Calls for a tax on old cars 10+

Submitted: Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 14:46
ThreadID: 75505 Views:3229 Replies:9 FollowUps:16
This Thread has been Archived
Tax old cars, 10+ years or more

Yes, and it's called for by the MTA, now they wouldn't have a vested interest in this would they!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Gramps - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:02

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:02
Col,

Now what would make you even consider that of such a fine upstanding section of our community ?

Regards
AnswerID: 401123

Follow Up By: On Patrol & TONI - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:04

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:04
Gramps,
I must be a cynic eh!!!!!
0
FollowupID: 670376

Reply By: Member - ross m (WA) - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:06

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:06
Maybe they could call for a tax on large homes in wealthy areas that use proportionately more energy and water if they are so interested in the environment
AnswerID: 401125

Follow Up By: Tadooch - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 22:18

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 22:18
Good on ya Ross. If you can't afford to upgrade you can't afford this tax. In the USA satellites are used to track your home extentions or improvements to access capitol gains tax. There's a better revenue raiser!
0
FollowupID: 670475

Follow Up By: Member - ross m (WA) - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:20

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:20
They are watching you here via satellites ,not for capitol gains tax,but for breaches of local planning laws.
0
FollowupID: 670495

Reply By: JR - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:20

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:20
Most of the pollution a car will create during its life is when its made
Keeping old cars reduces pollution in a global sense
AnswerID: 401128

Follow Up By: Member - Timbo - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:06

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:06
Agreed, but few people seem to realise/acknowledge this.

I was asked by a colleague (aslo a recent AGW-convert) whether I thought hybrid cars were good for the environment. When I told her that if she wanted to help the environment she should keep her existing car she was sorry she'd asked - she wanted a new car!
0
FollowupID: 670386

Follow Up By: On Patrol & TONI - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:29

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:29
JR,
exellent point. I think that is the reason no govt would get behind such a tax, it would open a can of worms re carbon reductions etc that would not go away.

More consumerism = more pollution.
0
FollowupID: 670395

Follow Up By: Member - Timbo - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:52

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:52
No gov't? Sorry Colin, but the 10yo car tax is a reality in Singapore...
0
FollowupID: 670400

Reply By: Wilko - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:39

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:39
If we had only 11 million people in Australia we'd only have half the vehicle pollution to deal with. : )


Cheers Wilko
AnswerID: 401131

Follow Up By: On Patrol & TONI - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:18

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:18
Good idea, we can use the good old union method of reducing the population.
Last one in, first one out.

Yeah that might work
0
FollowupID: 670391

Follow Up By: Wilko - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:01

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:01
That might just work lol. Nah Natural attrition will do the job nicely : )
0
FollowupID: 670489

Reply By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:47

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:47
These moves are purely designed to line the pockets of MTA members. They have been trying it for years.

Shame on them - thats a tax on the poorest people.

"The MTA's lobbying document for the coming state election also recommends comprehensive vehicle inspections with pollution and safety testing every time a vehicle changes hands."

Neither of those moves will make a scrap of difference to the road toll and serious injury.
AnswerID: 401134

Follow Up By: On Patrol & TONI - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:23

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:23
Phil,
there are a lot of older vehicles owned by members & visitors of this site that I would suggest are better maintained & more roadworthy than many younger vehicles that are on our roads.
Cheers, Colin.
0
FollowupID: 670392

Reply By: Member - Axle - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:50

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 15:50
G/Day Col. ... Everything will be out of China in the not to distant future, So they wont last "Ten" Years, ......The problem will disappear!....LOL.



Cheers Axle.
AnswerID: 401135

Follow Up By: On Patrol & TONI - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:15

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:15
Good point Axle
0
FollowupID: 670388

Reply By: Member - Timbo - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:13

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 16:13
In the name of safety? I was driving my 20 year old Suzuki 4WD (with cross ply tyres and drum brakes all 'round) without injury (to me or anyone else) while my contemporaries were killing themselves (and their mates) in current model airbag & ABS equipped family cars. IMHO there's a bigger issue than the age of the car.
AnswerID: 401145

Follow Up By: ob - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 18:49

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 18:49
Spot on Timbo, I have always maintained the car part most likely to cause an accident is the nut behind the wheel. I'm sure I read somewhere that something like 3% of serious or fatal road crashes were caused by other vehicular part failure. the other 97% were caused by the aforementioned nut.

Cheers ob
0
FollowupID: 670427

Follow Up By: Member - Timbo - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 18:57

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 18:57
Don't get me wrong, modern cars ARE safer than old ones - a brake-n-swerve would be dangerous in my little old Zuke but probably not nearly so bad in most modern cars - even if no parts fail. But I'm just saying there are other factors involved that seem to have an even greater effect. Perhaps these other factors should be targetted first...
0
FollowupID: 670429

Follow Up By: john&thejayco - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 19:35

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 19:35
timbo, the difference seems to be the nut behind the wheel, and the fact that a 20 year old 4 cylinder zuke and a new 4 cylinder car that people kids put their kids in. Is that the new 4 cylinder with the foot flat will do probably 100km/h more than the poor old zuke going down hill flat stick. But at least the older cars had a bit of steel in them.Many years ago i rolled an old valiant regal sedan after blowing a front tyre and going into a table drain, if it was put back on its wheels you could drive it away nothing needed except a change of undies.These days the cars in accidents seem to be torn in half with just about no hope for the people inside.With two young kids i would rather put them in a 40 year old car.Air bags are great idea if there is at least the front of the car still there.
0
FollowupID: 670435

Follow Up By: Ray - Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 at 09:21

Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 at 09:21
Perhaps the safety features in cars built these days are making people rather complacent. Perhaps if vehicles didn't have these safety features, a fuel tank at the front and a solid steering column, they might think twice before taking risks.
0
FollowupID: 670548

Follow Up By: Matt Watson - Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 at 16:29

Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 at 16:29
The safety features in new cars make people feel safer, which leads them to take greater risks. This is something that I've noticed even myself since going from a Falcon station wagon to a Triton. In the Triton, I accelerate slower, drive slower, turn more carefully and generally pay more attention to whats happening on the road, specifically because I feel that the Triton is going to be less forgiving if something does go wrong. I'm not saying I used to drive dangerously, just that I drive even more carefully now.

This is called the Peltzman Effect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect

0
FollowupID: 670635

Reply By: Member - Graham H (QLD) - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 17:36

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 17:36
In NZ they improved things a lot by importing S/H cars from Japan.

Dont see the old cars around like you used to.

Now they cant import anything built before 1994 with crash test qualifications.

Lots better specs than most cars here or there.

In Japan they have a big inspection at 60,000k so cars are frequently traded then rather than get them checked..

Only trouble some look like they never had an oil change in their life.

Can also import write offs and use the parts like a Honda Civic R type and swap all the bits into a standard one.

Friend of mine got a late model Skyline in 2000 and imported it for less than half the price for one here

Another mate in 1999 imported a 1994 Honda Accord Coupe with all the fruit The Narrow headlight shark like front model and put it on the road for $4850 NZ when I came over in 2002 saw one for sale in Brisvegas for $15,000 and it was a plain one.

AnswerID: 401168

Reply By: ob - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:09

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:09
I wonder at what point did governments, police, car makers, so called do gooders (the name Ralph Nader comes to mind) and the long suffering general public give up on the concept of training drivers to handle the ever increasing performance of the modern automobile and decide that we have to make crash survivability the sole criteria regardless of the fact that the human body was never designed to be decellerated from 100 kph to zero in 3/10 of a nanosecond. Call me cynical but I guess putting the onus on the driver to accept responsibility was just too hard.

Cheers ob

AnswerID: 401231

Follow Up By: Member - ross m (WA) - Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:32

Tuesday, Jan 26, 2010 at 23:32
I think you have misunderstood the work Ralph Nader did in making cars safer.
At the time if his book,Unsafe at Any Speed,cars were absolute death traps.




The problem with putting all responsibility on the driver ignores the fact that many innocent parties are also injured in car accidents and making cars safer goes some of the way to protecting them.
0
FollowupID: 670503

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)