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.

Vic State Budget - Bikes?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Iondah, May 2, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Just wondering if anyone who may have studied the budget in more detail than I have has seen any mention of bikes?

    I noticed that stamp duty on cars is being reduced, is there going to be a reduction in stamp duty on bikes too?
  2. A brief scan of the budget overview provides the following:

    "$177 million over five years in substantial cuts to stamp duty on new motor vehicles, benefiting both business and families."

    But then, later:

    "• slashing by more than 40 per cent the rate of stamp duty on new passenger vehicles priced between $35 000 and $57 009, from 4 per cent to 2.5 per cent;"

    I have not had the opportunity to explore further at this stage, but the link is here:http://www.budget.vic.gov.au/CA2572B00081B35D/pages/home
  3. Thanks... well looks like Ducatis and BMWs will be *slightly* more affordable in 2010. lol :LOL:
  4. hardly

    even a fully specced goldwing is only about $40,000. It'll make no difference at all to bikes, and sod all difference to those buying your average family car.

    yet another example of blinding the public with promises and those too stupid to analyse it will automatically believe they will be better off.

    For those following, if this is the same as the previous system, you'll still be paying 4% SD on the first $35,000 - you only get the 1.5% on the balance.
  5. Or more importantly 'our' politicians serving the interests of the few insanely rich rather than the many.
    The proposed 'incentive' scheme for solar power is just another example as it only applies to households with a combined income of $250,000pa or more.
    One would think these are just the people that don't need more government hand outs?
  6. Yeah, amazing system we have here.

    Give lots of tax cuts to the insanely rich while the lower end of the scale get punished with higher taxes.
  7. If you're talking about federal ALP's proposed interest free loans to "green" up houses, then it's UP to $250k income. It's also for the cost of installing insulation as well as anything else that makes your home "greener" (paint not included).
  9. obviously I've stuffed up the quoted sections above!

    noob :oops:
  10. $35k-$57k is the price range of a Commodore or Falcon i.e an average family car.
  11. Most average families I know can't afford brand-new Commodores or Falcons - although many lease them anyway. ](*,)

    Regardless, the point is we're still ignored as legitimate road-users, or even as voters. Can't say I'm surprised. The only time they think of us is when they're trying to bend us over for more money. Probably better if they forget about us. :roll:
  12. The last time that I saw such figures, it was suggested that 80% of new car sales were to fleets. Those vehicles are the ones that private owners are most likely to purchase as used vehicles.

    Take a stroll through a major Holden dealership for example. Check out the Commodores that are one to two years old. Chances are that they're all ex-fleet.

    Us plebs are most likely to buy new Hyundais, lower end Toyotas and the like, as far as new cars go.
  13. Your dad is earning greater than $150,000pa, and your mum isn't far off and you say you're middle class? Get your hand off it. :roll:

    I get a little 'jacked-off' about this kind of stuff too. If a household income near $300,000pa is middle class, then I'm below the fcuking poverty line. I don't care what you say: if you're folks are earning that much they're rolling in it as far as I'm concerned - and they definitely don't need MORE tax breaks. The GST took it far enough. :p
  14. I don't know the exact stats but there are a surpisingly high number of aussies living under the poverty line. Most UNI students I know fit this bill (been there, done that). My house of 4 is living on under $70k, I'd call us middle class (just).
  15. You probably need to revise your notion of what "Middle Class" means. Let's put it into context. The average Australian wage/salary is around the $50K mark, and that includes all workers. Yer typical senior employee working mum & dad couple nowadays would be pulling in the range of $100-$200K/yr between them, and that'd be "Middle Class". A working couple pulling in something approaching $300K/yr is really only just above "Middle Class". You'd call it Upper Middle Class sort of bracket.

    Compare that to the real "Upper Class", which would be the people pulling in excess of $1M/yr, being your senior company execs, major property developers, and successful business people, and $250K/yr for a couple is chump-change.

    Pulling in less than $70K/yr for a two-couple working family would be in the "Lower Class" range.

    Also, have to factor in taxation. While $250K/yr might seem like a very impressive number, chances are the couple are really only clearing $150K/yr after taxes. Throw in the loan costs of your typical $500-700K family house, and the mortgage repayments on that, and you're looking at around $80-100K/yr on loan repayments alone. Okay, so now we have $60K/yr to live on, which includes rates, bills, food, clothes, petrol, insurance, schooling for the kids, commuting costs, and so on, and all of a sudden our "wealthy" $250K/yr household really only has about $10K/yr of "luxury dispoable income".
  16. If refering to my statement, that's one person fulltime (me) with mother at home with two young kids. If my living standards are lower class then somebody forgot to tell me. I've lived in much lower standards than I currently am and still considered myself lucky.
  17. With few exceptions, most of us have done it much tougher than we currently do. e.g. living in a small room in a shared accommodation arrangement, sleeping on an old matress on the floor with no furniture, earning <$20K/yr and eating pasta 5 nights/week. That's below poverty line material, not "Lower Class".

    "Lower Class" doesn't mean "Poverty Line dirt poor". It means that you're still able to put decent food on the table. It won't be steak and sushi, but it'll still be meat and 3 veg. Your furniture is still going to be decent, but it's not going to be all leather unless you bought it 2nd hand. You'll still own a decent enough car. May not have been bought brand new, or if it was, it likely didn't cost more than $30K.

    "Lower Class" is not an insult. Besides, Australia doesn't really have a "Class" system, at least not like the UK does. You can pretty much only distinguish between people who are:

    1) "Poverty Line or lower" = no disposable income, buying budget everything, lacking some basic essentials
    2) "Lower Class" = no or little dispoable income, able to afford all basic essentials.
    3) "Middle Class" = having some disposable income, able to afford luxury versions of various essentials, and some luxury items
    4) "Upper Class" = having immense disposable income, able to afford luxury items of whatever is desired
  18. No insult taken, just surprised. I didn't think the 'classes' were set so high.
  19. Australia isn't a third world country. Earning power per capita divided by the basic costs of living puts it among the wealthiest nations on the planet.

    The biggest issue facing Australia as a whole is the stupidly exhorbitant cost of housing, which in terms of affordability for the average income earner is really only fractionally behind London and Tokyo, and that's truly insane. You'd understand it if Australia was an overpopulated small-land-mass country, but in terms of arable inhabitable land divided by population, Australia is the least densely populated country in the world.

    The issues that need to be addressed are those of housing, and the market is currently obscenely over-inflated due to various govts. not releasing enough public land to accommodate the population growth, creating an artificial scenario where demand for housing outstrips supply. The problem is that if the govts. start releasing land, and housing prices correctly drop to around one half of what they presently are (which is where they should be), then this would create massive headaches for all the superannuation funds which have invested heavily in the housing market. Imagine the govt. having to explain why everyone's superannuation investments are now worth 2/3rds of what they used to be, not to mention everyone paying mortgages on houses worth 50% of what they paid for them.

    It's an artificial housing market bubble that's turned into a huge monster that can only be deflated extremely slowly, or else the recession that it'd cause if housing prices snapped back suddenly would be felt for a few generations.
  20. People seem to be confusing 'class' and 'income'.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.