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

    • SydStrand on 12/03/2024 - 20:59
      +4

      What's with this attitude that outdoor activities just aren't possible without buying a big ute, when people have been caravaning for decades. Those transporting duties you mention can easily be achieved with a trailer; Bunnings actually loans them out for free. I've done plenty of landscaping and home renos, including moving cubic metres of hard waste with a hatchback.

      • Tr0jan on 13/03/2024 - 09:56
        +1

        It's not that activities aren't possible without one, it's just that often, it's a lot easier with one. I have a ute. I pay over $1000 in registration fees each year for the privilege, nearly double what a 4 cylinder sedan costs. I use the ute for regular camping trips, 4WDing, remote beach access and lugging around large items. I couldn't use a van or trailer for all of this.

        I also have access to my wife's Kia Rio which is what we use for most suburban journeys. Costs less to run, easier to park, etc. But I still want to have the ute for the non-suburban trips and weekends away, I already pay more tax on it, and don't agree that when it comes time to replace it in a few years, I should pay even more tax again just because it's a ute.

      • ConsumerAffairs on 13/03/2024 - 22:30

        They're a vehicle built for multiple purposes, they might not be the best vehicle for a single task but they're a great vehicle at most tasks that's required of them and that's why they've become as popular as they have. Why own, run and maintain the costs of three different vehicles each fit for a singular task? It'd be silly.

    • EitherWayUp on 12/03/2024 - 23:47
      +2

      Because it’s OzBargain and everyone here drives a Camry.

    • ConsumerAffairs on 13/03/2024 - 22:28
      +2

      I don't get the arguments either, I don't believe these people can quite comprehend that these are multi-purpose vehicles hence the name 'utility'.
      If it doesn't have a metre of dirt or boxes full of tools in the back at all times, you can't possibly need one. It's so unbelievably narrow minded to think like this.

      Like you, I use mine for a very similar purpose to you. I need all five seats to transport my family, I drive A LOT of rural roads, drive on unsealed roads regularly, I regularly tow over two tonnes, I regularly carry heavy large loads in the tray or on the roof racks where I also needed a high weight capacity but yet, these people think that you have to be doing ALL of those things simultaneously at all times to warrant ever having one of these utility vehicles in your possession.
      These people's logic and reasoning of other people's use cases is so unbelievably flawed.

  • The Hawk on 12/03/2024 - 09:55

    I've read a few of these articles and was a little confused with the language. Is this designed to be a one off cost/credit on the purchase of new vehicles or an annual cost on older and/or less efficient vehicles?

    Eg, one comment:

    "Even using the government’s assumptions of a 1.5 per cent efficiency improvement a year, “the Ford Ranger will still be 90 grams over the limit, and face a tax of $9000 per year”, Mr Canavan added." - https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/on-the-road/pric…

    So which is it, annual fee or just the purchase.

    • cocomelon on 12/03/2024 - 10:13

      my understanding the impact is on the new purchase.
      you buy above luxury threshold and Co2, you would expect to pay CTP+luxury tax+Co2 Emission tax.
      if you sold the car, i dont think you would pay Lux Tax even thou it is above the threshold? so same as Co2 tax.

      • The Hawk on 12/03/2024 - 10:49

        Which would make sense at the quoted rates otherwise average people simply couldn't afford to drive anymore… not that it's getting any cheaper anyway.

      • klaw81 on 16/03/2024 - 16:58

        The impact is only on the sales of new vehicles in 2025 and beyond, and it's up to the manufacturer to figure out how they're going to hit their average fleet emissions target.

        It could be additional cost on some high emissions vehicles, or it could be discounts on low emissions vehicles, or it could be not offering older, low-efficiency engines in their vehicles that will ruin their average, or it could be adding new vehicles to their fleet that are zero emissions to bring their average down. They could choose to make no changes at all, pay the penalties, and end up with a smaller profit on each vehicle. Or it could be a combination of any or all of the above.

        Matt Canavan's comments are absolutely stupid, and can safely be ignored as fear-mongering propoganda.

    • klaw81 on 16/03/2024 - 17:04

      Under the new scheme, your next ute would probably end up costing a little more, and your next hatchback would probably cost a little less.

      It will be up to buyers to decide if they are willing to pay extra to continue driving (generally) inefficient dual-cab utes, or buy something more efficient.

  • lew380 on 12/03/2024 - 10:08
    +1

    This thread is all the brokies taking the bus wishing they had a cool SUV or Ute. I get it, I've been there. But this taxation thing is just the government trying to take as much of our money as possible and do absolutely f all with it. If your in favour of more taxation, your not very aware.

    • keejoonc on 12/03/2024 - 10:13
      +4

      Utes are work vehicles. They are not cool…

      • lew380 on 12/03/2024 - 10:23
        -2

        They are for work and play, and already expensive. They are cool, jealousy is not a great virtue, you can have a much better weekend with a ute. Be happy that some people do more adventurous things, or at least intend to. The crux of this tax is a step towards a China style social credit score, using CO2 emissions to trick dumb people into voting away their rights and freedoms. I don't have much hope for the west, we truly are a retarded generation, maybe a social credit score would just speed up our demise.

        • gromit on 12/03/2024 - 14:03
          +3

          Never understood the thinking of them being cool. Grew up on a farm with nothing but SUV's or utes. I could not think of anything worse or less cool than having one. fully understand they have legitimate business and leisure value though and seems reasonable to pay for the extra emissions to get that value.

      • ConsumerAffairs on 13/03/2024 - 22:32

        Utes are utility vehicles.

    • klaw81 on 16/03/2024 - 17:05

      Mostly, this thread is full of people who don't understand how the scheme works.

      They do this by claiming the government is creating a new tax (it's not) and that they're going to make a ton of extra money from it (they won't get any money from it at all).

  • keejoonc on 12/03/2024 - 10:12
    +8

    What's even worse is that we now have to contend with idiots driving around in American pick up trucks like Dodge Ram. It seems to be the new trend with bogans these days.

    • lew380 on 12/03/2024 - 11:23
      -8

      These "idiots" have far more money than you and have the luxury to drive around in whatever car they want and have beaten the 9 to 5 slavery. Yea righto….

      • keejoonc on 12/03/2024 - 12:47
        +1

        Oh so you now know how much money I have do you? Must be nice thinking you know everything :)

        • lew380 on 12/03/2024 - 13:32
          -3

          I have a ute myself, nothing crazy but I know "idiots" who drive American style rams and f450. They can buy them every 6 months cash. 1 guy upgrades every few months, he just enjoys doing them up then getting something else. You sound jealous and bitter, I don't resent anyone spending shit tons of money on toys and hobbies, it's their life, whether you think everyone flush is a "bogan" or not. I'm not the one throwing around derogative slurs at wealthy people.

          • keejoonc on 12/03/2024 - 13:46
            +2

            @lew380: You are the one labelling everyone who hates people driving around in pointless massive tanks that are too big to fit on our roads as simply being "jealous" and you assume anyone who doesn't own these stupid tanks are not wealthy? Ok, that makes sense.

            • lew380 on 12/03/2024 - 13:53
              -2

              @keejoonc: "pointless massive tanks" ever towed something? Far from pointless. The roads are not too small, they are designed for trucks. Again, your railing against people who you have never met. You can be just as bitter and jealous of soy milk latte sipping tesla drivers, with toxic batteries all financed, but again, who cares. People can drive EV's, F450's or delicas, good for them if they want to throw their money at it.

              • keejoonc on 12/03/2024 - 14:20
                +4

                @lew380: Except trucks don't go to shopping centres and other places where car parks are not designed for such big cars so your point is moot.
                You keep saying "jealous" but I don't understand where you get that idea? I'm certainly not jealous about people who drive utes or any car for that matter. Maybe it's coming from yourself?

      • Drakesy on 12/03/2024 - 13:03

        Lol. Try far more financed debt.

          • Drakesy on 12/03/2024 - 13:50

            @Dealmon: If the Reddit posts are anything to go by Raptors are one of the most heavily financed vehicles in Australia.

            • lew380 on 12/03/2024 - 13:56
              -1

              @Drakesy: What's wrong with financing a car? If they can't afford it they can sell it and take the L. Do you get mad at every Mercedes Benz driving around? People pay 30k extra for a badge and heated seats, at least a raptor has functionality on an adventure off road, which is most of Australia!

              • Drakesy on 12/03/2024 - 14:54

                @lew380: For you and me it's one of the most financially burdening moves you can make. Literally stupidest decision ever.

                For business people it's just another thing they can write off against tax.

                • lew380 on 12/03/2024 - 15:43

                  @Drakesy: Depends on how you mean financing. Using savings invested or novated leases are the only ways I would finance a car, if your talking about a straight up loan then that's just madness, anyone doing that is just destined for poverty anyhow.

      • gromit on 12/03/2024 - 13:53
        +1

        Then they will have no issue paying far more for their choice in vehicle.

        • lew380 on 12/03/2024 - 14:04
          -1

          Why should anyone pay more? EV vehicles need a lot of our coal processed in China to produce, then in 10 years that battery needs to be recycled, using a shit load of dirty coal energy for a recycling process that we havent even invented yet. The people pushing this don't care about the environment.

          • gromit on 12/03/2024 - 14:06

            @lew380: I don't think anyone should pay more, everyone that doesn't need an inefficient vehicle shouldn't be getting one and those that legitimately need it should be excused. Everyone else should be user pays and NO I don't believe EV's should be treated special either, many of those are also terrible for the environment in their manufacturing processes.

            • lew380 on 12/03/2024 - 14:16
              +1

              @gromit: EV's can keep pollution away from cities and other niche uses, I see the benifit but its not some magical solution so we can go back to consuming and polluting our land and seas as usual. I see this tax as using the ignorant city dwellers to demonise utes/SUV's (with some merit) and get a social credit system rolling. It isn't working for China, I don't think it will solve all our problems here

              • gromit on 12/03/2024 - 14:20

                @lew380: I think the system as proposed is probably going to be a complete failure and agree they need to do more holistic planning to improve things overall, Utes and SUV's have legitimate benefits, mum driving kids to school isn't one of them, neither is tradie wanting to show off, these are categories I think they should pay for if they want to continue to buy them. The money collected should be used maybe to improve the grid, roads or recycling etc, I don't think we really need to use that money to provide incentives to other vehicles.

                • lew380 on 12/03/2024 - 14:48
                  -1

                  @gromit: Are soccer mums bringing down the environment? Should they be taxed because they like the SUV and go on camping trips once or twice a year? I don't know the maths but I would say the camping holiday + SUV produces less emissions than a yearly euro plane flight + EV. Governments need to keep doing what they do best, build roads, schools and hospitals, keep the peace and then stop solving world problems that they don't understand.

  • turbochris on 12/03/2024 - 10:34
    +4

    FCAI is a lobby group representing ICE car manufacturers.

    The cherry picked figures are misleading. The most important sentence in this post is:

    "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"

    FCAI has been widely panned for their misleading take on this issue.

    "A number of executives from top car companies part of the FCAI – which claims to represent new-car manufacturers – have broken ranks and expressed their support for the government's proposed emissions targets."

    https://www.drive.com.au/news/fcai-accused-of-misleading-on-…

    "An Australian consumer would reasonably conclude that the FCAI has knowledge and authority in claiming that Tesla vehicles will be discounted under NVES as claimed. Yet these figures are falsehoods, produced without Tesla’s knowledge or approval."

    Tesla has also referred the FCAI to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) on suspicion of being involved in price implementation strategies between competitive car companies.

    https://www.drive.com.au/news/tesla-quits-fcai-over-emission…

    Polestar accuses the FCAI of "cherry-[picking]" figures to "progress the position of only some members".

    https://www.drive.com.au/news/polestar-quits-fcai/

    The Grattan Institute submission on the proposed NVES model estimated the policy would on average increase prices by about 1%, but that consumers would quickly be financially better off due to significant savings on fuel and maintenance costs.

  • apple2016 on 12/03/2024 - 10:36
    +1

    If the tax was on real world figures, Toyota would be the worst hit….

    • Poor Ass on 12/03/2024 - 11:02

      oh what a feeling

  • xlimit on 12/03/2024 - 11:40
    +2

    Tax. A SUV reduces the visibility of everyone else behind them. I can't pre-empt a change in situation in front of that SUV. Often I'm just staring at their tail light ready to brake when it lights up, whereas with sedans etc, I can see a sudden stop 2 cars in front and start to act before the car in front of me starts braking.

  • trapper on 12/03/2024 - 12:22
    +4

    Instead of scapegoating car owners for our carbon footprint, the government should prioritise addressing the fact that our electricity grid relies primarily on coal as its fuel source.

    • Drakesy on 12/03/2024 - 14:56
      +1

      30% of our energy is coming from renewables, i reckon that's a fairly decent effort given the support the state governments have given solar panel installs.

    • klaw81 on 16/03/2024 - 17:07

      They're doing that too. Most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.

  • jk23423432 on 12/03/2024 - 12:35
    +4

    how about a tax for noisy cars too? noise pollution lowers wellbeing.

    • belongsinforums on 12/03/2024 - 18:22
      +3

      I'd support a ban on loud bikes especially. Makes my mower sound like a kitten

    • nothommus on 13/03/2024 - 07:03

      Man i had a guy in a old mazda 3 pull out next to me the other day and his car sounded like a jet engine - I reckon he thought it sounded sick, but im pretty sure everyone who turned their heads was thinking the same thing and it wasnt "How cool is he?".

      Unsurprisingly, it was a red p plater - Not sure why you would want to attract more police attention on your P's but anyway.

      I have a neighbor as well who thinks his ute sounds so good with its upgraded exhaust - Spoiler, it really doesnt.

  • squaredonut on 12/03/2024 - 12:47

    Not sure, does it help much? the big SUV ute's end up being bought as a business asset, bit more expensive, still becomes some sort of business deduction. Then all the expensive bulky SUV's like BMW's etc are probably all purchased as novated leases as well.

  • mistermarky on 12/03/2024 - 13:12
    +3

    Absolute joke. Why would anyone agree to taxing other people more and more. We're all getting screwed over but there are people who are as bad as the government and just love seeing people suffer.

    • Willy Beamish on 16/03/2024 - 18:05

      Lol what a dumb take, across the board you seem to be low IQ.

      People buying multi thousand dollar premium vehicles that don't need them getting taxed a little extra for the privilege, just don't buy a vehicle you don't need then. duh.

  • nikey2k27 on 12/03/2024 - 13:18

    in year 2000s hight selling car was holden now it The Ford Ranger, the top-selling car in 2023 we really have question why?

  • gromit on 12/03/2024 - 13:45

    No problems at all with them slugging the these vehicle purchases as long as they make reasonable concessions for businesses that have legitimate reasons (and no being a tradie that carries his toolbox to a site is NOT a legitimate reason for F150 or Dodge RAM).

    I do have issues with the concessions to the likes of Tesla, this is unnecessary and is just funding overseas companies, these are luxury range vehicles, you don't need to give buyers any incentives. Use the money to fund safer roads or sustainable upgrades to the grid rather than funding foreign large corporates that do everything in their power to avoid paying their share already.

  • UltimateAI on 12/03/2024 - 13:49
    +1

    Government’s standard playbook is to Tax More and then act surprised when the Inflation figures come out.
    Agree something needs to be done as 90% of these large vehicles are not used for legit work purposes.
    Several in my street all purchased by small business owners to maximise tax deductions. (Most of those schemes are now closed), but a new one is bound to pop-up and be rorted.
    Taxing doesn’t work as it’s just claimed back.

  • Gekov on 12/03/2024 - 13:50
    -7

    POLL RESULT:
    "260 Yes Tax them more"
    52 No don't tax them more
    HMMM …260 high taxing woke socialists here!

    … making absolutely no difference to weather or climate!

    The Marxist woke fraternity on OzB strikes again.

    Whenever I hear ‘progressive’, I think ‘fascist’.
    That's coz all forms of ‘progressive’ think they know what's best for everyone else & seek to impose it.
    That descends into fascism in no time at all.

    • Drakesy on 12/03/2024 - 13:51

      RUOK?

    • UltimateAI on 12/03/2024 - 13:53
      +3

      Then wonder why inflation/interest rates are higher.
      Most are purchased/operated by small business owners/contractors who will just offset with another claim.
      The tax system is broken, new taxes are not the answer, it just punishes the working class.

      • klaw81 on 16/03/2024 - 17:09

        You'll be happy to learn that this is not a new tax, and that you have clearly demonstrated that you have no idea how it works.

        • UltimateAI on 16/03/2024 - 18:57

          TAX: A compulsory contribution to state or federal revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

          • klaw81 on 16/03/2024 - 23:15

            @UltimateAI: This scheme does not generate revenue for the government. It is a cap and trade scheme, and is revenue neutral - thus not a tax.

            Again you have demonstrated that you have no idea what the policy does, or how it works

  • Salternative on 12/03/2024 - 14:38
    +6

    A better way to do this is to stop the rort of self employed people claiming deductions on cars through asset writeoff, 100% work related expenses ,depreciation , interest of finance etc. Why does a tradie need to be subsidised for his ford ranger costing 6 figures ?
    For his work you say ? oh ok, how about providing tax subsidies on vans then, which are after all way more practical , or if you really need a tray bed for whatever reason, on LCV like the Hino , which are meant for work . Once they have to reach into their pockets to pay for their toys instead of the taxpayer , sales will drop off a cliff and suddenly they will be able to manage just fine with smaller cars.
    Its not only tradies, What does for example an accounting or childcare business need $100k utes for their work ? Or for that matter why does a developer need a $300k merc to do his work and why can he deduct it fully from his business . By all means drive whatever you want, but limit the subsidies to a certain amount.
    80% of the Raptors , and Rams, or GLS, C 63 etc are brought by business owners who write everything off their gross income , plus inflate the costs ,so essentially being subsidised by you and me, the tax payer . Only a small portion who dont know any better buy it using their own funds .

      • Salternative on 12/03/2024 - 21:25
        +1

        Nope , cant imagine what led you to think of that

  • corvusman on 12/03/2024 - 15:11

    I needed a 7-seater so I can fit my large family. Went with used Toyota Kluger because this was the car I can afford.

    Now Govt wants me to pay extra ~5k a year just because I can’t afford to buy a Model X?

    I don’t get it.

    • squaredonut on 12/03/2024 - 15:22
      +1

      Yeah, this is where it doesn't make sense. I need a 7 seater as well, I went agains a Kluger as it's impossible for third row seating with a mixture of second row baby seats. But yeah the market for people moves are so dead, I also can't afford a carnival. kind of wish they would import more of the smaller 7 seater people movers ive seen in japan.

    • BobLim on 12/03/2024 - 19:58

      Maybe the govt is hoping Toyota will sell fewer LC300s and more of something like this?

      Personally I'm hoping for a Crown or Corolla Touring from the Big T. At the very least, a model shake-up could be interesting to see.

      • noideaa on 13/03/2024 - 17:23
        -1

        Or bring back station wagons to give families more option to look at instead of forcing them to pick an 7-8 seater SUV or a sedan.

    • Shrew on 12/03/2024 - 23:36
      +3

      You're completely misunderstanding what this policy actually does.

      That $5k is a once off charge the manufacturer has to pay if you buy a new car that doesn't meet emissions standards.

      It's not on used vehicles. It's not an ongoing or yearly charge. The manufacturer doesn't need to pass that charge on to the customer (although they almost certainly will), and can avoid it altogether by just importing more efficient cars.

      • 91rs on 13/03/2024 - 11:29

        "It's not on used vehicles. It's not an ongoing or yearly charge."

        Yet.

        It starts like this and then when the income stream is an addiction they can't shake they will turn it to annual, collect it on used vehicles and then it will just become a pay a penalty as you drive cost for people.
        Meanwhile the money collected will be p!ssed away like so many other taxes and fees that we already overpay in this country.

        • klaw81 on 16/03/2024 - 17:11

          There's no income stream. The scheme is revenue neutral.

    • klaw81 on 16/03/2024 - 17:11

      If you buy used cars, it will make zero difference in the short term.

      The Kluger that comes with the hybrid drivetrain is unlikely to see much impact from this scheme, but the old V6 is a pretty dirty old engine design and will probably be axed.

  • kiwimex on 12/03/2024 - 15:36

    Charging per km would be fairer way to go about it. People travelling more km per year put out more emissions. Then again taxes don't solve emission issues.

    • Gekov on 12/03/2024 - 18:39

      "People travelling more km per year put out more emissions"

      Don't believe you … people who travel more do not fart more.

    • Drakesy on 12/03/2024 - 21:00
      +2

      They tried that in melbourne
      Didnt go too well

      Plus theres the argument that they're already taxed via petrol anyway

  • Willy Beamish on 12/03/2024 - 16:47
    -4

    Most people that drive those vehicles don't even use them for anything work related or even utilize the vehicle, they just have small dong syndrome.

      • Willy Beamish on 16/03/2024 - 18:02
        -1

        Do you have eyes and do you drive? Maybe you ride your bicycle on the footpath, if so then you can clearly see.

        It's not rocket science, it may be hard for some people like yourself to put together tho.

    • mistermarky on 14/03/2024 - 20:33

      spoken like a true simp

      • Willy Beamish on 16/03/2024 - 18:03
        -1

        You don't know what that word means do you. You make yourself look so dumb when you reply with utter nonsense.

  • Kiro on 12/03/2024 - 17:02
    +1

    Stupid idea.

  • lnq on 12/03/2024 - 17:08
    +1

    Tax here, tax there, how many tax do we have? Someday, should we tax any family with more than 3 childrens? This is an example of racistlism when someone see somethings they dont like!

    • Gekov on 12/03/2024 - 18:49
      -4

      "Tax here, tax there, how many tax do we have?"

      Once you realize you're talking to HIGH TAXING WOKE socialists here, that question is superfluous.

  • TightAl on 12/03/2024 - 17:09
    +3

    TBH SUVs are ok, these new UTES don't even fit into car spots, the american ones coming in now don't even fit within the driving lanes.
    Ugh

    • keejoonc on 12/03/2024 - 17:28

      And they are usually driven by either bad or stupid drivers to make matters even worse LOL

    • beach bum on 12/03/2024 - 17:35
      +4

      They keep shrinking the car spaces whenever the build or renovate car parks , unless you’ve owned full sized vehicle for decades you may not have noticed this .
      Those of us that actually run a business and use our utes for everything ,have definitely noticed , along with the random vandalism that comes our way from the haters .
      I park away and walk to the shops now , saves the drama .

      • TightAl on 12/03/2024 - 18:24

        That's a good point too, just like the airport spots. What a hell hole.
        Car ding central

  • Joey2scoops on 12/03/2024 - 17:22
    +1

    Car manufacturers have been crying about emissions and economy standards for years. Saving them a butt load of money and costing the consumer an extra butt load to keep their fuel guzzling crap on the road. It's about time some intestinal fortitude was applied to these vehicles and the people that want to own them. Happy to see some steps being taken.

  • michaelTito on 12/03/2024 - 17:24

    tax them all. tax those with private yachts and private jets too

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 12/03/2024 - 18:09
      +1

      The Politicians wont tax themselves unfortunately

      • michaelTito on 12/03/2024 - 20:15

        thats why i dont trust the governments. all the elites are up to something no good.

  • DiscoJango on 12/03/2024 - 20:15

    Yes, tax us more, how else are the politicians to pay for their helicopter rides to lunch.

    • beach bum on 12/03/2024 - 23:39
      +3

      I think it shows how young and naive Ozbargain users are now .
      They’ve definitely have gotten on board with blaming each other rather than corporations and big business for destroying the planet we live on .

    • EitherWayUp on 12/03/2024 - 23:55

      They trust the government will put the money to good use.

      • beach bum on 12/03/2024 - 23:59

        Hahahahahahahaha

    • KevinFine on 13/03/2024 - 10:18

      @Dealmon - it's called brainwashing - sign up for their own demise - Seems this thread is left leaning woke! It's getting extremely difficult to participate in society. We need to find the others!!

    • eek on 15/03/2024 - 08:27
      +1

      I'll bet the majority of those utes you see at the school pickup/dropoff line, or on the beach camping on weekends with $40K+ of ARB mods bolted on are lying to the ATO and not paying FBT on their vehicles. Heck not even utes, anyone who has a 'business' usually does it. Yes, my Maserati/G63/ute is always strictly 100% for income-generating business use only ;) ;) ;)

  • Herbse on 12/03/2024 - 22:47
    +2

    As long as the tax costs don't somehow get out onto the tax payers instead of the purchaser due to some tax write off system.

    90% of them on the road are having their costs subsidised by tax payers so that second year landscaping apprentices can drive around in $70,000 Rangers

    • beach bum on 12/03/2024 - 23:31

      You think landscaping is a trade ?

      • tryagain on 13/03/2024 - 23:31

        I know it's a trade, qualified Landscapers have done an apprenticeship, just like any other trade.

  • jedimaster on 12/03/2024 - 23:33

    Tax them but remove the decades old LCT first!

  • qwerty-4321 on 12/03/2024 - 23:45
    +1

    I briefly thought about getting a Ute. Instead, I paid $400 for a towbar to attach to my hatchback. When I need to pickup some furniture, take some yard waste to the tip, I hire a trailer from the servo for $50. Seems more sensible then dropping $40k plus on a depreciating asset.

    • beach bum on 13/03/2024 - 02:10
      +2

      It’s your accountant that tells you to buy one. ,
      and the depreciation comes off your tax bill .

      • qwerty-4321 on 13/03/2024 - 08:07

        I don't run a business so I can't depreciate it.

        • klaw81 on 15/03/2024 - 10:22

          That doesn't seem to stop many people.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join