Yes, no one has to build a 500k house (though these days I'd say 600k would be a more appropriate level). I dont think these taxes should be too much mind you, it should be a sliding scale. ie a 70k car should be taxed a lower percentage than a 150k one.
Luxury Car Tax
- Thread starter Alistair
- Start date
What crap. It's a good policy, if you can afford a car over 57k you can pay the tax. No one needs a car over that, it's a want not a need purchase I don't see the problem. Should be more like this.. TVs over 120cm for example. Exquisite boxes
Labor's excusing this tax as an anti-inflation measure. Luxury cars hold their value much better then your average car, thus it's the morons who turn over their supped up Commodores every 4-5 years who are driving up inflation, selling them for 20% of the value they bought them for and then rebuying. At least luxury cars don't diminish in value at such a rediculous rate.
Yes no one needs a luxury car, but then again does every 18 year old need a car? Doesn't stop then clogging the road, driving up petrol demand and creating the inflation problem we have!!
The fact is if your doing it harder then someone else, you don't need indulgances, which in my opinion would include cards. But why should this be the governments decision to disinsent us from buying these things and not simply common sense.
Sliding scale is a good idea.
For a 500k house, it can be a 500k house for a family of 10 or a 500k house which as only 2 BR for 2. You cannot really tax it that way. But there is a proxy tax on it. Stamp duty and Land tax. The larger your land value or the property price then the larger the tax.
i think what people seem to forget is that the government is a representative of the people. i find it laughable the ignorance of some people who think they are a bunch of people who try and pinch our pockets wherever they can.
the very difference between social and liberal policy is that social thinks we are a collective that should work together, while liberals consider society a grouping of individuals. Labor has decided the top end can afford to pay a little extra on their car in order to fund expenditure somewhere else, i support that entirely. the same principle applies to taking the baby bonus from those earning 150k+
now one can argue till the cows come home about the cut off point for this tax, but thats an entirely different debate. half the inflation problem in this country is caused by people spending more than they can afford on their items, hopefully this tax just makes those people think a little harder when they purchase.
the very difference between social and liberal policy is that social thinks we are a collective that should work together, while liberals consider society a grouping of individuals. Labor has decided the top end can afford to pay a little extra on their car in order to fund expenditure somewhere else, i support that entirely. the same principle applies to taking the baby bonus from those earning 150k+
now one can argue till the cows come home about the cut off point for this tax, but thats an entirely different debate. half the inflation problem in this country is caused by people spending more than they can afford on their items, hopefully this tax just makes those people think a little harder when they purchase.
Don't get me started about the baby bonus.
It is an incentive for the lower socioeconomic classes to reproduce. Even if it there for the rich, it is not an incentive for them - they are wealthy enough that the baby bonus doesn't go into the equation of having a child. But is does for the lower SES group. Unless you have more money at the other end (once the child is born and is growing up), then you will just be expanding the numbers and burden of lower SES classes, and therefore increasing their disadvantage.
On the other end, those families just getting by on 150k or who are working to get their 150k, because they do not get the BB, they need to go back to work or else they get no money. That produces the disadvantage of less mother-child bonding, less breast feeding, greater family stress and also the risk of infection for children going to organised childcare and also the risk on early development from going to childcare too early. Those on 150k won't have enough to support a nanny so they would send their babies to childcare.
Child care is good, but starting too early - there are possible risks to their development.
Also, Australia's standard of paid maternity leave is one of the worse if not the worst in 1st world industrialised countries. May be US is worse, but why would we want to compare ourselves to them?
Some have thoughts of changing the BB to a support in the way of paid maternity leave. This should not be means tested as you want people to be at work but stay home during that crucial period.
Australia does not have a system of compulsory paid maternity leave.
Having this owuld encourge working women to have children, support them in the early months of a child - crucial in their development, and also getting them back to work.
Told you not to get me started!
It is an incentive for the lower socioeconomic classes to reproduce. Even if it there for the rich, it is not an incentive for them - they are wealthy enough that the baby bonus doesn't go into the equation of having a child. But is does for the lower SES group. Unless you have more money at the other end (once the child is born and is growing up), then you will just be expanding the numbers and burden of lower SES classes, and therefore increasing their disadvantage.
On the other end, those families just getting by on 150k or who are working to get their 150k, because they do not get the BB, they need to go back to work or else they get no money. That produces the disadvantage of less mother-child bonding, less breast feeding, greater family stress and also the risk of infection for children going to organised childcare and also the risk on early development from going to childcare too early. Those on 150k won't have enough to support a nanny so they would send their babies to childcare.
Child care is good, but starting too early - there are possible risks to their development.
Also, Australia's standard of paid maternity leave is one of the worse if not the worst in 1st world industrialised countries. May be US is worse, but why would we want to compare ourselves to them?
Some have thoughts of changing the BB to a support in the way of paid maternity leave. This should not be means tested as you want people to be at work but stay home during that crucial period.
Australia does not have a system of compulsory paid maternity leave.
Having this owuld encourge working women to have children, support them in the early months of a child - crucial in their development, and also getting them back to work.
Told you not to get me started!
Why is it that you assume the people who can afford luxury cars are the ones who spend unwisely? Generally people on the higher end of incomes know how to manage their money, investing in assets that offset the effect of inflation. Inflation is driven up by unions demanding wage increases that far outweigh inflation, spending that money unwisely. Do u think the price of groceries have gone up dramatically because "the top end" are eating ten times as much as they should be? Maybe petrol prices are souring because "the top end" are increasing fuel demand, even though all luxury cars are becoming more fuel economic?
Maybe if we're going to take a social approach to tackling inflation we can collective take responsibility for it's cause and not simply tax the top end for the mistakes of the low end. The top end are those who create jobs, by investing their profits to stimulate economic growth, by taking risk opening small businesses and employing others within society. This may seem like an ignorant "individualistic" approach but it puts food on the table of many young families. Demanding wage increases that far outstretch inflation is gready and results in higher unemployment, yet it is the same people who risk lossing their jobs who are happy to see others get the chop for their own personal game. The same people who are happy to see "the top end" taxed on the items they choose to buy with their after tax money.
The baby bonus should be IQ tested so that this country stops breeding idiots who vote Labor.
I work in the new car industry and this will effect a small amount of people and not by as much as what everyone thinks.
The LCT threshhold is $57123....You will only pay 33% (up from 25%) LCT on the amount OVER $57123. So for example if you purchase a $60000 you will only pay the extra 8% on $2877......$230.....
Regarding what some people are saying regarding the types of people that purchase Luxury cars....honestly....how can yo possibly pass judgement on people you probably dont have too much to do with.....
This is the most common sence quote i have read in a long time!!
Cheers
benny J
The LCT threshhold is $57123....You will only pay 33% (up from 25%) LCT on the amount OVER $57123. So for example if you purchase a $60000 you will only pay the extra 8% on $2877......$230.....
Regarding what some people are saying regarding the types of people that purchase Luxury cars....honestly....how can yo possibly pass judgement on people you probably dont have too much to do with.....
This is the most common sence quote i have read in a long time!!
Cheers
benny J
When the GST was introduced, the opposition at the time said Inflation would be a problem. The Howard govt didnt do anything to curb this and left the economy in a rut. Who in there right mind votes for a new tax
.For tax to be effective it must me scaled. The LCT is a very minor tax and not worth worrying about. Mothers who earn 150K do not need any government assistence, but Australia needs more people so its either immigrants or babies. Everybody knows the baby bonus is a minor cost in raising a child.
Similar threads
