Changes in car taxation

network_engineer · Post by **network_engineer** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:09 pm

! a bit of ranting here too, bear with me!

Dear all,

New article here, about proposed changes to car taxation. I am just wondering, does this mean that the normal tax related to car would be waived off? E.g. the
- car tax while purchase?
- yearly car tax etc?
- reduced fuel prices?

And spread the costs over a time period? Did I get it right?

If not, don't theses #"!"#¤% beggars realise that for a family of two living outside Helsinki (that too downtown Helsinki), that public transport is a no-go? Especially in winters where the much touted efficiency drops to -40, public transport, including trains don't work? What happens when the kids are at daycare, and the place closes at 17.00? What are they willing to do? Talk to the employers federation on ensuring home based working? The current proposed scheme brings the cost up to 1600 annually!

What about trips to the country side? Don't do it? Which #"!"#¤% public transport gets me to the wilderness?

And finally, why the #¤%# should I pay the same when I drive a new car that has less than 99g/km? I.e. I would be paying the same as another with a gaz guzzler emitting 200g/km!!! Becoming a politician seems to be an in-thing! No brains required, and the !"#¤% coming out of the arse can suitably stuffed in there! Especially, the current ones on govt. Stupid, stupid #"!"#¤%. Next time voting for PS!

Not the least of my issues, they #"!"#¤% should focus on reducing expenses, than taxing the working people to death!

**Sponsor:**

Jukka Aho · Post by **Jukka Aho** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:35 pm

network_engineer wrote:New article here, about proposed changes to car taxation. I am just wondering, does this mean that the normal tax related to car would be waived off? E.g. the
- car tax while purchase?
- yearly car tax etc?

According to this HS.fi article, both of the above.

network_engineer wrote:- reduced fuel prices?

No idea about this one.

The projections for such a system to become operative have mentioned the year 2020, at earliest. The current Minister of Transport, Merja Kyllönen, has tried to downplay the whole thing a bit, though, stating that such a proposition is still a long way off from being actualized, both in political and practical sense.

The most worrisome thing is that this would likely require compulsory satellite tracking of private cars...

Jukka Aho · Post by **Jukka Aho** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:04 pm

anna.g wrote:
Jukka Aho wrote:The most worrisome thing is that this would likely require compulsory satellite tracking of private cars...
They could impose the same tax through gasoline taxation (he who travels more, pays more), but then, there would be no need to track anyone's movements.

The current plans are to make it a two-tier system, with the densely populated areas enjoying a higher per-kilometer tax rate. See the map at the bottom of the above-mentioned (Finnish-language) HS.fi article.

network_engineer · Post by **network_engineer** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:48 pm

! bear with me , apologies for the language!

Apologies for saying this, but I believe the whole bunch of #"#€%&/ idiots in the Parliament have totally lost it. According to that map, yeah, I live in a densely populated areas, let's compare it to Beijing/Delhi of Finland.

Despite that, I would dare claim this: The above mentioned cities in India/China would have *far-better* public transportation (albeit a bit unsafe, but proportional to the population) than where I stay! One bus, goes every was it hour, train station about 2 1/2 kms away! Not to mention neither work during a storm or snow.

Have these nuts totally lost it? And the Finns, why are they so calm about these things? A good awakening for these !"#¤% wouldn't hurt anybody!

CH · Post by CH » Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:23 pm

network_engineer wrote:And the Finns, why are they so calm about these things?

I don't think anybody is calm... it's just that this is not the first time this has been suggested, and so far it hasn't gone any further than the initial report. So it's a bit of "can't get riled up about it every effing time".

Anyway, it's a really stupid idea. Like has been mentioned the fuel is already heavily taxed, so it would be double taxation for the same thing! And really nice for those who live out in the country where there is no public transport. Car taxes have historically been "easy" taxes to add and raise, the same way as tobacco and alcohol taxes. But I think this one is going to be really hard to sell, as it would require a lot in investment (GPS tracker?) especially as the car/car usage already is heavily taxed.

Pursuivant · Post by **Pursuivant** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:27 pm

And the Finns, why are they so calm about these things?

Because we still have to be wary in going to dig certain gravel pits in case you find someone from the last time we disagreed on politics.

Liam1 · Post by **Liam1** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:57 pm

Quite like the idea of this if it is not a ruse to get more revenue!
We're lazy/practical (2kids to drop off+ their after school activities/ jobs in opposite directions, not on easy transport lines) so have two cars that get driven short distances. Often thought about ditching one car as the taxes per km driven are eye watering. Now if only the insurance companies would follow suit and give policies per km too!!

cors187 · Post by **cors187** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:25 pm

network_engineer wrote:

Not the least of my issues, they #"!"#¤% should focus on reducing expenses, than taxing the working people to death!

As long as they have a graph or two in support

Finland will be the first country to have a robotic minister with installed lie detector and graph infused os.

kharnynb · Post by **kharnynb** » Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:28 pm

I looked at the "densely populated" map, and no way that would work even remotely in savonlinna area.
There's no public transport, the costs would kill anyone on lower income with a normal for this area work/home trip.

network_engineer · Post by **network_engineer** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:16 am

Exactly!

Here's an idea to save money: Kick the assess (yeah, literally assess) in the working group - save money. Now, if somebody wanted to reduce CO2, and save oxygen...

Liam1 · Post by **Liam1** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:21 am

kharnynb wrote:I looked at the "densely populated" map, and no way that would work even remotely in savonlinna area.
There's no public transport, the costs would kill anyone on lower income with a normal for this area work/home trip.

Why will it raise costs? If they collect the same amount of revenue and I would guess that 80%+ live in the dense areas, won't it just mean that people who use their car more than average will pay more and those that use their car less will save? Also those not on lower income who have and can afford to visit their summer cottage each weekend will pay more.

Also would have thought that even those living in remote places may not bring everyone's else average up as they probably travel twice the distances anyway (I walk/drive 1.5km to the shops; someone in E Finland may need to drive 30km to do the same...)

Agree that it will trap poor sods who live in poor public transport areas AND have a long commute.

You never know - it may promote some savings - e.g. car sharing trips, planning trips to do avoid unecessary journeys and may even put pressure on public transprt to expand.....

Upphew · Post by **Upphew** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:25 am

network_engineer wrote:Exactly!

Here's an idea to save money: Kick the assess (yeah, literally assess) in the working group - save money. Now, if somebody wanted to reduce CO2, and save oxygen...

But the gps stuff is going to go in your car anyway: http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/world/4301- ... iters.html

kharnynb · Post by **kharnynb** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:05 am

This is probally the worst regressive tax i've seen in a while, it benefits rich people who buy new cars only.

This is btw not a replacement for road tax, it only replaces the initial purchase tax.
So any poor person who buys cheap second hand cars due to need, will see practically no benefits from the replacement of the original tax.
Instead it will tax people for every km they drive, meaning that poorer people, who cannot live in metropolitan area's have to pay extra for their work travel.
Worst of all, the map shown on the hs site, is just moronic, 90% of the "city" area has nothing even remotely close to adequate public transport.

Liam1 · Post by **Liam1** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:55 am

kharnynb wrote:This is probally the worst regressive tax i've seen in a while, it benefits rich people who buy new cars only.

This is btw not a replacement for road tax, it only replaces the initial purchase tax.
So any poor person who buys cheap second hand cars due to need, will see practically no benefits from the replacement of the original tax.
Instead it will tax people for every km they drive, meaning that poorer people, who cannot live in metropolitan area's have to pay extra for their work travel.
Worst of all, the map shown on the hs site, is just moronic, 90% of the "city" area has nothing even remotely close to adequate public transport.

Funny I see almost the opposite! If as you say - only rich buy new cars. Those that have paid the tax up front, which will be abolished are the ones that lose out as they have a 50k car on their driveway that will then cost 38k new. I was looking (and only looking!!) at a Range Rover - the tax on that was over 60 000 - imagine the last person to buy one of those before the law changes - he or she will feel that this tax is certainly progressive!!!

Those that are not quite as rich so buy second hand. Well they are no longer going to pay 38 grand for the rich guy's 2 year old car as they can buy it new for 38k - so they will offer say 28k.

...and those that can afford 28k and are used to buying older cars will pay far less etc. So all car prices should fall by roughly the same percentage.

And if the tax is a genuine zero sum gain, it seems to penalise those that drive longer distances and that can be rich and poor. E.g. boat owners, 2nd home owners (rich), cheaper housing is either central (poorer gain) or a bit further out (poor lose), with nicer family houses on the outskirts so between the two.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Sep 03, 2013 10:55 am

Liam1 wrote:
kharnynb wrote:I looked at the "densely populated" map, and no way that would work even remotely in savonlinna area.
There's no public transport, the costs would kill anyone on lower income with a normal for this area work/home trip.
Why will it raise costs? If they collect the same amount of revenue

Yeah. I'm sure new forms of tax "advertised" as revenue neutral, are generally actually designed to be revenue neutral (even if we ignore any questions would it be likely that running the new GPS based system would cost less to operate than the current one). Anyway, people can easily calculate how much 6 cents times the number of kilometers they drive annually is, and they can compare that with how much they on average year spend on buying cars, and do the math is there any chance they will not lose money.

Finland Forum

Find information about moving to, living in and life in Finland