I present a differing perspective. A mileage tax, like all taxes, reduces the amount of activity, and a decrease in activity is very harmful to society in the long run.
A mileage tax also reduces commuting. For a portion of the population, the workplace is at a distance that can also be covered by alternative modes of transport instead of private cars. Of course, it takes more time, and that extra time spent traveling is taken away from other uses of time.
An advertisement for Gymnaestrada tickets happened to appear at the same time. Hobbies are apparently counted as the aforementioned non-essential driving. Some might get to Joensuu by public transport, while others might not.
There were about 167,000 registered football players in Finland last year.
Matches have certainly been played up to this date this year as well, and non-essential driving has been used to get to those games.
Movement in general, team sports, and the resulting turnover and activity can hardly be considered harmful to society.
Are we mixing apples and oranges in this discussion? A kilometer tax practically already exists in the form of fuel excise duty. As motoring becomes electrified, tax revenue has simply decreased significantly, so something needs to be done. Considering the tax base, the most equitable solution is to tax electric vehicle usage in some way to get the tax revenue growing again.
Why should motorists be made to pay for costs significantly beyond those related to road maintenance? In itself, car ownership should not be favored since cars are not manufactured here, but it should not be excessively penalized either. The argument that âthis is how it has always been doneâ is a poor one.
I think the above gets to the heart of the matter. If we look at history, mobility has always increased economic activity. Shipping and trade, railways, etc. I believe we are badly off track when the primary concern is tax revenue. The problem isnât the tax revenue itself, but the imbalance in the stateâs finances. The economy needs to get back to growth so that tax revenue increases naturally. We have evidence that mobility increases economic activity. If we can bring down the costs of mobility and transport, we get more economic activity. If mobility is electrified, sin taxes are not justified in the same way as before.
In my opinion, we currently have excessively high taxation. Economic activity doesnât emerge when money has to be funneled too quickly to the ânobilityâ (rĂ€lssi) for unprofitable operations. First, 50% is taken from the salary, then in the next stage, 25.5% VAT is taken from the purchase. You canât build a long value chain in Finland because the money disappears so quickly to âidealistic parties who know better what should be done with the money.â The smart consumer has noticed that before ordering a product via the domestic Posti (Car tax, vehicle tax, fuel tax, driverâs income tax, VAT, pension insurance, employerâs health insurance contribution, unemployment insurance contribution, accident and group life insurance), itâs better to just âTemuâ it. Now the ânobilityâ is considering a Temu tax as a solution. Great. Our business federation chairman said we need immigration to get labor. At the same time, he couldnât say what work is actually available. Until we solve the problem that there are far too many middlemen in a small necessity purchase, we have a problem on our hands. A Temu tax might help a little, but it wonât solve the problem.
Any tips for âtenderingâ car financing, and which route offers the best deals?
Currently, Iâm paying a âŹ16 servicing fee and about âŹ44 in interest. Could a specific credit card even be cheaper? The loan balance is probably around âŹ10,000ââŹ11,000, I donât recall the exact amount remaining.
And yes, changing the car was a necessity. Cars that can fit three high-quality rear-facing seats donât really exist in the budget price range. Well, the car itself isnât expensive, but the financing is.
And yes, saving would be possible if I put the seats forward-facing, which would allow for a car choice thatâs, say, âŹ5,000 cheaper.
Iâm mainly interested in where I could âbuy this outâ with something closer to a 5% interest rate.
Of course, the loan itself is being paid down quite rapidly. But the costs are currently a bit too high (at âŹ50â60/month); if I could get them down to around âŹ30â40/monthâŠ
Is there no âAutovexâ type service for loans?
I can manage the payments, but if I could get the total costs down to somewhere around 5â7%.
Or letâs put it this way: the car financing is expensive enough that itâs probably not far off from a credit card anymore?
As I understand it, this kind of maneuvering is no longer possible nowadays; banks are much stricter about their funds (either by their own choice or due to regulation).
Through receipts, invoice payments, and installment drawdowns, among other things. That is, if itâs a secured renovation loan, which I assume was the idea here in order to get a low interest rate.
At least thatâs how it was in the case of my own renovation loan.
If you take out a secured consumer loanâfor example, by offering your apartment as collateralâit doesnât matter whether you say youâre using the money for renovations or buying a car. The bankâs lower margin is based on the reduced risk provided by the collateral, not the intended use of the loan.
So, if you have collateral, just go and talk to the bank.
We are starting to drift a bit off-topic for this thread, but we recently took out a loan for a major home renovation, and the extremely low margin got me thinking about leveraging a second car purchase and an investment loan.
However, at least in my own bank, a renovation loan classified as a mortgage could only be drawn down against invoices. The contractorâs invoices go to the bank, which then draws down the loan to our account and pays the invoices against that drawdown.
