Changes in car taxation

[flyingyellowpig]

I think next time people should to think better before voting for Kokkomus or SDP. My wife´s family is deeply involved with politics and I knowing most of those politicians in person.I have to say that I pretty much understand quit well the politics in here. Unfortunately the party which in power now : Kokkomus doesn't really care about the people, they are just interested in developing Helsinki and forget about the rest of the country, also being lobbed by big companies and most of the rich people in Helsinki. Most of those bad decisions made in the actual government were Kokkomus ideias.

[flyingyellowpig]

! 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!

You should to blame Kokkomus and SDP for that, next time vote for a party which is more in favor of the people and not those big companies and rich people which are lobbying them. Kokkomus wants that people moves to Helsinki. Have you heard about the Kalasatama project ? Well, their idea is to put 25.000 people to live in a little space of land. All those are Kokkomus ideas. Why? Because they think if everybody should to live in Helsinki

[DMC]

Virtually every indirect tax is regressive (Public Choice 101), so why single out cars?

I am not singling out cars. I am singling out a tax change that will increase the total tax bill for the less well off and decrease it for the more wealthy. I believe that to be a bad change.

[gfunho]

I think it is simpler than all that.

It is a tax that wants that people buys MORE CARS but drives then LESS.

So car manufacturers and sellers/importers get incredibly benefited. And of course, since a car is something that cannot be "really" consumed, the real benefit from this tax is for people that can buy and storage 10 cars just for themselves that will only drive 1 at a time.

Rich people benefiting, very poor people without a car breaking even, average people with one car probably losing money (if it is a zero sum tax).

P.S. To put ridiculous comparative, this tax is the same as instead of charging a tax for buying a house, and a higher tax for buying a Mökki, they only charge you for each day you live on them. (for example 6€ if the house is in the city and 3€ if it is outside). Since one person cannot live in more than one house at a time, rich people could buy as many as they want, since the extra cost on top of the price is marginal.

[Pursuivant]

knowing most of those politicians in person.

Tell them greetings that they have succeeded, a middle class taxpayer left the country and left you there

[Liam1]

Virtually every indirect tax is regressive (Public Choice 101), so why single out cars?

I am not singling out cars. I am singling out a tax change that will increase the total tax bill for the less well off and decrease it for the more wealthy. I believe that to be a bad change.

OK - think that if your biggest issue is not whether the tax is good, but that removing it makes some people worse off, I don't disagree. My biggest issue is get rid of something that doesn't work and if necessary compensate those that rely on the subsidy. In reality there are always concessions with legislation e.g. replace the tax but only charge the "pay as you pollute" alternative on cars made after 2008, so that those with lower motoring budgets don't lose out.

[Honest]

It's simple. People who have capitalist thinking and are good earners would support it. So American, Australians and others from that kind of background and with a good income would always support and defend the idea. While people who care about majority of people (richer people are never in majority in any country) more than they care about money would disagree with it.

Now see you backgrounds ans current situations and let me know if I am wrong

[zax]

It's simple. People who have capitalist thinking and are good earners would support it. So American, Australians and others from that kind of background and with a good income would always support and defend the idea. While people who care about majority of people (richer people are never in majority in any country) more than they care about money would disagree with it.

Now see you backgrounds ans current situations and let me know if I am wrong

I have a "capitalist" way of thinking, I'm earning a decent wage (at least for now), and I'm from "that kind of background". I don't support this tax, therefore you are wrong.

[DMC]

Now see you backgrounds ans current situations and let me know if I am wrong

You are assuming that everyone always acts out of self interest rather than a sense of what is fair and just.
I would say I have a capitalist way of thinking, having run my own companies since the 1980s. We have reasonable incomes, and both of our cars were bought new. I don't support the idea. So you are wrong.

[Liam1]

Now see you backgrounds ans current situations and let me know if I am wrong

Your point is maybe an over generalisation, though may be right most of the time.
Like Zax, and DMC I may tick these boxes, but I support ANY initiative that removes the awful car tax.
This is not due to self-interest – I quite legally changed my planned car purchases (bought my company car and a brand new one) before I came to Finland and saved 22k in tax and will run these for 4-5 years. Normally I change cars every 2/3 years. That’s my objection – this purchase car tax, alters people’s behavior but not in a good way. i.e. rich can chose whether to pay it / have ways to avoid. Poorer can’t afford to change their cars as frequently so lose “choice” and pollute more. The new tax at least addresses the fundamental issue – cars pollute – polluter should pay or be incentivized to pollute less. I ironically agree with Zax & DMC on the wider social issues, but if the Govt wants to transfer more money from the rich, do it using a tax that cannot be avoided as easily and doesn’t make cars expensive for everyone. E.g. add 2% to the higher rate of income tax.

DMC earlier comment is also right – once you have a system – it is hard to change because it makes someone worse off. I recall a funny story from a Public Choice Professor: 6 people went drinking each week and the richest paid half of the bar tab. They were then given a 10% discount on their bill – the other 5 noticed that the rich guy saved most – as much as all the other 5 put together - they thought this unfair - afterall he has most money so why should he be the chief beneficiar? - so they beat the capitalist pig up. The following week the rich guy didn’t turn up and everyone’s evening was spoilt. Realistic? Well read what Pursuivant (now living in UK) wrote.

[Oombongo]

sorry for going off topic a bit but shouldn't they decrease taxes on hybrid/electric cars (if there's any around here) to reduce CO2 emissions and whatnot, and encourage folks to go for it?
I have no idea how taxation goes for these types in here.

[Upphew]

sorry for going off topic a bit but shouldn't they decrease taxes on hybrid/electric cars (if there's any around here) to reduce CO2 emissions and whatnot, and encourage folks to go for it?
I have no idea how taxation goes for these types in here.

That is one reason for 6c/km instead upping the gas tax.

[network_engineer]

decrease taxes on hybrid/electric cars (if there's any around here) to reduce CO2 emissions

one reason for 6c/km instead upping the gas tax

I tend not to agree. The current car taxes, in addition to the basic yearly tax, has a premium for other energy types, e.g. Diesel tax, etc. If the governments were really interested in a non-polluting environment, they'd start by switching off all the neon lights still on throughout the night. My car is a 2012 model, emits about 99g/km. Why the #€%&/I would I pay 0.06 per km, same as the guy who owns a hummer that produces was it 212g/km? Even if both of them ran on electricity, there would be cars that consume less electricity making them more electricity efficient, why 0.06 per km in both cases? Happens only UrpoKat are in power!

In a convoluted view, moving everybody to electric cars, that is limiting competition. Not to mention that a few million cars charging would drive up the consumption, and we don't have electricity as is.

In other words, the only "fuel" you are allowed is electricity, and then they boost the costs right up, and it would be harder at that time to complain about it. Did you know, there is a research (that failed miserably) which tried to mark and recognise every device drawing power can indicate through a return voltage and signature what device it is, all the way to the power meter. In other words, the power meter could tell how much a device used power. Now, imagine if that technology succeeded, they could charge you crazy and one could do squat. Right now, the alternatives keep the prices balanced, petrol, diesel, electricity etc.

A friend of mine (Economics professor, but has his feet on the ground) told us: The moment you limit competition for whatever interest, is the moment when you let the government manipulate your backside.

[Rick1]

Guess who is in charge of the club advising the government this per km charge? (because we are paying 200 members of parlement plus about 100 helpers who cannot come up with ideas themselves); It is former mr Nokia Olilla. Now some canadian has taken halve of that company with him to his former employer for a reasonable sum of about 20 million for three years downsizing work so they need something else to do. So Nokia has still some mapping services, Finland still has some billions somewhere so 1 and one is two.

[Karhunkoski]

they #"!"#¤% should focus on reducing expenses, than taxing the working people to death!

Absolutelly agree. Maybe we could start by getting rid of subsidised day care, a benefit which saves parents 500e+ a month on the real cost.