We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
CAR BUYERS HAVE contributed €900 million to the government’s coffers this year to get their vehicles on the road for the first time.
And the figure is set to top €1 billion before 2014 is done with new car sales up nearly 30% over the first nine months of the year when compared to 2013 figures.
Some 93,176 new cars were registered during the period after nearly 20,000 cars hit the road in June alone, while 41,134 imported used cars were also licensed for the first time.
The figures come from a review from the Society of the Irish Motor Industry (SIMI), which said the total tax receipts for the registration of new and used cars was over €900 million so far this year.
That figure was up nearly 28% on the same time last year and about 58% of the total came from Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT), with the balance going to the exchequer in VAT receipts.
The latest numbers are still way off the sales activity peaks from the 2000s, although they have been trending consistently upwards over the last three years.
Taxes left alone for 2015
Motoring and fuel taxes were left alone in last week’s Budget for the first time in several years after car buyers were hit with a VRT increase in 2013.
The review said the average cost of buying a new car had gone down 2.8% since last September and both petrol and diesel prices had also dropped, although overall car taxes had been steadily climbing since 2005.
SIMI has been forecasting “steady recovery” in the sector with extra jobs on the way as sales went up.
Director-General Alan Nolan said the decision not to lift any motoring-related taxes in the Budget had laid the foundations for steady growth.
“The better business environment in the sector this year has resulted directly from the improved consumer confidence and we would be very hopeful that the market will continue to grow in response to the more positive outlook for consumers in the wake of the Budget,” he said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Maybe I’m getting old but I have no idea what that article was about
It’s essentially about two guys who made a company based on their popularity online and tried to trademark the word ‘reacts’ among other things. They wanted the ability to remove content which looked anything like theirs (or not, they had a go at Ellen DeGeneres for a scene which only vaguely alluded to their work) and ultimately the right to sue anyone who wouldn’t abide by their wishes.
Essentially, it’s about what happens when trademark laws are taken to a ridiculous extreme.
But wtf is a ‘react video’? Jaysus I’m only 27 and I haven’t a clue…
It’s basically people filming their reactions to things. Usually YouTube videos. How anyone thinks they could trademark that is beyond me
That’s what I thought, but then I thought, Na no one would watch something so utterly mundane…
I actually heard from somebody I watch on YouTube sometimes, a ranter that the Fine Bros went around copyright claiming videos that even had the word “react” or “reaction” in them and some of these videos were from as long ago as 2007! Its absolutely ridiculous what they are doing.
Two arrogant p***ks react to being taken down a peg or two.
Sorry, you can’t take back being douchebags. I hope your subscriber exodus continues.
I can’t blame someone for wanting to protect their work, although the Fine Brothers were not looking to do that. They were looking for the freedom to monetise an entire style of video.
It would be like Disney trying to protect the Star Wars trademark (fully understandable) but also looking for the freedom to sue any other film company that produced something even remotely like it.
One of the problems is their videos are all based off of other people’s content. They make money using other people’s videos and try to trademark something incredibly vague. They certainly were not the first to come up with the concept of a reaction video either.
Prohibited ave become too greedy. They already make a lot from their videos so why attempt to milk more…money makes the world go round I guess…
People have *
I’m not sure if she was successful or not but Paris Hilton wanted to trademark the words, “that’s hot”. Ridiculous!
The great thing about YouTube is that it’s not like television, in the sense that you don’t need a massive team of people to create something. Anyone with a webcam and a computer can make a YouTube video and trying to licence what essentially is a whole genre of videos on the website will ruin the whole thing, in my opinion.
They are nothing without the content other people created.
Exactly Seth.
Exactly! I’m so relieved that they decided not to go ahead. this kind of legalisation of YouTube video formats would have had a drastic effect on how video sharing works and would destroy the notion of the freedom of the Internet. there’s space for anyone to express themselves on YouTube, and this move would have damaged that
Alice I’m surprised they didn’t expect this kind of backlash after what happened to Sam Pepper. And anyway, if you get caught stealing someones idea/video on youtube you get dragged in the comments lmao
very true! there’s a level of courtesy that you follow and if you don’t- you get called out! I’m so relieved it’s been reversed that could have been catastrophic
“YouTube Stars” – what is wrong with this statement? :-)
TV Stars, Movie Stars, no difference really
Well said @Seth.
Hey ho
Two knobs who make videos featuring lots of pretentious people playing up for the camera.
have your say