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

- Tr0jan on 13/03/2024 - 10:03
  
  +2
  
  Which is fine, if you don't want to go camping off grid or on remote beaches or drive to places that are only accessible via 4WD vehicles.
  - qwerty-4321 on 13/03/2024 - 11:06
    
    I agree. Horses for courses.
    
    But there is a market of inner-city/suburban types that buy 4x4 utes simply because they might go to the tip once a year.
    - - qwerty-4321 on 13/03/2024 - 11:55
        
        @Dealmon: Not sure why you're offended by my anecdote about installing a tow ball on my car instead of buying a ute. I have no opinion one way or the other about the tax, since I have no plans to buy a ute.
        
        It must be tiring living your life with a chip on your shoulder.
syousef on 13/03/2024 - 08:45

+7

It's amusing watching people on this board argue for smaller cars, with less carrying capacity and less range. It's almost as if Ozbargainers don't want to bulk buy, or go on holiday. I'm glad I won't be around in 50 years.
- R4 on 15/03/2024 - 09:31
  
  +1
  
  Spot on. So many Ozbers seem to want a shitter life for themselves - and by extension, everyone else.
Smulder on 13/03/2024 - 11:06

+1

I think they should have a separate license category for large SUVs, with additional testing and increased rego.

This will weed out the people that really want/need them vs the rest.
- 91rs on 13/03/2024 - 11:39
  
  +1
  
  QLD already has rego cost based on cylinders.
  So all your V6/8 SUV\4X4's out there are already paying more, it hasn't changed the trend.
  
  https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/registration/fees/cost#comm…
  
  I agree better licensing and testing with much more stringent requirements all around for all drivers is what's needed.
  Same with anyone who buys a caravan, trailer etc, you should have to pass a minimum skills test based on size and axles to be allowed to tow, including boat & jetski trailers so you don't get so many flogs who spent all the money but can't get their boat in or out of the water and those huge camper trailers that most people struggle to control.
  - Tr0jan on 13/03/2024 - 12:51
    
    +1
    
    So does SA.
    
    https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/driving-and-transport/motoring-…
    
    $1125 for 12 months rego for a ute, vs $670 for a 4 cylinder sedan/wagon.
MikeHuntSchmelz on 13/03/2024 - 11:15

+3

I'm a marketing manager who lives in the suburbs and commutes to work on a highway. I live alone, so of course I need a car that can seat twelve and is equipped to drive across arctic tundra. It just makes me feel better.
- Jolakot on 14/03/2024 - 08:42
  
  These sheep don't know that I add the lead back into unleaded petrol
FlyingMiffy on 13/03/2024 - 11:26

+1

Most of the utes are tax write offs. Meh.
TrulyUnicorn on 13/03/2024 - 12:36

Excellent initiative. These vehicles carry massive negative externalities the rest of us are footing the bill for, if you want your oversized fashion accessory then it's time to cover your costs to society.
klonky on 13/03/2024 - 13:14

We have a ute but thats only because we have a caravan, there are no sedans that have the power to pull one. From my perspective people will be less likely to buy caravans in the future if they cannot afford the tow vehicle. The caravan industry will end up being losers but on the flip side the hotel industry will be winners.
- Make it so on 13/03/2024 - 18:52
  
  In Europe, it used to be common to see sizeable caravans being pulled by sedans with < 2L engines. Not sure about now, but before SUV's were a thing, this was normal.
- The General on 13/03/2024 - 19:42
  
  Onsite vans will be the way of the future if this is the case.
Hearthstone on 13/03/2024 - 13:15

+2

time to accelerate the LandCruiser order and write it off in tax ?
Tombf2g on 13/03/2024 - 14:12

+3

I have a ford ranger raptor and a tesla model 3, everyone hates me here
- UltimateAI on 13/03/2024 - 15:16
  
  Lol… can't please everyone don't even try. Both are good vehicles. A Raptor is light weight compared to some of these other beasts out there.
- mirz on 13/03/2024 - 23:00
  
  -2
  
  You have 2 cars which you like and bought based on your choice.
  
  Seriously who gives a f*** what some hippie thinks about it.
Jellyfish01 on 13/03/2024 - 16:08

I think if you buy a large 4wd and don’t need it eg for towing or work… you should be taxed. A raptor can’t really tow the heavier rigs anyway as it has reduced towing capacity. I do think it’s unfair for families that enjoy holidaying in Australia - those that love to tow a caravan need a bigger car with tow capacity.
- mirz on 13/03/2024 - 23:02
  
  -2
  
  Why he should be taxed extra when he is already paying 50 types of taxes?
  
  This is extremely stupid logic.
Cluster on 13/03/2024 - 16:32

+1

Stand beside any busy inner urban road and count the number of SUVs and utes as a proportion of all traffic. It's usually over 50%. Some are no doubt business vehicles, fulfilling the role they were designed for, but a lot of people buy such vehicles because they want the biggest, baddest and 'safest' vehicle out there.

I've noticed at my workplace that when one of the female employees gets pregnant and goes away on leave, she usually returns to work afterwards with a brand new SUV. And not a small one either. Part of this is to carry all the extra stuff small children need (how did we cope a generation ago?), but a big factor is safety: she wants the most metal wrapped around her new child. And because everyone else is buying SUVs too, it's a never ending arms race.
noideaa on 13/03/2024 - 17:19

+1

I think the damage has been done. There isn't any road friendly family station wagons made by budget car brands anymore.

Unless if they're going to revive them.
- Jabewabe on 14/03/2024 - 08:01
  
  +2
  
  This is my biggest gripe with the new car market right now - there are barely any wagons, and if there are, they are ridiculously expensive.
  
  Theyve all been converted to 'compact SUVs', raised by 20mm, added black plastic cladding, made the boot smaller (and more scooped) and increased the price by 10-15k. Its insane.
harrywwc on 13/03/2024 - 19:00

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

which, of course, will happen, because past history has shown governments doing that sort of thing (e.g. fuel excise, and other vehicle related taxes & levies)

/s
scooba on 13/03/2024 - 19:10

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

Yeah sure they will use it more economically environmentally, suuurrrrreeeee🙄.
- klaw81 on 15/03/2024 - 10:27
  
  +1
  
  It's not a tax - it's a a cap and trade system. The government doesn't get any money from it.
  
  Effectively, it makes lower emissions cars cheaper and higher emissions cars more expensive.
  - scooba on 15/03/2024 - 21:24
    
    "The government doesn't get any money from it."
    
    C'mon man, it's 2024 for crying out loud and we're not this dumb anymore.
    
    Try again, please.
    - klaw81 on 16/03/2024 - 23:17
      
      Learn how the scheme works, and then eat your words
      - scooba on 17/03/2024 - 10:54
        
        @klaw81: Scheme is right, which is created by the schemers.
        
        You certainly will be eating your words come the next election lol.
        
        klaw81 on 17/03/2024 - 17:52
        
        @scooba: Are you aware that the Coalition was spruiking a very similar policy as recently as 3 years ago?
        
        They know that Australia needs to catch up to the rest of the world - they're only opposing this at the moment to score political points.
        
        Even the Republicans support the same policy in the US.
        
        scooba on 17/03/2024 - 20:27
        
        @klaw81: Yes I know the political gametes have all had a go at this crap, but we all know what would REALLY make a difference which would be to subsidise electric vehicles because y’know…., we’re supposedly going green, aren’t we?
        
        It’s seems strange that one side of politics is all for green energy, but will penalise you for driving an ICE vehicle and the other side is against EV’s and still wants you to pay $2 a litre at the pump for 91 unleaded?
        
        Weird huh?🙄
        
        klaw81 on 18/03/2024 - 00:13
        
        @scooba: Most states already have incentives in place for EVs and the federal government has provided tax benefits for EV and hybrid buyers. That helps with increasing demand, but it doesn't address the major issues with supply ie a lot of low emissions vehicles simply aren't offered for sale here.
        
        Manufacturers have openly admitted that they don't offer certain cars in Australia because Australia does not have an emission regulation system, and they're better off selling their old junk to Australians and selling their more modern products in markets where the regulations give them better incentives.
        
        In addition, this policy would begin to address the opposite end of the emissions reduction transition by making high emissions vehicles less attractive through price signals.
        
        scooba on 18/03/2024 - 20:45
        
        @klaw81: The incentives for EV's in this country are poultry compared to some parts Europe and we could debate the differences between these nations and our lack of money/population compared to Europe, but what for? We know the politicians in this country are a joke, not to mention they can go do the proverbial.
        
        "In addition, this policy would begin to address the opposite end of the emissions reduction transition by making high emissions vehicles less attractive through price signals."
        
        What the hell are all these buzzwords doing is one sentence klaw? You could've just said "The jokers are going to push up the prices to garner more GST and stamp duty if people want to buy a larger ICE vehicles".
        
        It's 2024 mate, you can stop with the double speak, thanks👍🏻.
        
        klaw81 on 18/03/2024 - 21:05
        
        @scooba: Unfortunately, that's just the way I write. I will try hard to re-phrase.
        
        Handing out cash grants or tax breaks costs the taxpayer too much money. It can't last - it costs too much, and voters won't put up with it for long.
        
        Laws that punish companies for selling massive thirsty cars that belch smoke, and reward companies who sell smaller, thrifty cars that don't use much fuel, will help change what is offered for sale, and what people will buy. Car makers will need to make changes to the way they market and price their cars.
        
        It's good for consumers because the fuel usage of the average car gets pushed down, helping to save money.
        
        It's good for governments because overall average car emissions are reduced every year.
        
        It's bad for some car companies, because they don't want to be held accountable for the high emissions of the products they sell.
        
        It's good for other car companies who have invested heavily in low-emissions cars, because their products can be sold cheaper.
        
        The jokers are going to push up the prices to garner more GST and stamp duty if people want to buy a larger ICE vehicles
        
        No, I don't think so. The price rise on a big high-emissions car should balanced out by a price drop on a low-emissions car. The overall effect is roughly net zero. Inflation will increase the level of tax on vehicles more than this policy.
        
        scooba on 18/03/2024 - 21:30
        
        @klaw81: No point in rephrasing when it's all just buzzwords and bullsh1t.
        
        "tax breaks", "costs the tax payer too much money", "Laws that punish companies".
        
        "Thirsty cars that belch smoke" was pretty funny though, good one lol
        
        "Thrifty cars", "help change", "car makers will need to change", "it's good for consumers", "it's good for governments", "bad for some car companies", "held accountable for high emissions", "products they sell"
        
        I mean COME ON man, can you write anything that doesn't sound like it's sponsored by a political party?
        
        "It's good for other car companies who have invested heavily in low-emissions cars, because their products can be sold cheaper." I'll have to admit, that one was really funny and well written, 5 points.
        
        "The price rise on a big high-emissions car should balanced out by a price drop on a low-emissions car."
        
        Emphasis on "should" and it's a big "should" that the politicians and industries can flip on in a moments notice.
        
        "The overall effect is roughly net zero. Inflation will increase the level of tax on vehicles more than this policy."
        
        More buzzwords…., why don't you just end with "Sponsored by the office of Chris Bowen" to make it crystal line clear for us all, yeesh…..
        
        klaw81 on 18/03/2024 - 22:04
        
        @scooba: I don't see how my post is anything more than explanation, using simple words.
        
        When I say "should" I mean that's what happened in the US, which is what the Australian policy is based on.
        
        I think this is good policy - I supported it when the Coalition was talking about it and I support it now that Labor is talking about it. We should have had it years ago.
        
        scooba on 18/03/2024 - 22:22
        
        @klaw81: Simple (buzz)words are the problem, klaw. If you REALLY listen to the news or a politicians press speech, it's all worded around the education of a ten year old primary school student.
        
        So we should follow the U.S which is pretty terrible in some of their economic standards? I'm guessing that's what you mean by US and not us as Australians??
        
        Europe is far more intelligent economically when it comes to EV's, the U.S is not the greatest example to follow considering their trillions of debt.
        
        See in the end it doesn't matter what side is pushing it if it's a lacklustre policy, which it is considering Tesla and another EV manufacturer have just pulled out in regard to this wonderful policy you're speaking of.
        
        klaw81 on 18/03/2024 - 22:45
        
        @scooba: You like Europe's emissions regulations? They also have a very similar policy, but considerably more strict. I only used the US example as it had more thorough analysis available about the effects when the policy was introduced.
        
        Tesla were very much in favour of this policy as of 7 days ago - what are you referring to?
        
        scooba on 19/03/2024 - 13:10
        
        @klaw81: No I like Europes EV subsidies which has to be strict otherwise it’ll be ineffective. Don’t use the U.S as a reference mate, they’re an immoral country that couldn’t care less about their citizens.
        
        Search online about Tesla and Polestar leaving over the emissions regulations of late.
        
        Enjoy.
        
        klaw81 on 19/03/2024 - 14:42
        
        @scooba: The US has comprehensive economic studies on what happens to car prices when a policy like this is implemented - that's why it's a good reference point. The data shows that overall prices didn't change much, but that some vehicle prices went up a little and others went down a little - hence the confidence that this scheme will work as desired.
        
        The European vehicle emissions scheme has been in place for so long that the data is less relevant.
        
        If you actually read the statements from Tesla and Polestar that you're referring to, you may find you have the wrong end of the stick. They both resigned from the FCAI (the Australian peak body / lobby group for car manufacturers) specifically because of the misleading and fear-mongering statements issued that body regarding the proposed NVES.
        
        Tesla and Polestar have both indicated their strong support for what the government is proposing, and so has Hyundai, Kia and a few others.
        
        scooba on 19/03/2024 - 15:00
        
        -1
        
        @klaw81: “The U.S has comprehensive economic studies”
        
        No they don’t, they’re in trillions of debt, there’s nothing comprehensive about trillions of debt.
        
        Yes the European scheme has been in place so long they lead the world, not the U.S.
        
        Ok I may have the wrong end of the stick but let’s be realistic, if these car manufacturers didn’t support the government, what “penalties” would they face and relegations to their companies.
        
        Don’t say they wouldn’t either, you know they’d be crucified for it if they didn’t tow the government’s line and the government would make up some bullsh1t about the batteries not having a long enough life etcetera, etcetera.
        
        P.S Still laughing at your “Thirsty cars that belch smoke” comment, way to go with that one lol.
        
        klaw81 on 19/03/2024 - 15:40
        
        @scooba: No they don’t, they’re in trillions of debt, there’s nothing comprehensive about trillions of debt.
        
        Please stop with these immature and ridiculous sweeping statements! I'm talking about a very specific thing here. There are comprehensive studies of the effects of the US government's tightening of emissions regulations, including the impact on vehicle prices.
        
        This is highly relevant information, and shouldn't be hand-waved away because of broader economic policies.
        
        if these car manufacturers didn’t support the government, what “penalties” would they face and relegations to their companies
        
        Toyota and Mitsubishi have strongly and openly campaigned against the proposed NVES reforms, and they're not facing persecution from the government. This isn't North Korea.
        
        Euphemistic on 19/03/2024 - 15:46
        
        @klaw81:
        
        Toyota and Mitsubishi have strongly and openly campaigned against the proposed NVES reforms
        
        And yet toyota has already stated they are phasing out non-hybrid corolla and yaris. Theyre just making noise to keep more profitable by selling us cheaper older tech. Meanwhile, they are preparing for emissions targets. .
        
        klaw81 on 19/03/2024 - 15:58
        
        @Euphemistic: Toyota are also phasing out older diesel engines in their larger vehicles, and introducing mild-hybrid drivetrains for Hilux, Prado and Landcruiser.
        
        They're not stupid - they have seen the writing on the wall and they know that some form of NVES is inevitable. They're just trying to lobby the government to weaken and delay the legislation as much as possible, to protect their profit margins.
        
        To be clear, it's totally okay for Toyota to argue against legisliation that affects them. What's not okay is the fear-mongering and misleading statements we've seen from them directly, and via the FCAI which Toyota practically owns.
        
        Euphemistic on 19/03/2024 - 18:41
        
        @klaw81:
        
        it's totally okay for Toyota to argue against legisliation that affects them. What's not okay is the fear-mongering and misleading statements we've seen from them
        
        This. Unfortunately, their stance is largely based on fear mongering and conspiracy theories
        
        scooba on 20/03/2024 - 00:43
        
        @klaw81: So we have to be specific and only talk about one thing even though America’s economy is in the toilet which affects EVERYTHING in that country so realistically the comprehensive studies you refer to are screwed to start with.
        
        The only statements that are immature are your own, such as “thirsty cars that belch smoke”, then you go on to say comprehensive studies from a heavily indebted nation are supposed to carry weight? Then you have the hide to say I’m making sweeping statements!
        
        C’mon man, didn’t I already say stop with the double speak and the buzzwords?
        
        So Toyota and Mitsubishi will be immune forever from laws and regulations, yes?
        
        Here’s one for you, why can’t people have a choice between EV’s and ICE vehicles? Keep in mind your “thirsty smoke belching cars” comment….👍🏻.
        
        klaw81 on 20/03/2024 - 09:23
        
        +1
        
        @scooba: we have to be specific and only talk about one thing
        
        Yes, that's correct. America's overall economic state has absolutely nothing to do with these studies.
        
        US citizens were buying new cars in the millions both before and after the legislation was changed, and the studies examine what happened; how car buyer's and car manufacturer's behavior changed, how pricing was affected, the extent of changes to emission levels and fuel economy etc.
        
        The level of the US national debt at the time being studied is utterly irrelevant, just like Australia's national debt has no relevance to how Australia will implement its own NVES.
        
        So Toyota and Mitsubishi will be immune forever from laws and regulations
        
        Toyota and Mitsubishi's only "punishment" will be their requirement to comply with a law they don't like. The government isn't going to single them out for special penalties because they protested about it.
        
        why can’t people have a choice between EV’s and ICE vehicles?
        
        People have that choice now, and people will continue to have that choice if the NVES is implemented. People in the US and Europe, who already have NVES-type legislation, still have that choice too. Why would you assume otherwise?
        
        scooba on 20/03/2024 - 11:18
        
        @klaw81: “America's overall economic state has absolutely nothing to do with these studies.”
        
        Now I know you’re just trolling, a country’s economic state has everything to do with studies of a particular type of transport and the fuel it consumes.
        
        “The level of the US national debt at the time being studied is utterly irrelevant, just like Australia's national debt has no relevance to how Australia will implement its own NVES.”
        
        So the cost of fuel, stamp duty and car prices have nothing to do with national debt? Pull the other one pal lol.
        
        “comply with a law they don't like”.
        
        It’s not about what they don’t LIKE, it’s how it’ll cost them going forward. Try again….
        
        Why would you assume otherwise?
        
        Because people like you make stupid comments like “thirsty cars that belch smoke” is why. It’s almost like you want to eradicate petrol powered vehicles completely, not that you backed up your previous comment in your following posts and I’m also guessing you won’t going forward either?
        
        klaw81 on 20/03/2024 - 12:21
        
        +1
        
        @scooba: a country’s economic state has everything to do with studies of a particular type of transport and the fuel it consumes
        
        I have no idea why you're clinging to this ridiculous notion.
        
        So the cost of fuel, stamp duty and car prices have nothing to do with national debt?
        
        No, they don't. There's not even the slightest correlation between those issues.
        
        The cost of fuel is largely determined by international trade conditions, which has nothing to do with the state the national debt.
        
        Stamp duty is a state tax, and has no relationship to federal issues like national debt.
        
        Car prices are set by manufacturers in a complex globally-competitive market. A single nation's federal government debt has zero bearing on the way manufacturers price their vehicles.
        
        It’s almost like you want to eradicate petrol powered vehicles completely
        
        There's no need to ban ICE vehicles - they will become less appealing, more expensive to run, manufacturers will stop making them and they'll just slowly disappear.
        
        Anyway, your arguments are tiresome and I'm no longer interested in continuing this discussion. Feel free to have the last word if you must.
        
        scooba on 20/03/2024 - 14:49
        
        @klaw81: Why did you unpublish this comment of yours klaw?
        
        “I give up. You're clearly not intelligent enough to be worth continuing the discussion.”
        
        If anyone should give up, it should be me. You’re fantastic at the double speak to the point where I think you’re being paid by a government department or an EV company to post here.
        
        You won’t quote your “thirsty cars that belch smoke” comment again will you? Painted yourself into a corner with that one but passive resistance and trying to win by a technicality won’t work on me.
        
        I can understand your arrogance toward to fossil fuel vehicles, but what I can’t understand is your ignorance to a country’s economic status as a whole which affects ALL industries whether you like it or not.
        
        It’s almost like you refuse to look at the bigger picture and again, try to look at one small part of the equation just to give yourself an out, by technicality.
        
        Sounds like you need to brush up on your debating skills pet, and whoever taught them to you and whatever uni they work at, needs some basic retraining so you don’t lose your cool and throw out wonderfully intelligent comments like the one you unpublished.
        
        Dismissed.
ste616 on 13/03/2024 - 20:48

+5

As you may have heard, we won't be the first country in the world to introduce fuel efficiency standards. So why not have a look at the results of what happened when they were introduced in other countries to see whether it's a good idea to bring them in here. The following article summarises the effects it had in the USA, which still has plenty of big SUVs.

https://acee.princeton.edu/acee-news/comprehensive-look-at-u…

It's a good read, but some choice quotes from the article:

A prior study by Greene found that over the lifetime of the policy, the technology for efficiency upgrades increased the cost of cars by an average of $4,800, but yielded $16,000 in savings for consumers at the pump.

Ciez pointed to the 1990s as an example of what can happen when fuel targets are effectively frozen. She said it led automakers to produce bigger, faster, and more polluting cars. Gas prices were cheap and gas-guzzling vehicles hit the road in mass numbers. Car companies made SUVs and vehicles with quicker acceleration times, which became very popular among American drivers. Ciez said without the standards, there is little incentive for automakers to focus on fuel economy as opposed to horsepower or vehicle comfort. The standards have spurred technological innovation, allowing cars to provide all three attributes – power, comfort, and efficiency – at a reasonable cost.

Makes sense to me. I'm looking forward to some more technological innovation and saving some money.
- cashews on 14/03/2024 - 06:52
  
  +2
  
  Don't try and bring logic to this discussion, this is Ozbargain.
achew on 13/03/2024 - 20:53

don't forget to cover how blinding the DRLs, and low-beam lights are on these high-set vehicles. And, the lack of adjustability on many too.
- Euphemistic on 14/03/2024 - 11:09
  
  If you think DRLs are "blinding" you probably need your eyes checked and to give up driving.
  - achew on 15/03/2024 - 16:50
    
    lol prove it
    - Euphemistic on 15/03/2024 - 17:52
      
      Dont need to "prove it". DRLs arent that bright by design, plus if its dark enough that they are "blinding" you its more likely to be headlights. DRLs are designed to make thw car seen and as such dont project light in any meaningful beam.
      
      Headlights quite possibly could be seen as "blinding" if they are close behind in mirrors or aimed wrong.
      - achew on 15/03/2024 - 18:06
        
        @Euphemistic: source?
        
        Euphemistic on 15/03/2024 - 18:43
        
        @achew: Yes please. BBQ.
        
        achew on 16/03/2024 - 14:56
        
        @Euphemistic: haha, didn't think so.
        
        Euphemistic on 16/03/2024 - 15:36
        
        @achew: https://pcc.gov.au/uniform/Australian%20Light%20Vehicle%20St…
        
        But im gonna assume you won't read it anyway
        
        Monad on 16/03/2024 - 15:54
        
        @achew: "[DRLs] not use over 25 watts power."
        
        https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L00264/2006-04-04/2006-0…
        
        achew on 16/03/2024 - 17:09
        
        @Monad: Thanks! The legislation is great, but when a 2022 Pajero bumbles over a speed bump, and blinds everyone in a sedan's cabin then it's really not enough is it? Very little if no enforcement at all, to boot.
        
        Euphemistic on 16/03/2024 - 18:00
        
        @achew: Thats nothing to do with DRLs. Its the projector beam headlights cut off. When the vehicle goes over the speed hump the beam cut off gets higher and 'flashes at you' its not an enforcemnt thing. It's less noticeable with halogen lights becasue the beam cut off is less severe.
        
        achew on 16/03/2024 - 18:07
        
        -1
        
        @Euphemistic: You're special, buddy
        
        Monad on 16/03/2024 - 20:24
        
        +1
        
        @achew: Why are you making this personal, @Euphemistic is just explaining what is actually causing the bright and you appear not to be able to accept it.
        
        It's annoying when projector beam headlights appear to flash when they're going over a bump, but it doesn't 'blind' you. The real culprits are people who get a lift kit and don't adjust their beams or people towing heavy trailers/caravan not doing the same.
        
        Euphemistic on 17/03/2024 - 06:36
        
        @achew: I know. But it woukd appear you are a bit more apecial than i.
        
        achew on 17/03/2024 - 10:09
        
        @Euphemistic: Tony Soprano would not be impressed with you. Keep trolling punk
        
        Euphemistic on 17/03/2024 - 10:54
        
        @achew: Im not trying to impress Tony Soprano. Trolling? Punk? Come on, if you can discredit what ive said do so. Play the ball, not the man.
        
        achew on 17/03/2024 - 14:13
        
        @Euphemistic: Thought you might say that. Try doing roadwarks speed limits, etc.
        
        Monad on 17/03/2024 - 14:22
        
        @achew: You've got nothing but ad hominem responses, you appear to have the need to be right, than getting to the truth…got any personal insults for me? I'm jealous of you putting all your attention on Euphemistic…
        
        achew on 17/03/2024 - 14:27
        
        @Monad: No Monad, you contributed to the conversation from the start. Thanks!
R4 on 13/03/2024 - 22:15

The push for EVs is going to come up hard against economic, social, practical and political reality in the not too distant future.

Watch this space.
mirz on 13/03/2024 - 22:58

-4

What a dumb nation, govt is imposing new taxes every month to cover its sheer incompetence. But idiots are pushing for even higher rates on personal liking or disliking.

I don’t like EVs but it doesn’t mean others shouldn’t like and buy EVs. Or I should start campaigning to impose extra tax on those buying and driving EVs.

People are buying cars from their own money and paying for whatever fuel/energy it requires out of their own pockets.

Why on earth govt has right to start imposing tax on cars based on size, weight etc. Because it’s all about revenue generation.
But this dumb nation is always ready to advocate for higher taxes.
- tempco on 14/03/2024 - 01:53
  
  +3
  
  Heavier cars damage roads more?
  - - TimmyTims on 14/03/2024 - 09:57
      
      Pretty sure they have higher on-road costs to help cover the extra damage…
      - TimmyTims on 14/03/2024 - 13:18
        
        @Dealmon: To deliver my 12 pallets of stock from the distribution centre to the outlet? WTF are you talking about?
- oO0Dam0Oo on 14/03/2024 - 08:47
  
  +2
  
  Why is it such a bad idea if it subsidises the purchase of more energy efficient vehicles? User pays system. They are not banning them.
  - - cameldownunder on 14/03/2024 - 10:30
      
      +1
      
      Because the size of the house does not impact environment much. You have cooler suburbs and less heat stress where there are big parcels and a lot of trees.
      I think there should be a tree-tax-benefit. A Tax discount for trees: level 1: tree/bush under 2M —> $200 tax reduction, tree between 2m and 5m —> $500 tax reduction, tree above 5M —> $1000 tax reduction.
THICKnSLOW on 14/03/2024 - 00:40

+3

Tax by weight.
- cameldownunder on 14/03/2024 - 10:31
  
  Tax by ccm.
oO0Dam0Oo on 14/03/2024 - 08:45

-2

They should do this at registration level so there is an ongoing cost which captures current users as well to encourage them to buy more energy efficient vehicles. There will just be a rush on purchasing under the current proposal and no incentive to get rid of what they already have.
cameldownunder on 14/03/2024 - 10:27

-4

My thought about big cars, including oversized SUVs:
It's mostly rich husbands, that have no confidence in the wife's driving capability, that want to put as much "steel" as possible around the kids being driven to school by the wife, because of the huge cars being used to drop off the kids at school. It's basically a race to armaments. Would not be too surprised if a tank would rock up in front of the school dropping off kids.

Ute's driver, there are 2 options: The one that really need a ute for work, and the others that have a short "wiener"
- - cameldownunder on 15/03/2024 - 09:25
    
    +2
    
    Let me guess:
    
    A) "passionate" Ute driver, 20 year old on green P, needs a ute to throw his Gym bag in
    B) "Tradie" who parks across footpath because can't walk 5 meters to get his tools
    C) Rich Husband with Asian Wife, who drives 500m to get the kids to school "safely"
    D) Oversized, full-on 4W, 50cm road clearance, 4.6L 8V engine, that never has seen a dirt road
knk on 14/03/2024 - 13:36

+2

Taxing emissions is bullshit.

If they want to introduce new emissions targets I'm all for it, but just straight up enforce them.
- cameldownunder on 15/03/2024 - 09:25
  
  Tax petrol even more, so that it actually makes a big difference driving a 1.5L vs 3.6L
  - knk on 15/03/2024 - 09:39
    
    It already is a big difference….
duluxe2000 on 14/03/2024 - 14:46

+3

Disgusting taxes targeting groups of middle classes, making them hating each others to fill gov coffers because they are badly in debt and need to raise venue.

You won't be spared. Everyone will be hit by one tax or another, it's not about fairness. Not for long the 2nd family car will be taxed as well.

People can't have nice things anymore

Disclose: I do not have high income nor big cars, but I can tell what's coming from all these taxes change.
brenwildman on 14/03/2024 - 14:53

+2

Tax them.
Tax proceeds will be wasted.
The tax payers costs will be passed on.
Then we all get to enjoy more government driven inflation.
Everyone loses.
- Penguin30 on 14/03/2024 - 17:01
  
  +1
  
  I don't think most people think logically and that is unfortunate….
  
  Anyone who wants more tax for anyone is just silly and does not understand how the system works.
- klaw81 on 15/03/2024 - 10:30
  
  +4
  
  It's not a tax. It's a cap and trade system. The government doesn't get any revenue from this scheme.
  
  All it does is make lower emissions cars cheaper, and higher emissions cars more expensive.
Penguin30 on 14/03/2024 - 17:00

+4

Already pay more rego and if they are as bad on fuel as people say pay more tax on fuel… Should be no reason for Australians to pay more tax on anything…. Might as well just give the government 70% of everything you earn at this rate. Increasing taxes will only hurt the people who are already struggling. The government should be trying to reduce tax and actually look at how they are spending our money.
R4 on 15/03/2024 - 00:29

+5

The comments on this thread show that this site is dominated by city folk from Sydney and Melbourne and new Australians who rarely venture out of an urban area, have never driven on a beach and would shit themselves just thinking about driving in the outback - the new Australia that we now live in (well, those on the East coast do anyway).

Just drive whatever makes you happy and/or that you can afford. If people want to drive EVs, go for it but there's no need to tax non-EVs. There's a place for all vehicles - big, small, electric, hybrid, diesel, petrol.
- klaw81 on 15/03/2024 - 16:38
  
  +1
  
  This proposal is not a tax. It's a cap and trade system at car manufacturer level. The average emissions of all cars sold by that manufacturer must be below a certain level to avoid penalties, and manufacturers can trade credits between those above and below the caps.
  
  This type of legislation is not new or unique - it's been mooted for many years, and similar schemes have been in place in most major markets around the world - of all the developed nations, only Australia and Russia don't have such a scheme.
  
  The overall purpose of the scheme is to encourage manufacturers to sell more zero-emissions vehicles, offer low-emission versions of their existing ICE engines, and apply a disincentive to sales of high-emissions vehicles. Instead of competing to see who can make the largest vehicle for the lowest price, there's an additional incentive to make sure vehicles are lighter, fuel efficient and have lower emissions.
  
  This scheme has been shown to be highly effective in the US in particular, whose average fleet emissions is lower than Australia's despite their penchant for large vehicles (albeit through some loopholery in some cases).
  
  Toyota's lineup of vehicles is a great example of why such a scheme is desirable - they sell a number of plug-in hybrid versions of popular vehicles in the US that simply aren't offered for sale here - the RAV4 Prime for instance. They also have a few vehicles that have optional hybrid drivetrain systems in Europe, but the hybrid drivetrains are not offered for sale in Australia - but we can still buy vehicles with engines that simply wouldn't be legal in Europe due to their emissions.
  
  It's also worth noting that the claims from the FCAI about massive price increases (cited in the original article) have been widely criticised by others in the industry as being misleading and exaggerated, and there's little evidence to support them.
  - R4 on 15/03/2024 - 18:24
    
    As long as I don't pay extra and I can buy what I want, when I want, I don't really care what's being proposed.
    - Euphemistic on 16/03/2024 - 14:51
      
      If you choose a large 4wd you already choose to pay extra.
      - R4 on 16/03/2024 - 15:29
        
        @Euphemistic: Let me rephrase that just for you:
        
        as long as I don't have to pay more than today's purchase price, I don't care what's being proposed.
- peter on 16/03/2024 - 11:44
  
  No one should be driving on our beaches with possibly the one exception, where there is no road and the beach has been designated as a road for this exception only.
  - R4 on 16/03/2024 - 13:38
    
    Nope. Driving on the beach is one of the best things about living in Australia - and doing that very thing, say, this afternoon would show you that many other Australians agree with me.
mitt on 15/03/2024 - 00:31

-1

I would say tax them more but the government does not deserve a cent more because of how wasteful it is.

ANY tax reduction is an objective moral good at this point.

Taxing Utes and SUVs

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics