Having read through the Medicare levi & PHI rebate thread yesterday I was interested to note in the ABC this morning that the tax on luxury cars is to increase from 25% to 33%.ABC article.

I personally do not drive, or even have a licence, but this sort of pisses me off. I would also question whether $57,000 will really buy you a luxury car these days. How do you even define "luxury"? I suppose it should apply to any car that exceeds your requirements, but for most people that would include cars with air con. You can certainly live without that. Unless you're a toddler/puppy locked in the back with the windows up.

My main gripe is this though: how do you define who is and is not rich these days, and is it really fair to use the assets of the upper middle class as a slush fund for social initiatives from which they themselves are very unlikely to benefit, and may even be forbidden from benefiting from?

Define "the rich" for me

anyone who didn't vote for kevin rudd.

Think you are confusing "rich" for "intelligent"...

Anyone that can afford to buy a new car worth 57k, while not what I would call "rich" is certainly well off.

Saying that, there would be alot of people that have 57k and over new cars, but probably shouldnt becuase they cant afford them, or they are on a lease or something.

Me and my wife are on a decent wage, but it would have to to up a fair bit to afford a 57k new car.

Alot of the people with these value cars would be 40-60 year olds who dont have a mortage anymore (with the house probaly worth 10 times what they paid in the 70-80s), dont have kids and probably on a household income around 100k.

57K+ on a new car is a luxury buy. Hell, you can get a V8 Calais with leather for less than 57K. A 57K+ new car purchase is for the rich, as a car does not have any appreciable value, it is guaranteed to depreciate. Yes there are some small exceptions to this rule, but by and large cars are just going to lose you money.

We can't even afford a $30k car.

Man, I want my people mover :(

I think $30k plus is luxury. You can live with a car that's less than that.

i say tax 4wd's over luxury ones though

Kat's Kia Karnival

the new KKK

also the boot in them is not so big that you can have subs and a pram

if you want that, get a fairlane

so gay
it's already liberace gay, this would just make it 911 x 999,999 liberace gays

also I'd love to hear the reasoning behind your proposed 4wd tax kat

purely to piss you off

is it really fair to use the assets of the upper middle class as a slush fund for social initiatives from which they themselves are very unlikely to benefit, and may even be forbidden from benefiting from?

Many of Australia's social welfare plans explicitly exclude the wealthy and have thresholds for awards. This is a fundamental of the social democracy that we currently live within and probably will for the forseeable future - The Libs and Nationals despite over ten years in power made no significant changes in this regard.

You'll remember the rumours of change to Medicare that were subsequently crushed in favour of a socialised system where the wealthy were via taxation measures forced into private health care? That sort of policy historically belongs more with the ALP than the Coalition!

In fact the narrowing of political spectrum from the major parties in Australia clearly demonstrates a shift left in the past forty years on social welfare with a shift right for economic policy. I quite like it TBH.

basht@qgl kat

How many on your bashed@qgl list now Jim? You keeping a list / appointment book? I can manage it for you - just let me know when the date is ;)

i would define rich in terms of disposable income or consumption. i wouldn't know where to draw the line though, and it would be changing constantly.

i would say a rough guestimate would be an individual income of 75k/year -> 150k/year would be upper middle class, 150k+ would be getting towards the 'rich' end of the spectrum. when you take household incomes, dependents, etc into account it would get much more complicated though.

I have decided that I can play along with new schemes to benefit those on low incomes etc, but in return I want all welfare payments quarantined as per some indigenous communities.

We could play nice. Discretionary spending of your welfare payment for the first six cummulative months, after which it gets quarantined. No booze, porn, or cigarettes would suit me well enough. Those are, after all, "luxury goods".

Obviously people who are recieving payments as a result of disability, old age or some other factor over which they might be said to have no control could be exempted from this... If the governemnt can decided for me how my income is to be used then they can and should do the same for the recipients of the resulting welfare income.

I have decided that I can play along with new schemes to benefit those on low incomes etc, but in return I want all welfare payments quarantined as per some indigenous communities.

How exactly do you have any direct say in it? Whether you "play along" or not it happens. You have a vote in a few years to make your voice heard, but don't expect a lot of shift on the policy such as how you describe - it is very unlikely to arise from either party. Its possisble that something like this may go through fo the baby bonus etc I guess?

Administration costs would probably result in higher taxes though as the scheme you propose would need to be properly overseen. A whole advisory body would need to be implemented to determine the classification of allowable goods for instance.

You might have some luck with a frige party though, or maaybe start your own.

last edited by Hogfather at 11:42:42 11/May/08

anyone (or group) who's aquired enough monies to permanently quit work tomorrow, and always live higher than the level considered to be 'middle class' or better until the day they die.

basically anyone who could retire tomorrow if they wanted to

hog: it's not too hard to create conditional welfare, or some kind of link between behaviour and welfare payments. eg. if parents let their kids skip class then they get food/rent vouchers instead of cash.

that's exactly what's happening in NT and far north QLD as part of the aboriginal interventions.

i agree though that there is only so much that can be done in that regard without it becoming another inefficient bureaucratic waste of money.

it's gonna be a bludbath hoggie

I like stopshootingme's attitude and policy, would vote for

despite cutting spending the govt seems to need a whole lot more money for some reason

Insom: there's growing dissatisfaction about interest rate rises being used to control spending (and hence inflation) when the people who it primarily affects don't have discretionary income anyway.

The RBA Governor dude was recently asked what he thought of criticisms of interest rate movements as "blunt instruments". He replied that all the fine instruments were in the hands of the Gov (or words to that affect). Trimming spending on luxury items via taxation is one way to target a portion of the market you want to rein in.

I don't know if this is still true, but I learnt in legal studies that Toilet Paper is considered a luxury commodity. And I've been to a few places that don't have Toilet Paper, so I guess that should be your definition. Anyone with Toilet Paper is rich.

Insom: there's growing dissatisfaction about interest rate rises being used to control spending (and hence inflation) when the people who it primarily affects don't have discretionary income anyway.

really? source on that? haven't seen or heard anything to that effect. moetary policy isn't perfect but history has shown it to be a far better policy instrument that anything else, i.e. fiscal policy.

The RBA Governor dude was recently asked what he thought of criticisms of interest rate movements as "blunt instruments". He replied that all the fine instruments were in the hands of the Gov (or words to that affect). Trimming spending on luxury items via taxation is one way to target a portion of the market you want to rein in.

really, when did he say that? source? every single theoretical or applied paper and textbook i've ever seen (that i can remember off the top of my head heh) on monetary policy, fiscal policy or central banking tends to disagree with that. like i said, monetary policy isn't without its flaws but pretty much no mainstream economist since keynesianism's heyday (60s/70s) would suggest that fiscal policy was a better policy instrument than monetary when it comes to 'fine-tuning' the economy.

I'm thinking you 4wd buffs are gonna love this: a 4wd tax should be decided on how well the vehicle can actually handle going off road.

Now I think off roading seems like a great bit of fun, and when I can afford a decent rig I'd love to give it a go. If you're the kinda person who likes going off road, taking a group of family/friends fishing or camping etc, then by all means go get a 4wd. I just hate status-symbol grubbing f*****s and soccer mums who buy BMW and Lexus 4wd's for the look and because they "need the space to carry 2 kids and shopping around".

Now I'm no expert on 4wd's, but based on appearances and what I know about cars in general, it seems to me that the BMW/Lexus/Porche 4wd's would suck at going off road. They look too low to the ground, their wheels are small, their tyres look like normal car tires, there's little rear storage and I never see them with roof racks or other roof storage. So, a question for the off-road buffs here: Would a stock-standard Pajero or Patrol be quantifiably more suitable to going off road than a Lexus or BMW 4wd?

If so, new 4wd's that don't pass off-road standards should get hit with a tax for being a pretentious pile of wank that's wasting petrol. 4wd's that are actually capable of going off road won't get hit, so people with a legitimate use and need for these vehicles won't get short changed.

What about people who buy 'legitimate' 4wd vehicles but don't use them for 'legitimate' purposes oh wise leader of our people?

he means tax soccer mums

any sedan is more than capable of transporting your kids and shopping at the same time

I think Vehicles with Bull Bars in non rural areas should be hugely taxed.

taggs, in Glen Steven's recent speech he said:

Secondly, to say monetary policy is a blunt instrument begs the question: where are the sharp instruments? It is not obvious that there are all that many. People mention supply‑side reforms of various kinds and unquestionably these have been extremely important over the years. To the extent that more can be done, that is all to the good for Australians’ standard of living. But they are long term. It is hard to deploy them in a hurry. And many of them are very general – ‘blunt’ even – rather than specific.

Looking at the speech rather than just the sound bites I had previously read he does defend monetary policy as a good tool generally but the entire speech is about recent criticisms of it.

This was picked up in a few places as a sideswipe of the Government's fiscal policy, such as the Age's Business Day article RBA limited to a blunt instrument:

such criticisms miss the point that if the RBA is to be seen as serious about meeting its obligation to return Australia's inflation rate to the 2%-3% target range given it by successive elected governments, it has no other means at its disposal

...

the initial impact of a tightening of monetary policy is felt, in the first instance, by those households and businesses that have debts, and in particular those that have a lot of debt. The "pain" is then spread more broadly as those whose budgets are more constrained by higher debt service payments reduce their spending.

In recent years, monetary policy has shouldered this burden alone.

However, fiscal policy has contributed nothing to the task of ameliorating inflationary pressures in recent years and, arguably, has made the task more difficult ...

This is the sort of commentary I was referring to - that the RBA has had to 'shoulder' the burden of attempting to control inflation in the face of aggressive stimulant Government spending.

Its not quite what I was originally saying (and loooking into it some more I learned a bit about this stuff - cheers) but you get the idea. The Government has the ability to control its spending, and influence consumer spending at different socio-economic layers, buffering the poor etc. The RBA has as its primary tool a great big interest rate stick that at least initially bashes those with the least to spend hardest.

last edited by Hogfather at 13:29:08 11/May/08

I think Vehicles with Bull Bars in non rural areas should be hugely taxed.

To be fair, you dont see many new 4WDs with these do you? They used to be super super common because so many people had that one model of pajero.

Also, stopshootingme should be taxed above the normal threshold on all things because he is payed way more than hes worth. :O

well there's no doubt $57K exceeds the price of a regular runabout, therefore I guess it's into luxury land.

bmw don't make or market a '4wd'
the X5 is called by them a sports activity vehicle, marketed to people who like a sporty driving vehicle with more utility than a station wagon. it's all wheel drive system is provided to improve traction on a variety of surfaces but there's no low range gearing, no extra axle travel and only slightly additional ground clearance

lexus have a glorified land cruiser which is definitely a decent off road vehicle for typical australian touring. but they also make a non-offroad type as well, more like an X5

mercedes have their ml/gl, the ml can be optioned with low range and height adjustable suspension as well as diff locks on top of it's standard traction control, and the gl comes standard with most or all of those features. they are a bit wanting in the ground clearance department but would definitely do well on most australian tours

porche's cayenne comes or can be optioned with low range I think, as well as height adjustable suspension and traction control or diff locks, can't recall for sure. it'd be in the same boat, it'd do fine touring around most of australia

all of the above would need better tyres than the oem, but that goes for patrols, land cruisers, pajeros, prados, everything really. the latter come with all terrains but they're typically pissweak passenger construction instead of light truck


there's no reasonable reason to tax anyone because they drive a 4wd or suv or sav or whatever. calling them pretentious piles of wank that waste petrol isn't rational because the type of car they are doesn't necessarilly mean they are pretentious or waste petrol. my pretentious wank X5 uses less fuel than a falcon or commodore wagon for example, and probably a lot of other similar vehicles from australia or japan on the market - yet has a lot more torque and power. even my patrol uses less fuel than a falcon or commodore wagon. both vehicles are a 3.0 litre turbo diesel. sure, you can buy an X5 with a 4.8 litre petrol V8 and a patrol with a 4.8 petrol inline 6 and both will guzzle some juice, much like you can buy gruntier thirstier versions of most makes and models of cars available.

it makes more sense to me to tax vehicle owners based on their independantly-tested fuel consumption than whether some people have a largely irrational dislike of other's choice of vehicle type

Secondly, to say monetary policy is a blunt instrument begs the question: where are the sharp instruments?

the answer is that they don't really exist. that was kind of what i was getting at even if i didn't go about it very well. =)

This is the sort of commentary I was referring to - that the RBA has had to 'shoulder' the burden of attempting to control inflation in the face of aggressive stimulant Government spending.

i completely agree. i think i misunderstood you, i was under the impression you were talking about using policy instruments other than monetary policy for 'stabilisation' purposes. fiscal policy does have its place but short/medium term 'stabilising', like what's done with monetary policy, isn't it.

The RBA has as its primary tool a great big interest rate stick that at least initially bashes those with the least to spend hardest.

well, i don't think that's the whole picture. sure there are tonnes of families out there that have low disposable incomes and mortgages and get hit hard by this stuff. but wealthy people use debt too (i would argue that you'll never be truly wealthy until you learn how to make debt work for you =]), and while they might not be on the front page of the courier mail or in the PMs speech about battlers, they too will likely reduce their consumption.

but that isn't the only way in which interest rates cool the economy. take the basic national income accounting formula:

Y = C + I + G + NX

basically that states that GDP or national income = consumption + investment + government expenditure + net exports. when that figure is broken down in the australian context consumption usually makes up around 60% and investment around 20%-25% or so (bear in mind NX is usually negative and investment is volatile). consumption tends to be more inelastic, which means that people will tend to consume even when the price changes by a lot. investment is very elastic, which means when the price of investment changes, the amount of investment changes drastically.

when interest rates rise, they are increasing the price of debt which is effectively increasing the price of investment because most (probably all) investment is financed by debt. so the level of investment usually responds very strongly to interest rate rises, lowering aggregate demand, gdp growth and in turn lowering inflationary pressures.

last edited by taggs at 15:07:22 11/May/08

a rich person nowerdays is someone who owns 2 stock standard suburban homes in any Capital City.

something like a 400% increase in the last 10 yrs.

a rich person is someone who has a jacuzzi helipad tenis court and hookers around his house

Also, stopshootingme should be taxed above the normal threshold on all things because he is payed way more than hes worth. :O

Neh :/ I'm home in a week or so, prepare to lose newsgroup access :) I hope you grabbed as much as you could, while you could... So I can steal it. Also I'm going stupidly expensive chair shopping, do tag along.

*EDIT* Also I think this should already have been posted:

http://kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/12/bioshockcart.jpg

Poor people could spend their food vouchers at this store.

last edited by StopShootingMe at 16:38:57 11/May/08

This is just Rudd and Swan jumping on yet another bandwagon. Tax the rich, tax the rich.

Who do they think are creating all the wealth and the employment? Rich successful enterprising people who get up in the morning to run a business.

Luxury car tax is a con partly kept to maintain the local car manufacturing industry but that has now failed too. Government should just get the hell out of the road instead of introducing more obstacles and costs on business.

It is a politics of envy where the average Joe is jealous of a rich person's ability to afford the "luxury" car and thus they must be punished via the taxation system for their choice.

if you want to tax the rich wouldn't income tax be a better method. this just seems to tax people who buy expensive cars. not to mention that the tax is a tariff. welcome back to out protectionist overlords.

last edited by hast at 17:33:22 11/May/08

Increasing income tax, like taxing luxury cars only punishes those who have worked hard to afford nice things.

cry more liberal voters

tax the f***ers and make life easy for us poor people
as long as rich isn't earning more than $150k pa i'm happy

also i want interest rates to go up, so my savings can earn %10

But what if they're more valuable than $150k pa?

Spook is blinded by his love for KRudd. Do you not feel violated when your hard earned dollars are taxed for welfare and popular feel-good programs that perpetuate a cycle of welfare-reliance? I certainly do. Taxation should be kept to an absolute minimum. I work hard to buy the things I want. Why should Swan-dog punish me for it?

yer, i wish i could pay no tax coz then i woudl get all my pay to spend on trinketts and play things

fcuk society

Think you are confusing "rich" for "intelligent"...

Think you are confusing "intelligent" for "educated"...

tax the f***ers and make life easy for us poor people
as long as rich isn't earning more than $150k pa i'm happy

also i want interest rates to go up, so my savings can earn %10

There is a reason your Poor. Because your to lazy like most people to go through the effort of getting the qualifications to put your self in a position where you can earn the Higher amount.

I am more then happy to see people get assistnace who genuinely need it IE disabled people or have a serous issue. But Poor lazy f***s dont deserve any help and are a burden on society.

^^ Couldn't have said it better myself.

So if everyone gets off their arse and complete a masters degree in business management there will be no poverty?

Yes you can get a good education and get a high paying job (no gaurantee), but alot of the people that make/have alot of money are just lucky.

Bought real estate at the right time
Got money from parents which gave them the leg up to make more money
and lots of other right place/right time type things.

lol

You don't need an Uni education to be on decent money, or even to finish school.
People who think so are retarded.

/Has a Bachelor Degree.

Also, If everyone went to Uni, Who would take away your trash?

oh rad

another uni degree vs no uni degree debate to be had in this thread once obes and typo and everyone gets a hold of it

stay tuned

If everyone went to Uni, Who would take away your trash?

university educated rubbishmen obviously.

s*** you can go drive a truck on a mine and earn $120+. no quals needed. just because your educated doesnt mean your going to earn alot of money. s*** i know a high school drop out that is working in recruitment earning $150k+/yr. dumb as dog s*** but good at her job.

Exactally, everyone has the opportunities to make a lot of money if they are willing to work for it.

It's a shame that there are a lot of people that want other people to work hard for them instead.

oh rad

another uni degree vs no uni degree debate to be had in this thread once obes and typo and everyone gets a hold of it

stay tuned

god damn typo is the worst. when I was at uni...

another uni degree vs no uni degree debate to be had in this thread once obes and typo

You turned the thread into that ya moron.

ps. if everyone had degrees we'd have no milkos, bakers, farmers, chefs, chippies, sparkies ... basically you'd have a hungry bunch of self important toss pots sitting in tents looking for someone to sue, blame, research or study.

haven't you ever heard of ROBOTS obes

damn right, we dont need any of those dum bastards

It's a shame that there are a lot of people that want other people to work hard for them instead.

it's a shame most of the world works that way.

it makes it hard to just talk to people - and dammit.. they never get your jokes

no koopz, thats just because the jokes are s***

obviously most of you guys havnt got a clue to what being poor is like. to me anyone making 30g+ pa is well off.

no koopz, thats just because the jokes are s***

oh damn man...

is this about the 'mini me' jokes?

while you do look, sound, and write just like Power plz understand that it was just a joke. you're not a tall guy, and like many of your hight you can compensate with your choice of words.

that's not a crime. lots of guys do it. to be honest - you're quite a funny prick

it wasn't meant to have a serious go at you matey

Hell, you can get a V8 Calais with leather for less than 57K.

at what point did a holden become a luxury car?

Kat is stupid, $30k wont even buy you an average family sedan with the safety features that INTELLIGENT people are looking for to keep themselves and their family safe in an accident SO SHUT THE f*** UP!*@(#@(*

taxing cars past a certain value seems ridiculous to me at all, why should you pay more tax because a car is worth more?
you already pay tax everywhere else, a car is just a 'thing', a depreciating thing at that.

bit weird to be raising taxes when we are seeing record surpluses and tax revenue

bit weird to be raising taxes when we are seeing record surpluses and tax revenue

Do you read much news hast?

haven't you ever heard of ROBOTS obes

I have seen Battle Star Gallactica, I robot, Terminator and played mass effect

It doesn't end well.


last edited by Obes at 08:39:01 12/May/08

MOVIES ARE FACT ITT

Do you read much news hast?

i think the point he's getting at is there is very little real justification for this tax, it's just a political revenue grab.

on the news labor is claiming that this tax will help inflation by curbing demand... and that is pretty stupid.

Yes you can get a good education and get a high paying job (no gaurantee), but alot of the people that make/have alot of money are just lucky.

Bought real estate at the right time
Got money from parents which gave them the leg up to make more money
and lots of other right place/right time type things.

LOL!

Seriously most right place/right time things are the result of a lot of hard work and perseverance. It's very easy for those outside to make themselves feel better by saying "oh he's just lucky he got a break".

My brother is an excellent example he bought his first house on an apprentiship wage spent months trying to convince a bank any bank to lend him the money, somehow managed to save (and/or borrow) a deposit and went without a LOT for 3 or 4 years living with his parents renting the new place out to make ends meet.

Now he has property of well over $1M very little of which is owned by the bank and while not rolling in cash is doing quite well for himself.

You'll never make money yourself by sitting back thinking "oh he just got lucky" You've got to stand up and take every opportunity and work hard at it, sacrifice things, and if it knocks you on your ass get up and find the next opportunity.

how about the 5th element obes? the robots do an excellent job of cleaning up the broken glass and spilt water. or are you going to try and render that void JUST BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T HELP GARY OLDMAN'S CHARACTER STOP CHOKING ON A CHERRY?!?!

You never saw a 5th Element 2 because their was a robot uprising...

'the rich' - australian residents who together with associates, effectively control $30 million or more in net wealth.

Wealthy and Wise: a tax guide for Australia's wealthiest people booklet (March, 2008).

a 5% increase on luxury car tax will not influence any of these people's decision to buy a car.

What's that got to do with robots taking over our planet ?

isn't a ~$57k car a luxury though, deserving of a luxury tax? as someone who has never paid more that $12k for a car i rekn $57k would be pretty luxurious by comparison. as natslovr just said... it's also only a 5% increase so surely if you were gonna buy an expensive car it wouldn't really stop you.

as for robots... i've seen the reality... asimo! from that i can extrapolate that robots in the future may be able to walk up some stairs without falling over & breaking themselves (9times out of 10) :D

luxury is relative, at least in the context you're talking demon.
I think it's fair to say that quite a number of people would spend less than 57k on a car that could arguably be considered a luxury because it gives them more than bare essentials.

and how do you mean 'deserving of a luxury tax'? what makes such a purchase deserving of additional tax?

oooh, interesting philosophical point jim - should anything more than the bare essentials qualify as luxury? If I go out for a dinner at a restaurant and buy a nice meal, is that a luxury because I could have just bought some rice and vegetables and eaten them raw and survived just as easily?

Kind of a silly question - luxury is relative to the standard of living in the country in question. Its not a luxury to go out to a restaurant for most peope in Aus because it is not extravagant or expensive:

luxury
noun
1. something that is an indulgence rather than a necessity
2. the quality possessed by something that is excessively expensive [syn: lavishness]
3. wealth as evidenced by sumptuous living

Owning a car at all in India is a luxury. It is not very luxurious in Australia. Fixation on the first part of the definition of a luxury is not particularly helpful.

ITT, we are talking about Australia, and whether a 57k car is a luxury. Given that is comparable to the mean annual wage I think it counts as a luxury item.

sure the term 'luxury' is gonna be relative... if you wanna be picky to an obes-like degree... then any car is a luxury as long as you have workign feet :P which is the same argument as trog's uncooked vegetables. but spending ~$50k on a car is more like ordering beluga caviar with every meal imo :P

I'm not meaning to be picky, I just saw that you were talking in a relative sense (cos you said 'a luxury') and was interested in why you thought a luxury should attract a tax. I know why the govt imposes LCT (or at least I have their claimed reasoning on it) but I was interested in why you said it was deserving of a tax

but why should luxury cars be taxed more? why not have a luxury house tax instead. isn't it indulgent for people to be buying $5m homes?

it just basically entrenches in our community the ideas of envy and "tall poppy syndrome".

you are only rich when you earn money faster than your wife can spend it.

Its not a luxury to go out to a restaurant for most peope in Aus because it is not extravagant or expensive:

maybe for you! I'd love to eat at restaurants every night, but I there's no way I could justify the expense. I think ordering a $30-$40 meal at a restaurant for dinner is clearly a luxury, otherwise people'd do it all the time, right?

a yo momma joke springs to mind...

many people do eat out all the time. there is a whole new trend in apartment design (for some projects) to exclude kitchens for this very reason.

luxury is relative, at least in the context you're talking demon.
I think it's fair to say that quite a number of people would spend less than 57k on a car that could arguably be considered a luxury because it gives them more than bare essentials.

and how do you mean 'deserving of a luxury tax'? what makes such a purchase deserving of additional tax?

Anything more than an lifted '81 subaru is a luxury and should be taxed at 1000%!

Who the f*** would buy a place without a kitchen?
Those people should be taxed out the ass.

1 bedders in the cbd? the convenience of having all those food shops around, compared to having an oven, stove top and rangehood but 30 minute commute.

it seems like a good idea to me. just think of it like a multiroom hotel room. ensutie, loungueroom, bedroom.

you can still have a toaster.

eat the rich they taste better

trog:

maybe for you! I'd love to eat at restaurants every night, but I there's no way I could justify the expense.

Why is it that people love to chuck words in my mouth? Eating at a Restaurant every night is obviously a luxury. This adds up to 3-400 dorras a week - a large chunk of the mean wage.

However the act of eating at a Restaurant in Australia itself is not a luxury - the vast majority of the population 'eat out' at least a few times a year. A huge chunk of the population regularly spends more 30-40+ for a night's entertainment "going out" - be it movies, Restaurants or pubs etc.

By your definition laying down a hundred bucks for a video game is luxurious. Its just not in our society unless you downgrade the term from actions lavish and extravagant to mundane and common.

By definition something that most people do in a society is not luxurious. Do most people own 57k+ cars in Australia?

infi:

but why should luxury cars be taxed more? why not have a luxury house tax instead. isn't it indulgent for people to be buying $5m homes?

it just basically entrenches in our community the ideas of envy and "tall poppy syndrome".

It already is, and you know it. Stamp duty is the best example - 1% on a 100k house, 3.2% on a 1M house.

There are also limits on the first home owner's scheme relating to the purchase price.

last edited by Hogfather at 11:45:49 12/May/08

it seems like you're kind of bending the definition of a luxury a bit hogfather. at least my understanding of the definition, and certainly that of some dictionaries such as those quoted at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/luxury

even the definition you posted - and I don't get why you said 'fixation on the first part of the definition is not helpful' - I don't see a need to fixate on it myself, but I certainly think it's worthwhile not dismissing it entirely!

Stamp duty is the best example - 1% on a 100k house, 3.2% on a 1M house.

Stamp duty was supposed to be removed as part of the New Tax System 1998 agreement with the States. The greedy &^%$s welched on the deal.

Its not about "dismissing it entirely" Jim - that's not what I said or implied.

I think that its very clear that the legilation attacks a perceived extravagance of high-priced cars, not whether or not you need one to keep breathing.

To make an obscure point that anything above what you need to stay alive is a luxury in the same way that a 57k car is a luxury is just stupid and fiates on the prtial definition of the word as someething that is not necessary. It also completely misses the contextual use of the word in relation to wealth and definition of 'rich' status in Australia.

infi: Why the tax is there is not pertinent, other than a chance to slag off Labor Governments. I was responding to "why not have a luxury house tax instead" where you seemed to be stating that such a tax doesn't exist, when it does.

last edited by Hogfather at 12:04:06 12/May/08

By your definition laying down a hundred bucks for a video game is luxurious. Its just not in our society unless you downgrade the term from actions lavish and extravagant to mundane and common.

Well, that was exactly my initial point. Is something you don't need, by definition, a luxury? Or is it only a luxury if it hits some critical mass of excess?

In this context, no.

A "luxury tax" applied to cars over 57k clearly targets their perceived lavishness or extravagance. I don't know many people whose car is necessary for their survival.

it all depends on what your definition of 'need' is. and that i think is the cruicial point in this discussion.

just because you don't 'need' something doesn't necessarily make it a luxury.

everyone has a different idea of what is a 'need' and what is a 'luxury'. there are some things we all agree on, and some things that we will never agree on.

it's not so much a tax as the lower rate at the start is a concession. I would argue a 3% rate is not punitive however a 25% tax to be raised to 33% is definitely intended to have some disincentive effect.

A "luxury tax" applied to cars over 57k clearly targets their perceived lavishness or extravagance.

I consider my car luxurious but it was nowhere near 57k. I feel stupid every time I get in it because it was so much more excessive than what I needed.

I don't know many people whose car is necessary for their survival.

really? without even thinking hard I can think of people I know who would be in some jeopardy if they didn't have a car (people for whom because of their specific profession, public transport is not an option), because they wouldn't be able to earn a living (...in their current profession)

Ahh but you have breached your own notion of luxury as the inverse of necessity where necessity is the bae minimum for survival. If you lose your job in Australia you don't die you end up at Centrelink checking in for your subsistence payment.

ie:

is that a luxury because I could have just bought some rice and vegetables and eaten them raw and survived just as easily

That's the bleak notion of luxury that I was looking at - ideas that anything above the basic requirements to not die is a luxury.

I make no such claim - car ownership, particularly new cars, is a luxury albeit a quite mild one. Ownership of a car is for most people a necessity to maintain our way of life (but not survive), but a lot of people would spend more than they really needed to on their vehicle.

However there are very few people for whom maintaining a 57k+ car is a necessity by even the most generous use of the term. For most people their basic need for a car is to get around, and depending on their job maybe to pass themselves off as a vaguelly respectable non-bogan.

Its not about "dismissing it entirely" Jim - that's not what I said or implied.

I think that its very clear that the legilation attacks a perceived extravagance of high-priced cars, not whether or not you need one to keep breathing.

well like I said, I'm already aware of why the govt claims such a tax exists - I'm not questioning that. but this discussion has deviated from the 'black and whiteness' of that into more of a loose discussion around what a luxury actually is - and I felt, while reading your comments, that you were ignoring parts of the definition.

To make an obscure point that anything above what you need to stay alive is a luxury in the same way that a 57k car is a luxury is just stupid

that wasn't the point I was making - it was demon and/or trog that kind of took it to that level. if you check back to what I said, I was only taking it to a much more reasonable and practical level - and it was only in direct response to demon's post - not to the govt-imposed concept of a luxury car tax.

I was responding to "why not have a luxury house tax instead" where you seemed to be stating that such a tax doesn't exist, when it does.

I don't reckon you really made a point there, since vehicles already have stamp duty imposed on their sale as well, and in some states it increases in brackets relative to the vehicle purchase price, akin to income tax.


Anyway, all I'm asking, and have been asking, is why some people think such a purchase should attract a special tax

Jim: I'm sort of mixing you and trog and infi up to avoid typo-style quote marathons. The infi bit I was just poking him in the eye for fun.

IF you accept the idea that a luxury tax on cars is reasonable (and I'm not really sure that I do) I think its hard to get away from the idea that 57k is a reasonable marker, although it could have scaled rather than been a hard line.

You can buy a car to suit almost any purpose for under that price. What do you gain by jumping above 57k that isn't really just wank factor? That's a serious question by the way, my cars are worth in total about 15-20k I reckon so I have no idea about that end of the market.

We have to get money for all those single mums from somewhere Jim!
Why not slug the 'big guys' and their fancy cars?

I would much rather see tighter restrictions on dole payments and subsidies then any new tax.

Especially considering that my plan is for my next car to be more then 57k :o

Anyway, all I'm asking, and have been asking, is why some people think such a purchase should attract a special tax

I would have thought it does attract a special tax in the form of the GST doesn't it? Or is there no GST on cars or something

GST is a broad-based consumption tax and applies to cars. Cars then also attract the luxury car tax.

it depends on the person I spose hogfather. I'm sure for a lot of people it's wank factor and for a lot of people it's not. or varying shades in between :)

you definitely get a lot more for your money than just wank though, and for most people, they can't appreciate it until they drive around in one for more than just a couple of blocks. I can list a lot of features and benefits to buying an expensive car but am too lazy to unless you or someone else presses me.

---

and yeah it's already in place trog, has been for 10 years or so (luxury car tax that is). there's also gst and stamp duty

I meant, why do people personally feel that luxury tax should be there - cos I got the impression from a couple of the posts that some people think it should be

right - so the GST is almost a "luxury car tax" in itself, right? If you buy a really expensive car, you pay a s***load more GST?

I actually think tax on cars is gay.

This would be massively unpopular, but it should be a user pays system.

No rego fees luxury tax or what not (other then that required to ensure the vehicle is rego'd and road worthy) and then enough tax on petrol to cover any and all running costs.

Petrol would prolly jump up to 2.50 or so a litre, and expensive cars would drop in price... but I still think it should be that way.

Because rich people are by default evil nd should be punished for it.

There's also a bit of Robin Hood rich-poor thing with regards to social justice and policy in the Australian democracy. I read somewhere (and I looked for it, can't find it) that there's some ATO / Government statistic that 70% of the Australian population doesn't pay net tax - the services they receive in return outweight their contributions.

So there's - by design - about a 20% skew in favour of the poor which is where the social democracy thing comes in. For the system to work that extra money has to come from somewhere, and consumption taxes are popular at the moment.

it's just the system jim, the user/consumer pays. the more you consume the more you pay, consume excessively (& yes! i;ll decide what's excessive mister!) & so you must pay excessively. that's the system... don't ask me for the idealogy coz i don't reckon there is one... it's just the capitolist juggernaut spiralling out of control :p


last edited by demon at 13:09:40 12/May/08

If you buy a really expensive car, you pay a s***load more GST

yep, that is how percent works. 10 percent of a hundred dollars is 10 dollars. 10 percent of $35 is tree fidy.

yeah I am s*** at maths

last edited by natslovR at 13:23:49 12/May/08

I know it's the system :(
I wanted to know why _you_ thought there should be a luxury tax

DO THEY SPEAK ENGLISH IN WHAT?!?! :)

OH!

coz i h8 u phatcats with yur luuts n ferraris n wotnots... i thought that bit was obvious :D nah actually i don't think there should be any luxury tax :/

heh

there's some info here on why it was introduced http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/bd/1998-99/99bd156.htm

Petrol would prolly jump up to 2.50 or so a litre, and expensive cars would drop in price... but I still think it should be that way.

if you don't think the government should get a return on its assets (new road assets + maintance of assets still come out of fuel excise) then fuel excise more than covers the road costs. put in 12% real return and reasonable valuations and it looks like road users are subsidised. :)

last edited by hast at 19:50:01 12/May/08

as long as i still get the baby bonus I'll be happy

The problem with upping the cost of fuel is that it is immensely inflationary, transport costs underpin pretty much the entire economy.

A "user pays" system based purely on the pump price pretty much wouldn't be.

coz i h8 u phatcats with yur luuts n ferraris n wotnots

Yeah I'm a hater at the moment... drove past the owners house of Guess in L.A here, the guy has no less than 9 Ferraris parked in his driveway, 2 Bentley's and some others. _THAT'S_unfair :)

yeah you think he'd have some kind of garage for those cars

Walking around London I commonly saw 'Luxury' cars. but they're cheap over there.
Was a Lotus parked on the street most of the times I walked to the Tube too... Under a tree, getting new drops of bird s*** everyday.

Don't we pay more than most countries for our cars?
Pushing common cars like a BMW (in other countries)) over the 57k mark. :(

The difference is in a lot of cases for folks who are considered wealthy is that they have access to personel that can advise them on how best to exploit the tax system whereas the small income earner doesn't generally have that option.

I have to admit tho, I like the idea of the quaranteened cash for social security benfits. Thing is, I don't believe it should just be limited to indigineous communities. It's already in place for some of the mentally disabled peoples who have to request access to their funds outside of normal payments (rent, utilities etc) as they are on a pension. Do it for everyone on social security.

PS - I lurv my new 9800GX2 :P
CoD4 @ an avg of 91 fps @ 2550 x 1600 (drops to 50 - 60 during a heavy firefight! )

i don't know if i'd call a lotus a luxury car to be honest.

we're paying about double the US price on luxury cars over here. UK is a fair-sized market for bmw/merc so it's not like we're just paying soley for right-hand drive versions. pretty crazy really

according to some forum posts I've read though, ireland is worse off than us in that regard, and some other countries too

interesting that the kiwis pay the same as we do over here despite the lack of a local car industry to protect.

really?
I was under the impression they pay alot less.

For 2nd hand and import cars that is.
Maybe not new cars.