I’m with Conor Faughnan of the AA on this one

In the recent NRA hearings on the plans for the new barrier free tolling the AA Public Affairs Manager Conor Faughnan has called for extra taxes to be placed on petrol rather than impose the new planned tolls on the M50.

I have to completely agree with Mr.Faughnan, but would actually like to see changes go further. We should remove all motor taxes (including the daft new emissions based taxes) and the VRT, and replace them both with extra taxes on petrol. By following this suggestion, we have a pure pay per usage situation, which is emmininently more fair than our current situations.

Back to Mr.Faughnan at the hearings:

The AA today called for the tolls to be abandoned and replaced with a two cent per litre ‘infrastructure levy’ on fuel, which it said would raise more money with far less waste.

“NRA figures envisage a set-up cost of €13 million and an ongoing operating cost of €25 million annually, based on 2008 prices. This would mean that of the €80 million collected in revenue each year over 30 per cent would disappear in costs. This is scandalously wasteful,” said AA public affairs manager Conor Faughnan.

To my mind however, the words “scandalously wasteful” brings us to why such proposals as mine and Mr.Faughnan will never happen. Just imagine the number of civil servants who would need to be otherwise engaged if they weren’t required to oversee motor tax in each county, and centrally in Shannon, as well as those who oversee the VRT system. It’ll be much easier for the government to avoid such a situation rather than do the sensible thing and bring in pay per use when it comes to car usage.

 

Clip to Evernote

4 Responses to “I’m with Conor Faughnan of the AA on this one”

  1. barry December 17, 2007 at 16:32 #

    Hey, back up a bit, we would ALL have to pay more for petrol. I NEVER use the M50, I know I’m lucky, but I don’t see why I should subsidise the users.

    IF we could be sure that the money was being used DIRECTLY to improve road quality (such as by an annual account of the spending) then I might agree.

  2. Susan December 17, 2007 at 23:22 #

    I’d love to see higher tolls on the M50, but confess that’s because I don’t use it.

    I agree with you completely about the petrol tax. We have so many farmers in this country (yes, one of them here) who need a small truck or SUV to haul livestock or navigate our driveways and POOR ROADS which are badly neglected. I used to drive small fuel-saver cars, but none survived the ditches and holes of our rural roads.

    We don’t drive anywhere near as far or often as 9-5 commuters (twice a week: Mart and Mass), and I hate to be punished by taxes that don’t recognise that.

    So I’m with you: tax us by usage; it’s only fair. Hopefully it would wake up a few people to just how much fuel they DO use.

  3. Frank F. December 18, 2007 at 13:56 #

    As someone who is paying €350 per year for the privelage of having their car parked 5 days a week in my driveway, I’m all for an increase in petrol charges if the motor tax is done away with.

    I need my car on weekends, but use public transport during the week, but I feel I’m being overly punished compared to those who may have the same car as me, pay the same road tax, but drive thousands of miles per week.

    Pay as you go – it works for mobiles, why not for petrol and road usage.

  4. Edward Carew July 2, 2009 at 13:33 #

    Conor on your recent Questionaire u mentioned penalty points. Go to Sur in English on web, and see the reward for careful Drivers.
    Edward.

Leave a Reply:

Gravatar Image

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>