Taxing Utes and SUVs

Trying2SaveABuck on 11/03/2024 - 08:36
Last edited 12/03/2024 - 08:42

https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/on-the-road/gree…

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/council-could-sl…

https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/on-the-road/pric…

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-07/car-brands-set-to-fai…

'Australian motorists may be forced to pay as much as $13,000 extra for some of the country’s most popular cars under the Albanese government’s proposed new emissions standards.

The Ford Ranger, the top-selling car in 2023, would incur a penalty of $6150 under the proposed 2025 CO2 target, according to estimates compiled by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), which has called on Energy Minister Chris Bowen to release the government’s own modelling of the likely impact on prices.

“I don’t understand why they won’t release the modelling,” said FCAI chief executive Tony Weber.

“Good public policy is created when there is transparency about the objectives and the underpinning assumptions about those objectives.

“Obviously we hope there are changes to the proposed standards. If it goes through as formulated the impact on consumers will be enormous, particularly in two ways — the increased purchase cost of the vehicle and the availability of product in market segments.”

The FCAI’s analysis suggests a Toyota LandCruiser — the seventh most popular car last year — would incur the highest penalty out of the top 20 of $13,250, while the sixth-rating Tesla Model Y would incur a carbon credit of $15,390 under the new rules.

The carbon penalty incurred by Australia’s other top five cars, the Toyota HiLux, Isuzu Ute D-Max, Toyota RAV4 and MG ZS, would be $2690, $2030, $2720 and $3880, respectively.

The figures, which assume the same drive-train or engine as 2023 with no improvement, are based on the highest CO2 emitting variant of each model, compared with the 2025 CO2 target at the penalty rate of $100 per gram.

“Consumers have two fundamental options — you can buy the vehicle that you want and if it doesn’t have the drive-train that meets the target as mooted you will pay the penalty,” said Mr Weber.

“The second option is you could substitute where they’re available to a more sophisticated drive-train that provides you with a better fuel efficiency. Typically in the future that will be EVs.”'

TLTR

the government wants to tax larger cars more [ones that are bad for the environment], potentially to subsidise cars that have better emissions standards. The local councils also want to hit larger cars with more expensive parking and fees.

Do you support taxing larger cars more?

For the record I support this tax as long as the money is used to subsidies more economically and environmentally friendly vehicles and sectors

Poll Options

  • 949
    Yes Tax them more
  • 176
    No dont tax them more
  • 5
    im unsure
Automotive Car SUV Ute

Comments

    • JIMB0 on 11/03/2024 - 10:18
      -1

      It's it to make up for something else that is lacking.

    • TEER3X on 12/03/2024 - 09:14

      Does he drive like a knob?

    • quick-dry on 12/03/2024 - 11:28

      country clients, I'm sure /s

    • UltimateAI on 12/03/2024 - 13:44
      +1

      Same but even the raptors are small compared to Rams, Patrols and some Land cruisers. Which where I live are vehicles of choice for the teenagers and mums.

    • johnno07 on 12/03/2024 - 23:46
      +1

      Imagine the thought that a white collar worker could have a legitimate use for a ute. Absolutely outrageous.

      Someone call Tracy Grimshaw.

      • Ryanek on 13/03/2024 - 07:24

        Good point. I did see him pick up plants from Bunnings once.

  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 11/03/2024 - 09:11
    +3

    Oh, but how are Portia and Sebastian going to get to school?!

    Won’t somebody think of the children

    nathanjessop, r/Australia. 💯

  • Pufff on 11/03/2024 - 09:44
    +3

    wonder if it'll get to a stage where someone uses a minibus as their daily?

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 11/03/2024 - 10:01

      at this rate with the real estate market like it is and housing crisis, maybe not mini bus but beat up old hi-ace or similar gonna be more common.

  • JimmyF on 11/03/2024 - 09:58
    +18

    Do you support taxing larger cars more?

    Tax them more. We have all these dual cab 4x4 on the road as it is the business loophole for tax savings. So they drive these big beasts. Have a look around at the school run, so many kids are getting taken to school and back in them.

    All these car makers understand that if they complied with the CO2 target then they couldn't get these 'penalties' applied. So maybe they should do that instead of complaining.

    • LSGH on 12/03/2024 - 12:54
      +1

      yup, at our local primary school in Bris, every third car picking up their kids is a dual cab UTE

      • JimmyF on 12/03/2024 - 13:43
        +2

        Yep, and just think, those drivers are writing all the costs from purchases to running costs off on their 'tax' too. Such an amazing tax policy by our gov hey!

  • iforgotmysocks on 11/03/2024 - 10:06
    +7

    Good to see Murdoch and Friends having another crack at pushing this propaganda. Bless

  • apsilon on 11/03/2024 - 10:37
    +2

    They're already taxed more, at least in NSW, and I'd be surprised if most other states/territories didn't do similar. Vehicle registration is only $75 but there's then a tax component based upon weight so the larger the vehicle the more tax. If it's registered to a business then it's more again. Larger non EV vehicles also use more fuel which is also heavily taxed (currently about $0.495/l in tax IIRC).

    Taxing a business more is just going to see them respond by increasing their charges to compensate so really achieves little. What should probably be done is remove the tax incentives for non business use.

    • LFO on 11/03/2024 - 11:03
      -1

      tax incentives for non business use.

      And severely restrict what business use is, to specifically business use.

      Except for miners and Co. good luck convincing ATO that a truck is "needed" for a plumber/painter/electrician.

      • Euphemistic on 11/03/2024 - 11:39
        +1

        All the plumber/painter/electricians ive seen cart enough stuff to need more than a sedan.

        • LFO on 12/03/2024 - 11:19
          +3

          There is a much better alternative to a sedan.

          It is call a panel van, commonly know as "a van". Popular examples: Vito, Trafic, Sprinter, Deliver … too many to list.

          Not very sexy but very safe to store items rather than an open tray of a pick up truck.
          And immensely practical and space efficient.

          • Euphemistic on 12/03/2024 - 15:56

            @LFO: May be, but harder to get your family in on thw weekend.

          • nothommus on 13/03/2024 - 07:08

            @LFO: Im not saying every tradie needs a ute (they dont) but i did read an interesting argument that semi made sense the other day when one was asking about weather he should get a ute or a van - the consensus was get a ute if youre doing lots of work requiring underground car-parks etc, as a lot of vans ended up being too high especially with ladders etc on the roof to go underground.

            Mind you, the second they lift the ute anyway and put giant tires on it, you get up in height anyway.

            • LFO on 13/03/2024 - 13:44

              @nothommus:

              … but i did read an interesting argument …

              You probably heard the saying: "if you are a hammer everything looks like a nail…"

              Those hell bent into justifying a pick up truck instead of a van (or anything else) will find the proverbial one-thousand and one reasons to do it.

              For me only if you are like a farmer/person needing to carry putrid carcasses or bags of pestilent manure then the tray in the open will justify a pick up truck.
              For suburban trades usually a van will do (with ladders and tubings inside, safe and protected …).
              And working farmers will pick a 4X4 instead.

      • ColtNoir on 12/03/2024 - 09:15
        +1

        The issue isn’t a tradie needing these cars, it’s the weekend warriors who use it to cart a coupla items from Bunnings twice a year.

        • LFO on 12/03/2024 - 11:21
          +1

          … and bi-yearly towing that caravan otherwise dumped on the street.

          • ColtNoir on 12/03/2024 - 13:23
            +1

            @LFO: The one with the overgrown grass and weeds around it? I've got 3 of them on my street.

        • MrFrugalSpend on 12/03/2024 - 21:16

          So the tradie and farmer will be exempted from the tax??? I haven't seen that?

          • ColtNoir on 13/03/2024 - 12:08

            @MrFrugalSpend: Not necessarily but what can a tradie and a farmer do? Structure their business correctly to claim the biggest tax benefits.
            If I can avoid paying stamp duty as an employee using a novated lease, then sure as hell these examples if structured correctly can.

            • LFO on 13/03/2024 - 13:46

              @ColtNoir:

              using a novated lease

              That is part of the "Salary Sacrifice" not an exemption per se.

              • ColtNoir on 13/03/2024 - 20:55

                @LFO: Never said it was an exemption. They likely don't need one if it's for actual business use, which is why I referred to ‘structured correctly’

  • Euphemistic on 11/03/2024 - 10:40
    +4

    Now they arent going to be able to afford the e-mtb they cart in the tray once a month!

    Not sure if the linked stories are a media beat up, but suspect the news.com ones are. They are typically anti-emisions targets etc. The emissions targets are a goodd thing. Itll bring more efficient models to aus that we arent getting now. If it penalises those who are choosing a larger vehcie for no other reason than vanity then so be it.

  • LFO on 11/03/2024 - 10:59
    +7

    Funny thing is that there are real small vehicles (Citroën Ami comes to mind, the Smart (MBenz?) too … etc etc) which are very common overseas but consistently disallowed in Australia or just conveniently ignored by local dealerships and distributors (low price means low profit per vehicle).

    It is pointless the tax some breed of vehicles but not allowing for cost effective alternatives.

    Feels like a tax trap.

    • mskeggs on 11/03/2024 - 12:48

      Won’t dealers be much more motivated to bring in fuel efficient vehicles if they can get credits for their low carbon?

      Feels like a trap to get paid a rebate for a less polluting car.

      • LFO on 12/03/2024 - 11:14

        Depends on how much "money" they get as carbon credits (or whatever it is).

        An expensive vehicle will always command more profit: extra super-insurance, pre-paid premium services, super tinted windows, extra upholstery protection, magic interior carpets … etc etc etc.
        Someone buying a, brand new, <$20,000 vehicle will NOT fall into that ~extras~ trap.

        Feels like a trap to get paid a rebate for a less polluting car.

        Does it?
        Don't young and healthy people pay LESS for health insurance?
        Similarly a "healthy" vehicle gets a rebate.

        • mskeggs on 12/03/2024 - 11:16
          +1

          Health insurance is forbidden by law from charging lower rates to young people/healthy people.
          But life insurance charges lower rates based on risk, so I don't see why the market wouldn't also reflect emissions costs/subsidies.

          • BobLim on 12/03/2024 - 18:23

            @mskeggs: My least-favourite insurance - nothing to prevent adverse selection opportunists, and then the peope who have no need for a policy get forced into taking one out anyway to lower the overall risk pool and line the pockets of the insurers.

            • mskeggs on 12/03/2024 - 21:12
              +1

              @BobLim: Agreed, if we are going to have a national risk pool, it should be a government operation like the NHS or Canada's health system.

          • LFO on 14/03/2024 - 12:51
            +1

            @mskeggs: Correct!

            I meant to write life insurance … but I didn't :(

    • ColtNoir on 12/03/2024 - 13:26
      +1

      Until we have fuel efficiency standards, we’ll be the dumping ground for car manufacturers. Even the USA has standards and it hasn't killed their love of ‘trucks’.
      It’s not going to be a silver bullet but any progress would be a start.

      • rickdwp on 14/03/2024 - 13:37

        Small point of clarification, 'Trucks' in the USA are a separate category and don't need to meet the normal emissions & safety regulations that 'cars' do

  • Dollar General on 11/03/2024 - 11:23
    +6

    Never trust a politician, but also never trust car companies. These are the same people that got caught (didn’t voluntarily confess) cheating emissions data. Now they want us to take them seriously

  • Drakesy on 11/03/2024 - 11:27
    +17

    Lets be honest Scomo and the libs created the problem when they allowed tradies to instantly depreciate commerical utes/vehicles.

    Bit of a joke really. We could be covered in EV's, yet we're playing catchup as Hiluxes, Rams and Rangers spew out of every parking bay.

      • Drakesy on 11/03/2024 - 13:17
        +3

        The LNP instant tax write off was one of their better policies but people who lack basic economic knowledge will hate on it because (they) did not directly benefit from it

        Ooh tell me more how it was a good policy?!

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 11/03/2024 - 14:22
          -6

          Tell me how it was a bad policy? There are a lot of ALP die hards like yourself on this platform so you wont get any admit the current ALP only pump up migration? And the LNP had some good ideas (and bad ideas) but they stuffed the covid management

          The current government also has some good ideas but their primary reponse to a struggling economy is migration this just makes our core problems worse in the long term for short term numbers (anything to stay in power i guess)

          Learn to be a bit balanced it's better for the country if people look at both sides of the glass - the last government was not great but Albo so far is not better id probably say they are worse

          • Drakesy on 11/03/2024 - 14:51
            +6

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            Tell me how it was a bad policy?

            I'm not sure you know how justifying your own claim works, responding to a question with a question isn't a great way to go about debating people.

              • Drakesy on 12/03/2024 - 13:44
                +2

                @Trying2SaveABuck:

                im also sorry you're just clueless in general - have a good day

                How good is irony!

              • Zondor on 12/03/2024 - 18:29
                +2

                @Trying2SaveABuck: Ahh yes all that to "Encourage mentality" sounds like GREAT policy.

          • borrisz0r on 12/03/2024 - 15:24
            +4

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Albo is worse than the Morrison government, and talking about seeing things in a balanced manner.

            Are you high or really that ignorant?

            Agreed with drakesey here, still seeing no factual information on your claims, just gloss…

            Pretty standard for the previous government, so quite fitting really.

      • Baysew on 11/03/2024 - 16:35
        +4

        Lets be honest Scomo and the libs created the problem

        Actually it was the Gillard government that created the scheme for Tax Year 2011/2012. It was subsequently increased to $6500. It also allowed the first $5000 of the purchase price of a vehicle to be instantly written off. (The rest depreciated in the normal manner)

        The LNP instant tax write off was one of their better policies but people who lack basic economic knowledge will hate on it because (they) did not directly benefit from it

        Upon the election of the LNP, they did hate on it, and it was reduced back to $1000.

        These came at a significant cost to the budget, to the point where the government is borrowing money to pay for these commitments.

        However, in the LNP 2016 budget, it was increased to $20,000.

        It means innovation. It means jobs. It means more money to invest and grow your business

        So it could mean that you are both right and wrong at the same time.

  • slknv on 11/03/2024 - 11:50
    +20

    Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) is an industry lobby group with majority membership of inefficient ICE producing manufacturers (especially now tesla & polestar left them)

    FCAI are lobbying for the benefit of their member manufacturers, not the public.

    So of course they're going to pull random numbers out of thin air to scare the public and pressure the government to bend to their will. Win win for them - if the emission standards go through, they get to jack the prices sky high and increase their margins, as they've already primed everyone to believe it's the government's fault. Let's not even start on toyota's constant desperate moves to stave off their demise by undermining every single attempt to move towards EVs.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 11/03/2024 - 12:48
      +2

      This is a fair and correct point i agree

  • payless69 on 11/03/2024 - 12:10
    +10

    Australia needs a nuclear power station and a Cybertruck plant!

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 11/03/2024 - 12:47
      +3

      100% agree

      • Euphemistic on 11/03/2024 - 20:27
        +2

        Disagree. But we need to consider nuclear properly. At this point we MIGHT need nuclear, but only if it makes economic sense.

        We could do with an EV factory, but the cybertruck is too big for aussie needs. We'd be better served by a factory capable of making EVs similar sized to what we drive (or smaller). Cybertruck might be an EV, but its not very energy efficient in terms of carting around excess mass that isnt really needed the majority of the time. It's just too big for our carparks and lane widths most of the time.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 11/03/2024 - 21:05
          -5

          Nuclear is a must idiots in charge right now are just delaying the inevitable

          • Euphemistic on 11/03/2024 - 21:40
            +2

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Why is it a must? Its horrendously expensive and renewable energy solutions are very cost effective. Yes, its carbon free but it has dangerous waste that will need to be dealt with.

            I dont disagree that it could be part of our energy mix, but doesnt seem to be a good investment at this point.

          • Hardlyworkin on 11/03/2024 - 21:49
            -1

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Ok boomer

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 11/03/2024 - 22:09
              -4

              @Hardlyworkin: Boomers are anti Nuclear lmao they are scares it will kill us all, like 5G and AI

              Keep up the sky news ya muppet

          • Ashless on 12/03/2024 - 14:37

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Where do you live? (as i hear Dutton is looking for sites to build his nuclear power stations)

          • Zondor on 12/03/2024 - 18:32
            +1

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Nuke takes 10 years to build and we have no infrastructure to even process the resources it needs, only mine it. That's also AFTER you get the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 overturned. Modular reactors like the libs claim are only still in development and are barely proven.

            Ship has sailed long ago.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 12/03/2024 - 18:47
              +1

              @Zondor: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi…

              Now for the facts main recators take 6-8 years

              Portable ones like they have in France take 3-6 years

              There is NO alternative bar Coal there is no other reliable source of power this is an undisputed fact

              The idea of a government is to plan for a nation future not doom it to ideals proven to not work - the Albo and the ALP need to go if they can't embrace the future

              • SpainKing on 13/03/2024 - 13:13

                @Trying2SaveABuck:

                There is NO alternative bar Coal there is no other reliable source of power this is an undisputed fact

                Are the sun, wind and water all going to stop shining/blowing/flowing at once?

                The idea of a government is to plan for a nation future not doom it to ideals proven to not work

                Generating a bunch of toxic waste that will be incorrectly disposed of seems detrimental to Australians and their futures when there're cost effective, safe, proven technologies already available we could choose to invest in. To choose to go nuclear seems as shortsighted as switching to hydrogen gas as our main power source or keeping the old copper wiring for our NBN

                the Albo and the ALP need to go if they can't embrace the future

                I think renewable energy is the future, why can't you embrace that but you can embrace nuclear?

              • Zondor on 19/03/2024 - 13:42

                @Trying2SaveABuck: As per your link "It takes around 6 to 8 years to build a nuclear reactor. That’s the average construction time globally."

                We have no experience, nor infrastructure, nor have we done this before. There is no way we will be even close to average.
                Lets be real, dutton has no intention of actually putting in nuke, it's a scapegoat so he can say he's doing something about emissions.

        • ColtNoir on 12/03/2024 - 09:17
          +8

          It’s too late for nuclear, it’d take 20 years before they could even turn it on. That’s assuming we change the legislation to stop nuclear being illegal. It’s also one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity. If we did it, we’d all complain at the prices.

          • rickdwp on 14/03/2024 - 13:49

            @ColtNoir: Pretty much this right here, nuclear power was a great option but 50+ years of anti nuclear rhetoric has pretty well set it so far behind it will likely never work out economically anymore

          • bigticket on 15/03/2024 - 14:28
            +1

            @ColtNoir: Real world data says otherwise. France has much cheaper electricity prices by going nuclear than Germany who have gone the renewable path with wind and solar.

            That’s assuming we change the legislation to stop nuclear being illegal.

            Wow. You consider that an obstacle? Legislation is changed every single day. There is no problem legislating for new taxes or increasing taxes, is there?

            • Baysew on 15/03/2024 - 21:23
              +1

              @bigticket: The reason France has cheaper prices is the bouclier tarifaire - price cap.

              that without this cap, French prices would be equivalent to those in the United Kingdom, which are currently the highest in Europe.

              In September 2023, French people (non business rates) paid on average 27.2 cents per kWh, compared to 46.5 in the UK, 37.9 in Germany and 34.9 in the Netherlands. Italy and Spain rank lower at 23.9 and 19.4 respectively.

              The federal and every state and territory in Australia is held by Labor. The only exception is Tasmania which is already 100% renewable energy. The official stance emphasizes renewable energy. It would seem that much more than a single day would be needed overcome this obstacle.

              • bigticket on 16/03/2024 - 18:32

                @Baysew: After the initial outlay, the nuclear energy cost is considerably lower than renewables. This cap is there to stop energy producers gouging the public. Obviously they are still profiting with the cap.

                The article even states:

                estimates that without this cap, French prices would be equivalent to those in the United Kingdom, which are currently the highest in Europe.

                With wording like estimates you gotta take it with a grain of salt and say, thank you for your opinion.

                • Baysew on 16/03/2024 - 21:02

                  @bigticket: The cap is paid with French tax payer's money to subsidise the cost of electricity.

            • ColtNoir on 16/03/2024 - 08:03

              @bigticket: France already has reactors and a supply chain going and has so for years. We’d need to build and setup everything, it's simply not going to come in time. This is where the cost vs benefit is not going to work for us.

              Yes, legislation is an issue. Pollies won't touch CGT concessions because they're scared of being given the boot. Good luck making nuclear legal then add the costs.

              • bigticket on 16/03/2024 - 18:46

                @ColtNoir: The general public have been indoctrinated for decades with the false premise that nuclear is bad.
                Its obviously false. France had hundreds of reactors.This false paradigm needs to change and politicians are just the lackeys of the globalists. The point is its not hard to change the actual legislation, its having the numbers and support to do so.

                We’d need to build and setup everything, it's simply not going to come in time.

                Yes, the oldest sales technique. Time is of the essence.

  • bobbified on 11/03/2024 - 13:12
    +11

    the government wants to tax larger cars more [ones that are bad for the environment], potentially to subsides cars that have better emissions standards.

    This is my problem with the government. Whatever tax they introduce for whatever purpose they say it is will likely just disappear into the big black hole called 'consolidated revenue'. Just like that bullshit Luxury Car Tax that's still floating around after all these years (after the purpose of it is no longer relevant!). A car priced at $77K isn't exactly "luxury" when the basic small car like a corolla can easily be over $40K. They're evening tightening the criteria next year so that it generates more money.

    These bloody taxes are always seem to be called for by people who think that it'll never affect them. Like people who think they'll never need to own a larger vehicle.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 11/03/2024 - 14:26

      Someone down voted you but this is very true - here is an upvote

    • ste616 on 11/03/2024 - 15:06

      It might be better to think of this more of a tariff than a tax, but semantics aside, governments use this kind of tactic to discourage or encourage things. They put a tariff on tobacco not only to help pay for the health care required for people who smoke, but to discourage smoking. In that case the fewer people who smoke, the less revenue comes in, which makes it less effective in paying for health care. But it does have the intended effect of reducing the number of smokers. Here, the government is trying to encourage people to choose more fuel efficient cars, thus encouraging manufacturers to produce or import more fuel efficient cars. The revenue may or may not be of help somewhere, but that may be besides the point.

      In your luxury car example, there's a possibility that if it was raised then cars that are priced just below the threshold might just have a price increase to keep it just below the new threshold. You might say then that the LCT is encouraging manufacturers to keep the prices down where possible. But this is just speculation of course.

      • bobbified on 11/03/2024 - 15:12

        You do realise that one doesn't always need to use 'penalties' to try and encourage a change in behaviour.
        It's also possible to give incentives, like cheaper rego or something to encourage buyers to a particular sector. Not everything has to be extra tax.

        • ste616 on 11/03/2024 - 15:35
          +1

          Yes, absolutely, and I do realise this. And of course I'd much prefer an incentive that gave me something I didn't have before, and I dare say most people would. However, why should the government limit itself to only one way of changing behaviour?

          Also, just to get back to the original point of this whole discussion, you (as a buyer of a new vehicle) will only have to pay this tax if the fuel efficiency of your new vehicle doesn't meet the standard set by the government. If this policy has the end effect of encouraging the manufacturers to improve the fuel efficiency of all the vehicles they sell to the point that none of them attract the tax, then isn't it a net win for all consumers? WIthout costing the government, and thus taxpayers anything? I realise it may not happen that way, but isn't that a goal worth trying for?

          • bobbified on 12/03/2024 - 00:34

            @ste616:

            However, why should the government limit itself to only one way of changing behaviour?

            Because the government doesn't exactly have a reputation for doing things that only benefits the community without benefiting themselves in some way or form. Any decent incentives tend to be relatively small and very short-lived. Any new taxes introduced are often much higher and end up being permanent.

            will only have to pay this tax if the fuel efficiency of your new vehicle doesn't meet the standard set by the government.

            And this is the problem right here. The standard is set by the government themselves so they have control over how much revenue they can receive from this. For the luxury car tax right now, the definition of a fuel efficient car is one that drinks less than 7L/100km. Now that cars are getting more efficient (meaning less revenue), from 1 July 2025, they change that definition to cars that drink less than 3.5L/100km. Therefore more cars will start getting taxed from the lower threshold generating more revenue. The estimate for this change is an additional $155 million each year in tax revenue.

            This kind of reminds me of the speed cameras too. When they're not catching enough cars over the limit, they'll just lower that limit in the name of "safety".

            Anywhere else, this would be called a 'conflict of interest'. But for some reason, that doesn't seem to apply here.

            • bobbified on 12/03/2024 - 17:20

              @bobbified: I should also say that governments at all levels are already so used to using motorists as a huge cash cow.

  • Hardlyworkin on 11/03/2024 - 16:40

    You would think that the size of families in Australia has gotten far bigger in the past 10 years based on popular vehicles.

    So many cheap new townhouses being built with tiny single garages, 100k twin cab parked on the road.

    If I channel my inner 10 year old a little more, I'll buy an oversize twin cab so I can be like ads on tv on the weekends. Bring on the tax.

  • SydStrand on 11/03/2024 - 20:10
    +1

    Hiluxes and Rangers can (and are) used as work vehicles, so whatever, I'm okay if they're exempt, so long as owners can plausibly explain their need to transport things other than jetskis and surfboards. I draw the line at Rams. No one buys a $150k+ truck to haul gravel in the bed. I've literally never seen one at a site or have a speck of dust. And before someone says 'b-but I need it for the towing capacity,' stop pretending that no one pulled caravans or horse floats until about 5 years ago when Ram decided to clog our streets.

    • BartholemewH on 12/03/2024 - 10:06
      +1

      We have two Ram 2500's at work and they are definitely used on site. One is a 2021 and is well and truly due for a trade in. Before you write off towing capacity entirely, they can tow more than double the weight of a modified 79 series. Our site offices and crib rooms are too heavy for a 79 and our tippers already have dog trailers.

      • SydStrand on 12/03/2024 - 20:55
        -2

        Because you just couldn't do those jobs until Rams came along. The entire Aussie construction industry must have been completely paralysed until these marvelous inventions. Just admit you wanted a big F-off truck and the tax breaks finally allowed you to do it.

        • EitherWayUp on 12/03/2024 - 23:44
          +2

          Why you mad? Get back in your Getz and let him use his ram to move gravel.

        • rickdwp on 14/03/2024 - 13:56

          My guy, as a Tesla driving, ebike riding hippy. RAM 2500s and other FULL size diesel trucks, like the F250/350 have always had a place in RURAL Australia. They've always been here, imported and converted from the likes of Performax, you just never saw them because they were always 200k+ and only companies that actually needed them bought them (like old mate above) and funnily enough didn't spend their weekends driving around the burbs

          It's the 'Yank tank' 1500s with there stupid V8 Petrol engine driving by (profanity) in citys for no reason (and cant park for shit) that are the issue.

  • BobLim on 11/03/2024 - 20:15
    +5

    If the aim is to reduce emissions, I support a tax which appropriarely considers that - a new car buyer going from a Yaris into a Kia EV9 isn't a benefit to society IMO.

    The emissions should be calculated on manufacturing, delivery, operation (over the "reasonably durable" period), and disposal at end of life.

    This way, a better-built, lighter, more efficient vehicle which is easier to recycle is incentivised, rather that just handing out cash to the vehicles with lowest tailpipe emissions as of the date of import approval.

    • Euphemistic on 11/03/2024 - 20:32

      At this point in time its more about emissions. Reducing emisions by going to an EV is real. At some point itll likely move towards penalites for energy efficiency to keep vehicle sizes down.

      • BobLim on 11/03/2024 - 21:41
        +2

        I'm yet to hear a good reason for that focus, unfortunately. The best course of action IMO is to keep current vehicles in service as long as possible (preferably with the least efficient and less safe ones being used less - hello road user charges). Perhaps EV/LPG/ethanol etc conversions of existing fleet should be looked at?

        Major infrastructure projects are starting to be required to trace the embodied emissions of every piece of material they use, as well as the transport and other associated activities. It should be very easy for a carmaker to do the same, given the scale of hte activities involved, and then we can genuinely claim to have a policy which reduces emissions.

        Another option could be to charge the user a particular per-km rate for the vehicle they choose (rather than all upfront based on some nominal duty cycle which is presumably the basis of the proposal), which would include various externality costs (e.g. poor pedestrian safety, high embodied emissions in manufacture, high mass damaging roads, tall and wide vehicles taking more space generally and reducing visibility). The less damaging your vehicle choice is, the lower your running costs would be. This would also replace fuel excise.

        To me, anyone who buys a new car simply to "save on fuel" is being irrational or disingenuous.

  • altomic on 11/03/2024 - 22:42
    +5

    a colleague at work (white collar company) recently bought a dual cab ranger.
    they complained about how much it costs to run/fuel costs.
    also that it barely fits in their garage.

    this person is single, no kids (kids are grown up), no reason to have such a large vehicle - i.e. doesn't tow anything, nor even use the tray.

    it's just for driving to and from the station, shopping, and general driving.

    it seems ludicrous to have such a large vehicle with out having any legitimate reason for having one.

    • BobLim on 11/03/2024 - 23:26

      If the $43k+ price on the Ranger wasn't enough to make them look at other options, would another couple of thousand on top really make any difference though?

      My first answer to a question from my peers of "what car should I buy?" is a lightly-used Corolla / i30, then we can discuss specific circumstances and changes from there.

    • TheOtherLeft on 12/03/2024 - 08:33
      -1

      Your colleague was thinking with his little di*k and over compensating. I'm sure everyone thinks so too.

      I have a dual cab triton, but live on a hobby farm. I can't see a corolla or Tesla carrying my fencing supplies or a trailer full of sheep.

  • gyrex on 12/03/2024 - 08:05

    Great discussion starter! Just letting you know it's *subsidise

  • billdsl on 12/03/2024 - 09:28
    +5

    I dont get the epic hate for utes on social media and apparently in this post. Its just a ute, i have one, its not huge, in fact I cant even comfortably fit my 3 kids in the back seat any more if we want to travel

    Do you all just live in the inner city, have no or one kid and not venture out and see the country, do you not have a yard that requires landscaping, trips to the dump or collecting larger things from bunnings?

    I personally sit in the top tax bracket and pay more tax than any employee should ever have to pay, so I take massive offence that they are wanting to throw more taxes at us just so we can live a normal life with a big family and not just float around in the city

    Tell me why as heavily taxed parent with 3 kids I should be penalised even more for having a vehicle that allows me to transport kids, motorbikes, trailers and actually get out and live life?

    • belongsinforums on 12/03/2024 - 18:24

      Usually it's the picture of the f150 parked across four spots that people rag on

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join