Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

LCT tax defeated. Thank the lawd!

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Ktulu, Sep 4, 2008.

  1. Today Senator Fielding tipped the balance in the senate towards common sense and proper economic management.

    Here's a disgustingly biased SMH article for you

    The defeat of this tax:

    - Improves business in the Australia auto industry which employs hundreds of thousands of people across Australia, and is worth billions.

    - Makes newer, safer cars more available to Australians.

    - Avoids rising costs for farmers, tourism operators, and government departments.

    - Most importantly: has prevented the government from illegally taxing an industry.

    From the article:
    This is a bare arsed lie. Wayne Swan is a whore.

    The notion that the government LOST money over this is also a lie, as the number of sales of vehicles that would otherwise have had this additional tax applied to them have already dropped by more than the increase was.

    Anyway, this resurrects a microscopic shred of hope in my heart, that we aren't under the thumb of maliciously incompetent f*ckwits.
  2. Most of the $57,000+ vehicles purchased (again more than likley leased) are in company/business names - so any tax is deductible, and simply "a cost of business" and included in any monthly repayment

    IMHO, higher interest rates and slowdown in economy were more to blame than the LCT for any drop in luxury car sales. Talk to any small business owner, most I speak to are claiming tough times at the moment.

    Time will tell
  3. Buying a new $57K + car are we Ktulu? :wink:

    Sorry if I can't share your enthusiasm for the poor downtrodden luxury car buyers of Australia. I agree the threshold figure was probably too low. The statistics on purchases since July 1st can't be considered representative of what may actually have happened should the legislation have passed. Many car buyers in the Luxury car range would have been deferring purchase in a wait and see game. :grin:
  4. Anything that makes Ferrari,s cheaper, can only be good for us all.
  5. There is slightly more to it.

    The ATO instructed dealers to collect the additional tax from July 1, even though Senate hadn't passed it yet.
    The idea being it would apply retroactively to all juicy monies collected after "Date we say so", after it is passed.

    So the situation was thus:

    Dealers: "You want us to what? Reduce our competitiveness by raising prices to include a tax that may not yet come to pass???"

    ATO: "Whatever. You could always charge the customer later, when the law passes. OR collect it and if it doesn't pass; refund the money."

    The Government was giving itself the power to go BACK to people and apply a new/modified sales tax AFTER a purchase has been finalised and all debts settled - because it decided it didn't have to wait until the tax was actually, you know, legal.

    OR the other option was to charge people a tax that would later be refunded.
    Toecutter, you make the point that business buy all these vehicles... business also LEASE all those vehicles which does involve a whole cash payment by a 3rd party which finalises the SALE if not necessarily new ownership. The ATO was imposing an administrative nightmare on the auto-industry --> NOT YET LEGALLY, 'but maybe legally... probably legally... we're hoping it'll be legal, so just do what we say'.

    Tax aside, that would have been a massive cost to the industry. Cost reduces profits, reduces employment. Is bad.

    And the pricks still want to turn around and blitz us with speeding fines for the terrible "danger" and "risk to safety" it entails, while simultaneously trying to profit off making newer, high quality vehicles less accessible to everyone.

    I've already e-mailed Senator Fielding informing him that he is a righteous dude.

    The Tax was ignorantly proposed, and bastardly implemented.

    cjvfr - that was the reason for the tax. To score a couple of popularity points and to 'be seen' to be accomplishing something in the eyes of the people... even though it's all a load of shit. Common theme, huh? Coz Aussies are jealous of people who have more money than them. The majority wouldn't sympathise, and they were hoping the damage to the auto industry, and the marshall-law approach of the Tax Office would go unnoticed by punters who were happy to sit back and go "Haha, suck THAT rich people."
  6. Really? Most fleet vehicles I see are mid sized family cars or even more commonly, things like Astras or Corolla's that come in well under the 57k limit. Maybe I haven't been working for the right companies? :LOL:

    Labor knew this would fail, and always did. The fact they managed to budget 555 million dollars for a tax change that they KNEW wouldn't go through was either clever, or absolutely stupid. Looking at the state of the current Labor party, I'd gamble it's the bizarre combination of both.
  7. Where did I state "most fleet vehicles are subject to LCT" :?

    Can't help it if the most you can work up to is an Astra, you're right, you are working for the wrong companies :p
  8. Over here in the WA engineering world there's lotsa expensive exotica on novated leases. There are also lots of accesorized to the max, top of the line SS utes and similar running around with company names on. And, of course, there are the business owners such as my bro in law whose companies are kind enough to provide them with a new 'Cruiser every three years. Not fleet vehicles as such, but not bought in the name of a private individual either.

    Personally I don't give a stuff about the LCT one way or the other. However, blocking it is likely to be difficult to sell to the 50% or more of the population for whom $57,000 represents a year or more's wages. Call it the politics of envy if you like, but public sympathy is likely to be thin on the ground, whatever the reasons.

    I do wonder if this is being set up as one of a number of possible Double Dissolution triggers. It all seems very convenient. Paint the Opposition as the protectors of wealth and privilege, aided and abetted by the more right leaning cross-benchers, whilst striking what can be portrayed as a reasonable compromise with the Greens. It wouldn't be a bad springboard, politically speaking, towards getting an increased majority in the Lower House, combined with a Senate where negotiation is only necessary with the Greens. Got to remember that there is a persistent rumour that Rudd used to whup chess computers in a dozen or so moves and the current Opposition seem to have less political nous than a Commodore 64.

    Incidentally, on the subject of the Greens negotiated concession, does anyone know if there are any cars available that cost >$57,000 but do better than 7L/100km? I'm guessing a few Euro turbo diesels and maybe some of the bigger hybrids that markets other than Australia get.
  9. Now let's see them try to refund that not-yet-legal premix tax. Damn Rudd... he was the prime minister "we had to have", but jeez I hope he's a one-term government....
  10. In politics the general mix of votes are:

    40% Conservative
    40% Labour

    Politicians are only ever chasing the 10-20% of voters who sit on the fence and can see the value (AKA as 'What's in it for me?') of both parties. A lot of these 10-20% are not poor downtrodden proletariat looking for a reason to revolt.

    I've just heard a pathetic response from one of the labour pollies. He says the libs first big test was to support a 'tax decrease for those that drive Porsches and Ferraris'. I mean, what absolute shit! I imagine that there are an aweful lot of cars between $50K and $100k and that's where the bulk of the money will be raised.

    For a start, the liberals are opposing a tax increase. And that a lot of people buying a $60k car are the ones affected.

    For a start, the tax is suggested to raise an extra $550m this year. That's an awful lot of Ferraris being sold. That's $550m EXTRA from people who are already probably paying the top rate of tax. They are already paying GST and other Tarrifs on their car. And now, for no other reason than they can, the ALP want to hit them with some more. And why raise the tax?

    The government has a $20b surplus. So it's not to balance the books. It can't be to tackle inflation as taking $550m out of an economy is not likely to make the slightest bit of difference. Aside from the fact that $550m is piffle in the national economy, the buyers of Porsches and Ferrari's probably won't care and the buys of $60k cars will either chose a lower spec model or just pay the extra. So it's just a tax grab. For NO reason other than they can.

    There should only be one reasons for taxes.

    1.) To raise funds to pay for essential services

    Being generous, they can also be used to effect social change or discourage a dangerous activity.

    In an ideal World, external tariffs would not exist, but that isn't the case and so we have extra costs for some imported goods.

    So, other than they can, what reason is there for the ALP to increase the LCT on vehicles at $57k? If you can find a reason, why $57k? What social evil is stopped? What inflation numbers are affected? What budget is balanced?

    It's like alcopops...love that word. Makes it sound like we're protecting our kids. Except it's really pre-mix drinks. Thats JB and Coke..Last time I checked an awful lot of those were bought by people over the age of 18. This tax can't have been to protect kids as the anecdotal evidence is that kids will now mix their own, drink another type of drink or increase their use of drugs. In fact, it's such a useless tax, the government anticipate a revenue hike of $3B!!!!

    I think in 2yrs time a lot of people who earn between $60k and $100k who were tired of Howard and voted for change will vote for change again.
  11. Was about to start a new topic on that :wink:

    Hey Ktulu, how can a car tax be more important than cheaper alochol :p
  12. Yeah, I heard on the radio this morning that the same Senator - Steve Fielding who voted down the LCT increase has said he'll vote against the pre-mixed drinks tax too.

    I must send him another e-mail... and perhaps a gift.

    cejay - A friend of mine works in the car finance industry and here's what he's told me about that $555million:

    - That figure is based on consistent sales, when in fact, sales of those vehicles have dropped. SO FAR there has actually been less revenue from luxury car sales for the government, even with the illegal early tax hike.

    - Labour didn't consult with the auto industry at all prior to intriducing their filthy, illegal money grab idea.

    - Labour refused to look at changing the threshold for the LCT to kick in. Seriously: is it not likely that since last millenium the value of our money has changed a little bit? Maybe a touch of inflation, etc? Yet, they weren't willing to look at changing a figure, only increasing a percentage.
    Labour were lazy about the whole thing.
    The Greens senators wanted to twist the tax hike to only affect 'gas guzzlers', but this was put down as 'too hard to administrate'.

    So the government was unwilling to do the same work they were forcing upon car dealers who had to collect and hold additional tax [or chase created debts later].

    - The language used by Labour supporters of this tax is horrifically emotive. They refer only to Ferrari's and Porsches, not Landcruisers and Subarus.
    They've called the Liberal opposition to the tax a "tax cut for rich people" - when it is NOT a cut, it is just not a rise.
    Everything about it points to Labour trying to play the Robin Hood role to score votes with blue collar workers and the unions they've distanced themselves a little from over the last few years.

    If you totally agree with a LCT increase; you are uninformed.

    If you're happy to let it go through because it doesn't affect you, and rich people should have to pay more for expensive cars; you have been manipulated by political bogshyte.
  13. I love that last part :)

    The bit about Porsches and Ferrari's is so pathetically shallow. We can't make any rational case for the change, so we will resort to pathetic stereotyping instead.

    Pat, Rudd may think this won't affect him, I believe it will.
  14. Poor old Labor Party hacks; they just can't resist reverting to type and playing the politics of envy, can they :roll:.??
  15. Don't look at me, I voted for Dr. Karl! :LOL:
  16. That's what gave me the shits about this attempt at a tax raise was the emotive language used. Like everybody else said, Labor were trying to create that divide the use and abuse so effectively. Porsches and Ferrari's? Get your fcuking hand off it.

    I won't be able to afford a car that'd be affected by the LCT for many, many, many years, and I can still tell the thing was absolute bullshit.
  17. I'm not saying that they are, particularly. However, I suspect that many (maybe most) will not care sufficiently for it to change their potential vote, precisely because of the "what's in it for me" mentality, or perhaps more correctly in this case "there's nothing in it for me".

    Whether it has any electoral effect may become clearer from the opinion polls from here on. My suspicion is that it either won't or will be a negative for the Coalition. I would be surprised if this becomes a political negative for the government, although I am prepared to be proved wrong.
  18. The UK Labour party gained political succes when it moved away from politics of envy and class warfare to middle of the road, don't upset anyone politics. Before that time it was a party dedicated to the redistribution of wealth and the poor downtrodden blue collar working class. Except that the majority of voters are not in that section.

    I am not saying that Rudd is in that 'Old Labour' style of politics, just that any adept opposition and media should be pulling this apart for all its worth. I have no issues with taxation for raising money, some issues when it's used for social change, but am totally opposed when it's used just to exact some form of retribution.
  19. And, bearing in mind their current position, I'm not convinced about that level of success :wink: .

    I dunno that it was entirely down to a change in the approach to the redistribution of wealth. After all, "Old Labour" had a fair bit of electoral success prior to the rise of the Tories under MrsT. IMHO UK Labour's lack of electoral success was principally down to the vicious internal brawling and distinctly unpalatable public face that they presented during the early 80s.

    But that's for another day.

    On topic though, whatever the rights and wrongs of the LCT, I'd emphasise that politically I see it, if it has any effect at all, boosting the govt and hurting the opposition.

    Absofarkinlutely. If you can let me know where to get either in Australia I'll be there yesterday to obtain one of each :grin: .
  20. Old labour had lots of success? In another era, another time. Under Thatcher they enjoyed none, despite Thatcher being quite unpalatable herself. And the Major won on his own rights. Smith was doing ok in the polls, but his death put paid to that...No, Blair was the real change, allowing them to present acceptable policies to the electorate that didn't scare them. Meanwhile, people grew tired after 18yrs of conservatism.

    I don't think this policy on its own makes one bit of difference. Taken together, with other changes it adds up. Either way, I despair for a place where tax such as the LCT is seen as reasonable and desirable.