the purchase of new cars also has an adverse effect on the country's balance of payments.

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!

Dr Paul Sant Cassia

Nov 20th 2008, 16:51

Mr Kelly is vituperatively wrong. People are interested in having a taxation system that actually and transparently does what it claims to do: to tax according to actual useage and actual pollution. No "ifs, buts, or excuses", to use his words

Phil Pryce

Nov 20th 2008, 16:34

I own an Alfa 156 (2.0) which I love to drive but it uses a lot of petrol. So, partly to save some money, partly to get reasonably fit and partly for the environment I now catch a bus to Msida then walk to Sliema every day, and the reverse on the way home. Am I being encouraged to do this by the government? Is there any incentive for me to do this? No... of course not. Instead I will have to pay a lot more 'circulation' tax, even though I am using my car a lot less. Wake up government. Put the tax on the fuel, not the car. That way, it really is the poluter who pays. Still, we only have to put up with this till the next election don't we!!

Liam Kelly

Nov 20th 2008, 16:22

I wish you lot would cut out all your pathetic excuses and just face facts: You aren't the slightest bit interested in how much your car pollutes. No ifs, no buts or excuses.

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.

Reno Psaila

Nov 20th 2008, 16:07

Has anyone ever calculated the 'global' aspect of this matter. The factories, directly or indirectly connected (like the scrap yards, recycling plants etc, etc...), producing these 'new clean' cars are surely polluting our World. How does it balance out with retaining 'older' cars, thus reducing production? Or is this one big excuse to keep the 'wheel' turning? Another point is that to compare Malta with Europe, one has to work out the ratio of the salary/ income and the
cost of new cars. Few Maltese can afford to change their car every 4 or 5 years!

J Micallef

Nov 20th 2008, 15:51

J Debono - excellent contribution.

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????

Dr Paul Sant Cassia

Nov 20th 2008, 15:34

Readers may be interested to know that Cyprus intends to remove the Road Circulation Tax to take into account only 2 factors: 1. actual useage of the car; and 2. pollution emissions. According to the Communications Minister Nicos Nicolaides the new system would be "socially generous" - a far cry from our taxation regime. (Google "Cyprus Mail" and search "Archives" for 19 November). And Cyprus has wonderful roads and highways. If owners of cars singled out for this punitive taxation in Malta were to divide up the taxes they would pay by the envisaged number of hours actual useage, they would soon discover that their costs per hour useage could be astronomical. The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that if the Government actually "hand on their bleeding good hearts" really wanted to tax pollution, then it could have easily devised a scheme to actually tax this. Instead, it pretends it wants us to be virtuous whilst benefitting from our "sins". Sounds like the old practice of creating a Purgatory and selling indulgences!

wally vella-zarb

Nov 20th 2008, 14:54

"Does that not sound reasonable, unless you prefer to let lesser polluters pay up for you? "

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?

J. Debono

Nov 20th 2008, 14:21

Having a young car fleet on the road cannot last for ever. An eight year old car today, is still going to be on the road in ten to 15 years time.
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.

J. Debono

Nov 20th 2008, 14:01

DEAR SIRS,

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.

J Martinelli

Nov 20th 2008, 13:39

The age of a car is not the main issue here. You can spray paint an old car making it look like new. It is still an old car save for half a gallon of new paint. It is the technology within the engine which counts. Fourteen (or older) year engine pollutes much more than a new engine and using the principle of 'polluter pays', by necessity the older car deserves a larger penalty. The owner of an older car should do some calculating starting with: How much longer he/she wants to keep the car: What is the difference between what he pays now and what the new licence fee is: Multiply the remaining life in years by the difference in licence costs. If you prefer to keep car you have the new cost to which you have to add maintenance costs which far exceeds those of a new car.

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?

wally vella-zarb

Nov 20th 2008, 12:49

The catch-phrase nowadays seems to be 'Polluter Pays'. No one can really argue against that; but does the Government really believe in it? Do the new regulations go anywhere towards achieving this end?

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.

Charles Micallef

Nov 20th 2008, 12:46

I think that there are a lot of people in the same waters as Ms Muscat, people who work hard all their lives, save to buy a car and keep it in perfect condition only to be awarded with this new unfair road tax system for their efforts and sacrifice!

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?

David Seychell

Nov 20th 2008, 12:10

The Minister said that the average age of the cars in Malta is 14 years while those in the EU are only 8 years old and hence we should be penalised by higher taxes because we have older cars. What the Minister didn't say is that we have older cars because of a very high registration tax on both new and used cars. In other words it's the Goverments fault but we pay for it. If the Gov removes the registration tax on used cars imported from the EU, like for example the UK, the average age of cars in Malta would decrease substantially.

C Micallef

Nov 20th 2008, 11:23

I agree with Monica Muscat. Cars are like human beings. You can have a 65 year old woman easily doing aerobics with a 30 year old lady, as the former still kept herself physically fit throughout her life. The same applies to an engine if it is well tuned and serviced properly. What they should do is to put a probe in the exhaust pipe and measure the amount of CO2 coming out. Moreover, modern cars are fitted with catalytic converters which turns the carbon monoxide into the dioxide.

J Micallef

Nov 20th 2008, 10:29

Dear Ms Muscat,

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!

G Psaila

Nov 20th 2008, 10:15

I agree. Well said Ms Muscat. Let's have some answers from the authorities now.