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

  • 950
    Yes Tax them more
  • 177
    No dont tax them more
  • 5
    im unsure
Automotive Car SUV Ute

Comments

  • ihfree on 11/03/2024 - 08:41
    +126

    It's a failure of legislation that there are so many unneeded large SUVs and utes on our roads. They take up more space so charging them more for parking makes sense

    Carbon ignored, there's extra weight which means more tyre wear and brake dust.

    • Caped Baldy on 11/03/2024 - 10:09
      +54

      Also, the safety aspect. I see so many driven like sports cars and they have really poor visibility.

      • TEER3X on 11/03/2024 - 21:09
        +48

        I would think that's the biggest issue. They're unsafe to drive and unsafe to be around.

        This isn't America!

      • SlickMick on 12/03/2024 - 11:30
        -6

        That's not my experience. I have excellent all-round visibility from my SUV with huge mirrors and open structure.
        Whereas I hate driving my wife's Astra with tiny mirrors and more pillars than glass making visibility terrible.

        • rumblytangara on 12/03/2024 - 15:55
          +14

          There's been some research suggesting that A pillars in SUVs tend to create much larger blind spots when turning, so pedestrians get hit more during turns.

          So it's not about "all-round" visibility or size of side mirrors, as pedestrians rarely get reversed into, it's specifically to do with turning.

          "IIHS notes that more research is needed to understand how visibility factors into these types of crashes. It conducted earlier studies that showed the A-pillars can create blind spots that can prevent drivers from seeing pedestrians. It gets worse as the pillars get wider, and larger vehicles need stronger pillars for rollover protection, although IIHS said it hasn’t yet assessed A-pillar design by vehicle type. It’s also suggested that other large-vehicle designs, including their height and long front ends, could also create visibility issues for drivers when pedestrians are present."

          https://driving.ca/auto-news/driver-info/drivers-in-big-vehi…

          Of course, once a pedestrian is hit the much higher profile of the SUV massively increases the risk of fatality. And of course, "all-round" visibility is quite good because of this height. Often at the expense of other drivers on the road.

          • SlickMick on 12/03/2024 - 16:00

            @rumblytangara: Yeah def more research required. I've never had an incident or near miss in an SUV, which I've been driving since 1990s, but I've had a few occurrences in the Astra and other small cars. The proportion of pillar vs glass seems far worse in small cars in my experience.

            • Caped Baldy on 12/03/2024 - 17:59
              +1

              @SlickMick: Depends on the car and person too. I've seen some absolute short asses in big SUVs/utes sitting low in the seat with their chins just over the wheel. So it concerns me how well they can see obstacles.

              • MrFrugalSpend on 12/03/2024 - 21:27
                +2

                @Caped Baldy: That person would struggle in any car… my experience is also better visibility in SUV/Utes and especially trucks.

            • doobey1231 on 20/03/2024 - 09:38

              @SlickMick: The Astra, especially the AH model, is one of the worst examples of pillar blind spots.

        • Assburg on 13/03/2024 - 00:08
          +19

          That's because you're in the SUV… no one has any chance of seeing through your open structure unless their car is 4 ft higher off the ground than it needs to be.

          Absolutely impossible to read traffic with an SUV in each lane in front of you.

          • SlickMick on 13/03/2024 - 21:26
            -6

            @Assburg: I hated SUVs when I didn't have one. The first time I drove one I realised why they're popular and it's been my only choice ever since. I remember saying "if you can't beat them, join them" about 30 years ago.

            Won't be popular with the haters, but I reckon some people are just a bit slow on the uptake.

            • rumblytangara on 14/03/2024 - 10:30
              +5

              @SlickMick:

              Won't be popular with the haters, but I reckon some people are just a bit slow on the uptake.

              I have avoided buying an SUV for what is probably an unusual reason- if am ever in the terrible situation of hitting a pedestrian, I would prefer to vastly lessen the chances of killing them outright.

              It's weird how some people have to go defensively smug to justify their ownership though.

              • Assburg on 14/03/2024 - 12:37

                @rumblytangara: Yeah… it's the vehicular equivalent of being morbidly obese so people don't sit next to you on the bus or go into the elevator with you.

                I saw data in 2015 which showed amongst sedans and SUVs, the biggest factor affecting mortality rates in accidents was actually the kind of car that you have an accident with. I.e. a sedan getting hit by an SUV is as safe as an SUV getting hit by an SUV. Even safer, is either car being hit by a sedan.

              • SlickMick on 14/03/2024 - 12:56
                -5

                @rumblytangara: You're less likely to hit anybody with an SUV, but you're concerned about the outcome if you do.

                I can't imagine making life choices according to unlikely what ifs.

                • rumblytangara on 14/03/2024 - 14:30
                  +3

                  @SlickMick:

                  You're less likely to hit anybody with an SUV

                  Yet all the studies and all data says otherwise.

                  It's really interesting to come across people on the Interwebs who are so determined to be like an ostrich.

                  • SlickMick on 14/03/2024 - 16:45
                    -2

                    @rumblytangara: I'm happy to be educated, but when someone tells me a report contradicts experience, I raise my eyebrows.

                    I suspect you've misinterpreted the report.

                    • ihfree on 14/03/2024 - 17:00
                      +1

                      @SlickMick:

                      You're less likely to hit anybody with an SUV

                      Really? got a link to this data?

                      • SlickMick on 14/03/2024 - 17:25
                        -3

                        @ihfree: I'm just going by personal experience. Ran over my dog and have a couple of near-misses in small cars with limited visibility. Never had an incident in several decades of driving an SUV (other than kangaroos).

                        I have no problems if you can show me that I'm an outlier and the stats say otherwise, but until I see the figures I'm not going to believe it. SUVS have far better visibility. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hit something/ someone in a convertible, but I don't see how you possibly could in an SUV.

                        • Shroomlet on 14/03/2024 - 21:10
                          +2

                          @SlickMick: https://www.smh.com.au/national/bigger-dirtier-more-dangerou…

                          Here's a link provided saying your wrong about SUV less likely to hit people

                          • SlickMick on 14/03/2024 - 21:59
                            -2

                            @Shroomlet: Care to point out where? Maybe I'm stupid, but I just read it top to bottom and didn't see that at all.

                            • Viper18 on 15/03/2024 - 15:10
                              +1

                              @SlickMick: Straight from the article, 7th paragraph down:

                              'Monash researchers used real-world crash data to rate the “aggressivity” of hundreds of vehicles based on how often they inflict serious or fatal injuries on other motorists, pedestrians and cyclists out of every 100 crashes.

                              Large SUVs recorded the highest average aggressivity rating at 5.46 deaths or serious injuries per 100 crashes, followed by vans (5.09) and utes (4.80), while a light car is 2.76. A Toyota HiLux – the most sold vehicle in Australia last year – had a rating of 5.71, making it almost twice as dangerous to other people than 2012’s top-selling Mazda 3 (3.10).'

                              • SlickMick on 15/03/2024 - 15:17
                                +1

                                @Viper18: You're missing the point.

                                That says when there is a crash, the results are worse. Duh. No one is disputing that.

                                What I'm saying, and no one here likes to hear, but there is no evidence against, is that there are less incidents because SUVs have far better visibility.

                                • Viper18 on 15/03/2024 - 15:20

                                  @SlickMick: Also from the article:

                                  Australasian College of Road Safety chief executive Ingrid Johnston said the high fronts on SUVs and large utes could cause blind spots of up to four metres in front of the driver, making them particularly dangerous for children.

                                  • SlickMick on 15/03/2024 - 18:40

                                    @Viper18: Okay you got me with that one. We have a vulnerability for small things within the vicinity of the vehicle. I wonder how that compares to small vehicles (much worse visibility almost everywhere). I gotta admit, I was no aware that there was any field of view worse in an SUV, but then again, cameras mitigate that so pretty much a mute point I think.

                                    Is anybody doing any research into how much more dangerous small vehicles are?

                        • rumblytangara on 15/03/2024 - 16:30
                          +2

                          @SlickMick: I have no problems if you can show me that I'm an outlier and the stats say otherwise, but until I see the figures I'm not going to believe it. SUVS have far better visibility. It wouldn't surprise me at all to hit something/ someone in a convertible, but I don't see how you possibly could in an SUV.

                          At or near intersections, pickups were 42 percent more likely and SUVs were 23 percent more likely than cars to hit pedestrians when turning left. There was no significant difference in the odds of a right-turn crash for the different types of vehicles. Turning crashes accounted for about 2,070 of 5,500 crashes that occurred at or near intersections in North Carolina over the study period.

                          “It’s possible that the size, shape or location of the A-pillars that support the roof on either side of the windshield could make it harder for drivers of these larger vehicles to see crossing pedestrians when they are turning,” says IIHS Senior Transportation Engineer Wen Hu.

                          Note that this was a US study, so their turning left = Oz turning right.

                          This was from the source that I quoted over a day ago during this little discussion. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/suvs-other-large-vehicles-o…

                          It's from a pretty big dataset- they mention looking at 59K accidents during a year, and they are looking at trends over a decade.

                          • SlickMick on 15/03/2024 - 18:54

                            @rumblytangara: Okay, I'll give you that does seem to contradict my experience.

                            I'm wondering whether it isn't justified to lump all SUVs together. (Clearly it isn't justified to lump SUVs with utes.)

                            Maybe a valid stat to include in vehicle safety would be glass vs A-pillar (and other obstacles) ratio.
                            I'm saying Nissan Patrol, Kia Sorento and Mazda CX-60 have a lower ratio than a Holden Astra (the particular models in my experience), and thus these SUVs apparently would presumed to be safer (in this scenario) than the Astra.

                            Or are those figures only saying that pedestrians get hit 23% more by SUVs than small cars, which would be meaningless without considering the proportion of SUVs vs smaller cars on the road.

                            • rumblytangara on 15/03/2024 - 19:05
                              +1

                              @SlickMick: I'm not sure if analysis via specific models of SUV is going to be useful, because there will be so many models that change over the years. And glass to pillar ratios are all over the place for weird reasons- e.g. the recent trend for cars to have close to nonexistent rear mirror visibility.

                              Certain constants remain though- increased height of the driver above pedestrians rather than below, pillars generally having to support more weight.

                              Not sure what the point about utes is- utes are pretty much identical to sedans when it comes to pedestrians, right? On the other hand, 'pickups' as mentioned in the article hand are Ford Fx50s or Dodge Rams, so they're essentially trucks.

                              I think that the whole height thing really gives the impression that is sometimes false that all aspects of visibility are better. It's the right and vs left hand turns and pedestrian collision rates which screams this out to me.

                              Or are those figures only saying that pedestrians get hit 23% more by SUVs than small cars, which would be meaningless without considering the proportion of SUVs vs smaller cars on the road.

                              That's really not how I read it, and it would be a truly embarrassingly simple error for any serious researcher to make, so I can't imagine it should be interpreted that way. I've actually asked the organisation for a copy of the report, just 'cause it sounds interesting. Not sure if they send it out to internet randos though.

                            • Monad on 16/03/2024 - 15:35

                              @SlickMick: Your experience in your SUV is anecdotal and statistically insignificant when looking at a population driving SUV's.

                              Notwithstanding the poorer fuel economy from extra weight and being higher off the ground:

                              "Risk of rolling The fact the mass of the vehicle is higher off the ground also gives SUVs a higher centre of gravity, which increases the risk of a roll-over [caused by poorer handling] in an accident. A study in the US showed that SUVs have an 11 times higher risk of rolling over in an accident and children in vehicles that roll-over have a two times higher risk of dying in that accident.

                              Pedestrians in peril Back to the weight. Many owners may assume that the larger SUV is safer, yet US vehicle safety agency NHTSA observed that decreasing the weight of SUVs would reduce the seriousness of accidents by between 0.3% and 1.3%. This is a more difficult thing to quantify than the effect on fuel economy, and conversely crash safety equipment usually adds weight too, but drivers should not assume an SUV is safer by virtue of its increased weight."

                              https://theconversation.com/four-reasons-suvs-are-less-safe-…

                            • rumblytangara on 21/03/2024 - 11:37
                              +1

                              @SlickMick: They did end up sending me the report. If I could figure out how to upload a PDF I'd link it, but looks like that's not an OzB function.

                              Or are those figures only saying that pedestrians get hit 23% more by SUVs than small cars, which would be meaningless without considering the proportion of SUVs vs smaller cars on the road.

                              This is definitely not the case, the probabilities are not based on raw numbers of vehicles. For left hand turns (identical to turning right in Oz), the increased chances of hitting a pedestrian are as follows (with p values at 0.05 to 0.07)

                              • Minivans 37%
                              • Pickups 42%
                              • SUVs 23%

                              Differences for right hand turn chances of hitting a pedestrian are statistically insignificant.

                              The chance of fatalities for after a left hand turn results in hitting a pedestrian vs cars (p values at .0001) are

                              • Minivans 172%
                              • Pickups 270%
                              • SUVs 93%

                              So best case is that any of these larger vehicles doubles the risk of fatality, and that's after at least a 23% increase of an accident in the first place.

                              The interesting thing here is that for right hand turns, the fatalities are also higher, but not as high as for left hand turns. Probably because left hand turns in the US would involve more speed.

                              • Minivans 43%
                              • Pickups 89%
                              • SUVs 63%

                              Edit: Not sure if this link is going to survive OzB moderation, but the report has been uploaded here: https://ufile.io/52msb2r9

                              It'll expire after a month.

      • LSGH on 12/03/2024 - 12:46
        +5

        I often drive Bris-Bundaberg for work..the UTEs and SUVs tend to go 110 on 100 speed limit zone…they must think they are invincible in their high centre of gravity 2 tonners….oh and I once witnessed a Pick-up roll over on a freeway in California…it must have rolled over 10x…was not a pretty site…no other car involved, driver must have fallen asleep as he hit the center divider on his own, tried to correct it…and the roll overs started.

        • R4 on 13/03/2024 - 22:13

          Make the speed limit 110kph (like most other country roads). Problem solved.

    • y33tcity on 11/03/2024 - 20:42
      +20

      More damage to roads, more demand for fuel as well :'(

      • Manazuru on 13/03/2024 - 08:03
        +7

        Many more potholes on the roads these days compared to 10, 20 years ago. People are now driving heavier vehicles and should pay higher registration, this includes larger EV's which are heavy due to the battery. Governments need to fork out more money for road repair and the culprits should pay more for these repairs.

        EV's are exactly carbon neutral either, they chew through tyres more than your standard ICE vehicle due to their weight.

        • Euphemistic on 13/03/2024 - 11:42
          +7

          What EVs chew in extra tyres would almost be offset by their reduction in brake pad usage, let alone significant reduction in drivetrain lubricants

          EVs are not that much heavier than their ICE equivalent. Maybe a couple of hundred kgs.

        • Monad on 16/03/2024 - 15:39
          +1

          That's why there are so many 4WD's on the roads with lift kits, 33" tyres are great for surviving running over potholes. /s

      • Viper8 on 15/03/2024 - 17:00
        -2

        Fuel already has an enormous tax on it (50c - about 30% of the current fuel prices is tax, then you pay GST on top of the total), with half of those funds going back into roads. So that's already covered.

    • Belistic on 12/03/2024 - 09:01
      +10

      Extra weight? E.V's are not light weighted either.

      • ihfree on 12/03/2024 - 09:09
        +8

        An EV SUV is still going to weigh more than an EV car.

        • infinite on 12/03/2024 - 15:02
          -7

          EV's are at a minimum 30% more heavy than their ICE equivalents.

      • Euphemistic on 12/03/2024 - 10:14
        +6

        Yes, EVs are heavier than an equivalent ICE car, but its not as much as many think. Part of the reason they are heavier is the range arms race. Many EVs will never use half the range they are supplied with. Most EVs will only use their full range a few times a year. We could make them lighter than ICE, but they would be much shorter range, suited to city commuting.

        • rookie317 on 12/03/2024 - 21:33
          +4

          Yes the typical "EVs are twice the ICE weight" is very much an exaggeration. A Tesla M3 is about the same weight as a C63 for example. And I do agree the focus should be on efficiency, not bigger battery. Watching the Ioniq 5 N doing 80kwh/100km (yes 80) at Sydney Motorsport Park really made me shake my head.

          • Euphemistic on 13/03/2024 - 04:58
            +1

            @rookie317: The N model at a racetrack is hardly representative of real world. Any other ICE sports model will use a crap load more fuel than a regular car.

            • rookie317 on 20/03/2024 - 10:40

              @Euphemistic: Yes I'm aware, many will find the Ioniq 5 N 25kwh/100km acceptable for daily driving. I guess my point was building an EV with the focus solely on replicating a performance car (even the fake sound, fake gear) is the wrong approach, and may even be for naught as many racing competitions have banned (or is going to) EV.

              • Euphemistic on 20/03/2024 - 12:07

                @rookie317: I get that making a race inspired EV isnt brilliant in ebvirpnmental terms, but there will always be those that want to drive fast on race tracks. Why shouldnt there be an EV option for them? Given a vehicle is driven as hard as possible on a race track, an ICE is not going to be run at optimum efficiency either and as su h, emissions are going to be many times worse than normal. At least with EVs no matter how hard you drive the electricity generation is always the same efficiency. Even if the race track uses a diesel generator itll be the same efficiency as normal use.

                We might as well give the boy racers a way to minimise emissions

                • rookie317 on 20/03/2024 - 14:55
                  -1

                  @Euphemistic: Agreeing with all you just said, I'm just concerned that the main targeted audience of racing are petrolheads and EVs will just be banned outright for competition. In facts some of them already have. If it's just for fun on the track then I guess I'm all for it.
                  Also, I think my main irk is with Hyundai themselves. In 2023, the combined sales of Ioniq 5 (947) and WCOTY Ioniq 6 (623) were just slightly more than Tesla sold M3 in a month (17,347 for 2023), let alone the MY (28,769). Instead of scaling those cars, improving them, making them cheaper, more efficient etc., they churned out this N monstrosity. To me it's frankly just a waste of resource.

                  • Euphemistic on 20/03/2024 - 16:18

                    @rookie317:

                    I'm just concerned that the main targeted audience of racing are petrolheads and EVs will just be banned outright for competition.

                    Ill admit theres something about the noise of an ICE race car, but thats from old school people whove grown up equating noise with power. EVs might be banned from current competitions. They like to keep the racing relatively close so using similar engines, weight etc. Theres growing interest in EV racing and over time new categories will develop. Formula E is already a thing. In the meam time any EVs in racing will.have the big advantage of instant torque but a big disadvantage in any form of distance racing.

                    I was watching development of an EV race car in an aussie ICE series. Blitzed the field off the line and out of corners, but they shortened a couple of races so it could go the distance. It also didnt wuite have the top soeed of ICE variants. Made for sone interesting racing.

          • Matt P on 14/03/2024 - 00:58

            @rookie317: Have a crack at a track in a thirsty V8 like a C63 then… I've got a 2L Mazda MX5 that weighs stuff all and i'll do 20-25l/100km when i'm at the track.

          • doobey1231 on 20/03/2024 - 09:45

            @rookie317: Look I am on your side, but comparing a model 3 - a base sedan, to a c63 - a top of the range performance sedan, is a bit disingenuous. The same as looking at consumption on a race track.

            But yes, it is a huge misconception that EVs are significantly heavier than ICE counterparts when they are roughly the same

            • rookie317 on 20/03/2024 - 10:32

              @doobey1231: My apologies if it sounded disingenuous, that statement was actually uttered by Tom Baker from Chasing Cars. TBF, the 2023 C63 S weighs 1840kg and does 0-100 in 3.9s; 1828kg and 4.4s respectively for the M3 LR. They are a lot closer in performance than it seems and I can see why he made that remark. The 2024 C63 SE loses the V8 and gains another 300kg for its hybrid system, which is stupid imo.

        • NigelTufnel on 14/03/2024 - 22:47
          +2

          So what we need is a big battery we can leave at home most of the time to use in the evening and just a small one in the car for the run to the skops. Then unplug and slide it under the car to plug in for the long trip to the beach!

          • rookie317 on 20/03/2024 - 10:43

            @NigelTufnel: This is the correct approach, I use my M3 daily around 40-50% unless I know I need the extra range. Half the battery is essentially dead weight. Swappable batteries may very well be the next big thing for EV. There are probably several engineering challenges though.

      • Caped Baldy on 12/03/2024 - 10:36
        +7

        A kitted out Raptor is well over 3T.

        Most EVs are between 1500 to 2200kg range. The oversized EV trucks will be heavy too. The Ford Lightning is around 3000kg which is around 30% more than the ICE model.

        • 811b11e8 on 12/03/2024 - 14:00
          +6

          A raptor isn't even a big truck compared to some of the American Rams I've seen recently.

          3500kgs before you start kitting them out.

          What's even worse is they are "derating" the payload they can carry so they are still considered cars not trucks. The GVM weight should put them on a truck licence, but they "derate" the payload they can carry to be under a 1000kg so you can still drive them on a car licence instead of needing a truck licence.

          An AU falcone one tone ute, can have larger payload then these gigantic Rams..

      • LFO on 12/03/2024 - 11:06

        Yeah … and obese people make their fat 4X4 more heavier too …

        • Euphemistic on 13/03/2024 - 11:45

          EVs are not massively heavier than ICE. True, they do weigh more, but its more like 10% heavier than twice as heavy.

    • trapper on 12/03/2024 - 12:18
      +1

      They take up more space so charging them more for parking makes sense

      If they take two parking bays, then sure charge them double.

      If they fit into the same bay as any other car though, then how could this be justified?

      • Jolakot on 12/03/2024 - 19:41
        +5

        Some barely do, others like the RAM 1500 physically cannot, as they overhang in both length and height: https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/motoring-news/au…

        I'm OK with a skilled driver who can parallel park on a dime driving these huge cars, but it's always people who treat parking spaces as suggestions, who could barely park a hatchback within the lines on a clear day.

    • Brianqpr on 12/03/2024 - 16:06
      +24

      These vehicles were until recent years not that common on the road, probably because they were only owned by people that actually needed them. Since they became effectively a tax rort, the big ugly things are everywhere blocking people's view, taking up too much space and often being driven by utter morons with a get out of may way attitude. A lot of the people I see driving these things seem similar to those who have oversized and aggressive dogs.

      Anything that reduces their appeal is good news in my view. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of owners actually have a genuine use case. Its a fad driven by tax benefits. File it alongside other things that have been screwed up by ill advised tax concessions, such as the housing market.

    • RefusdClassification on 12/03/2024 - 18:05
      +4

      SUV are simply middle class status symbols (they became cool in America during the Second Gulf War when people were constantly seeing imagery of Humvees, APC and IFVs, and the rest of the world copied the trend, even China).

      The middle class are affluent, they can afford to pay more. There is at least a 50% sin tax on alcohol; lets put a sin tax on SUVs too. And a 10% GST on the private schools the rich send their progeny too.

      • Baysew on 12/03/2024 - 18:14
        +2

        It was all product placement. I couldn't resist buying some Patriot missiles, for any incoming Scuds I may encounter.

      • trapper on 13/03/2024 - 12:33
        -1

        The middle class are affluent

        No, they're not.

      • ihfree on 12/03/2024 - 21:07
        +8

        Try reading again. Notice the word unneeded

        • MrFrugalSpend on 12/03/2024 - 21:10
          +2

          Fine, you wrote unneeded, but most people on here are advocating this massive tax hike, which as far as i can tell, just increases the cost of a key tool needed to live and work outside of a city…
          Are they proposing assessing need and exempting the tax? I haven't seen anything on that?
          Would be keen to see that.

          On an unrelated topic but still city vs country and vehicle related - It's about as absurd as the rule that requires Learner drivers to drive at a max of 80km/hr.
          Out on regional highway roads where the speed is often 100-110km/hr single lane, no shoulder, limited passing opportunities…. it creates a big line of trucks and pressure on that learner driver who is being tailgated by the line-up, and then the result being unsafe overtaking… but the brainiacs in the city don't seem to get that.

          • Brianqpr on 12/03/2024 - 22:47
            +5

            @MrFrugalSpend: Hell of a lot of these in Sydney when they were rare 5+ years ago. Wonder why?

            Before the tax breaks, people that genuinely needed them still owned them and they still will if the tax benefits are removed.

            • MrFrugalSpend on 13/03/2024 - 21:03
              +1

              @Brianqpr: I have no problem with this proposed law provided that:
              - People who reside or work in regional areas with a high proportion of unsealed roads have a credit/exemption including farmers and regional property and construction tradespeople that service these areas.

              However that sounds difficult to enforce, likely to be abused, and therefore problematic…

              Sure I 100% agree a lot of people who don't need these, now have them, however I outright reject the notion that they are not essential for some people. I know it to be a fact, and can't see how so many people think it appropriate to neg me for that.

              Have they never left a city? Have they not seen what accessing farming properties and regional farming and construction sites can be like in regional Australia?

              • Around 7 million people – or 28% of the Australian population – live in rural and remote areas
              • Australia comprises a land area of about 7.692 million km2 and has a land mass almost as great as that of the United States of America
              • 90 percent of the population [is] living in just 0.22 per cent of the country's land area
              • Brianqpr on 15/03/2024 - 13:08
                +1

                @MrFrugalSpend: I agree that they are essential/needed for some people, especially in more remote areas, but those people would have them regardless. The problem is city school runs, roads and shopping centre car parks now being full of them due to tax concessions and them somehow becoming trendy despite being some of the ugliest vehicles ever to be on the road.

              • derrida derider on 16/03/2024 - 18:35
                +1

                @MrFrugalSpend: "Around 7 million people – or 28% of the Australian population – live in rural and remote areas".

                Very few of them in remote areas (that's why it is called "remote"), and the great bulk of people in non-remote rural areas live in or near sizeable towns. Sure, some people need them but even in the bush most buyers of them don't.

                Undeniably most are sold as fashion statements (ie keep up with the neighbours) or to dreamers who bought the ads but will never actually lock a diff - and that is true even in country towns. The proof is that they have become far more common since they got instant writeoff, even as roads have slowly improved with a growing population so the need has reduced.

      • Assburg on 13/03/2024 - 00:13
        +3

        People who need these cars make up less than 1% of the population. Just because you might use it to drive out onto the beach in Broome/Darwin/cairns a few times a year it doesn't make it essential.

        If you're a primary producer I'm sure there'll be an exemption.

        • Manazuru on 13/03/2024 - 08:15

          I'm shocked at the amount of American pickup trucks in Melbourne lately. On one drive the other week from the outer east to the outer north I counted at least 10 American pickup trucks and I'm see them now on nearly every road journey I make. They're increasing in popularity and also demonstrated the 'cost of living crisis' really isn't that much of a crisis for many.

          If governments tax these vehicles accordingly then the demand will most certainly go down, but by how much remains to be seen.

          • Wasabi Ninja on 13/03/2024 - 14:09

            @Manazuru: Definitely isn’t much of a cost of living crisis for many. An article today said 1 in 4 houses bought last year in NSW was paid in full without a mortgage.

          • afah0447 on 13/03/2024 - 15:16

            @Manazuru: Tax incentives for small business owners to purchase vehicles over a certain weight, regardless if they are used for the purpose of the business.

            Perfect example. Personal Trainers driving around the city in massive utes with stickers on the side advertising their fitness services.

            Ridiculous.

        • MrFrugalSpend on 13/03/2024 - 21:06

          There's not an exemption, it is charged into the value of the purchase price of cars.

          I have no problem with this proposed law provided that: People who reside or work in regional areas with a high proportion of unsealed roads have a credit/exemption including farmers and regional property and construction tradespeople that service these areas.
          However that sounds difficult to enforce, likely to be abused, and therefore problematic…

          It is definitely not just primary producers themselves. How can I get there to build them something with a BYD or Tesla?

          Accessing farming properties and regional farming and construction sites can be essential to have a 4x4 in many parts of Australia

          Around 7 million people – or 28% of the Australian population – live in rural and remote areas
          Australia comprises a land area of about 7.692 million km2 and has a land mass almost as great as that of the United States of America
          90 percent of the population [is] living in just 0.22 per cent of the country's land area

          • Assburg on 14/03/2024 - 14:16

            @MrFrugalSpend: Literally any modern car can drive on graded roads.. I am pretty sure they include places like Darwin and Nhulunbuy as "remote"…where bar the most extreme wet season days you can get around in a Hyundai excel.

            We have spent a lot of money as a nation to ensure quality of infrastructure in remote towns is generally quite high.

        • trapper on 14/03/2024 - 12:47

          Why does it need to be essential? Is everything else you own 'essential'.

          If you enjoy occasional off-roading, why not get a vehicle suited to that purpose, allowing you to indulge in your passion?

          Having a second car sitting in the garage solely for occasional off-road adventures doesn't make much sense. So instead you see them used around town too.

          • Assburg on 14/03/2024 - 14:21

            @trapper: Nothing I own, essential or not, has the same impact on others as an SUV does.

            Non-essential things need to be regulated because we have entered into a period of significant global scarcity, the climate is rapidly changing and there are significant population issues including excess immigration and too many retirees living for too long.

            If you enjoy off roading then do what people who enjoy quad biking do…park it in a shed and keep it off the road. You could perhaps take it to your off-road destination of choice on a temporary rego like those who drive obscure classic cars that don't meet modern safety requirements.

            • trapper on 14/03/2024 - 14:37

              @Assburg:

              park it in a shed and keep it off the road

              Yeah because having two vehicles instead of one will help without our 'period of significant global scarcity' lol

              • Assburg on 14/03/2024 - 15:37

                @trapper: Obviously it'd make sensible people think twice about the gluttonous excess of their hobby.

                Also not going to change your mind on the issue… enjoy bouncing up and down in a car…there's obviously a huge amount of technical skill involved and it must be innately rewarding in ways I cannot comprehend.

                • trapper on 14/03/2024 - 17:42

                  @Assburg: I do not own an off-road vehicle.

                  The capacity to perceive the world from another person's viewpoint is a valuable asset though, and offers significant insight.

                  It's unfortunate indeed that you are unable to comprehend this.

                  • Assburg on 15/03/2024 - 15:26

                    @trapper: I thought we were talking about ideas, not people's feelings. But, if we are going to…then it'll do you well to learn that not everybody's point of view is valuable.

                    And, I'll pre-empt your next comment. It's not a matter of my sense of entitlement or superiority, it's the simple fact that such a large portion of our population are politically oblivious and vote for whoever their parents voted for — their points of view cannot be changed so their opinions deserve to be discarded.

                    • Baysew on 15/03/2024 - 17:16
                      +1

                      @Assburg:

                      such a large portion of our population are politically oblivious and vote for whoever their parents voted for — their points of view cannot be changed

                      The National party says thank god for that.

      • Wort on 13/03/2024 - 19:48

        @MrFrugalSpend Lol spoken like a true townie, have you actually been on a cattle farm? I'd choose something that can actually do work and perhaps carry more then the drivers ego lol.

        I'd laugh if I saw one of these "utes" carrying a farm gate or a piece of tin for the shed roof. They're lucky if they get to carry the ponies around to polo

        • Assburg on 14/03/2024 - 14:27
          +2

          Yep.. it's so typical to see Australians with no sense of that esteemed pragmastism Australians hold themselves in high regard for.

          All across the second world, primary producers make do with the most cost efficient of platforms. Scooters stacked sky high with crates on the back, quad bikes pulling trailers. Only in Australia/USA do people convince themselves they need a ford raptor to drive on the beach a couple weekends each summer or for that one time every two years they move a washing machine or fridge.

      • Matt P on 14/03/2024 - 01:06

        There has been tax exemptions for the country for YEARS

        https://www.ato.gov.au/businesses-and-organisations/hiring-a…

        Any company that produces meat/grain/fruit & veg would utilise the above fbt exemptions on their company vehicles for business use.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join