Reality Check Please

G'day Rob

Well, uniformity of fees and stamp duty might be a start, but I appreciate that population density, number/distance of roads all influence revenue raising in this area.

We could well stray into the whole state's rights issues here. Uniform registration, i.e. an OZ 1234 registration system could work, but can you imagine the squeals from state X complaining about contributing to the roads in state Y? particualarly when it is never clear whether registration and stamp duty revenue actually all goes into road related expenditure.

Cheers
John

G'day Wamuranman

Yeah, maybe I should have done a bit more thinking like that, and that's what punitive stamp duty charges lead to isn't it?

Cheers
John

$51 in the ACT.

G'day Isuzumu

The various responses to the original thread identify the lack of uniformity state by state, suggesting no consistency in approach to how and why registration and stamp duty fees are set. As always there are winners and losers. The ACT is a great place to live, but a relatively small population with high expectations regarding services, means that the local govt is forced to be creative raising revenues, rather than flexible or sensible.

From memory, in Victoria, the common or garden 6 x 4 box trailers don't have to be registerd.

Cheers
John

You think thats tough

Try this Coomondore in QLD $800

100ser $800

Insurance for 100ser $690

Van last year was $151

Insurance inc contents $400+


Welcome to the Smart State NOT

And you have toll road

G'day Tonbon

No mate, we have speeding fines, red light cameras, speed cameras, and double demerits on public holidays etc. If anyone can find any reference to double demerits improving driver behaviour, deterring speeding, or contributing to road safety, please let me know.

Cheers
John

Ahh ok, my mistake. I agree, as far as i am aware, no one can produce hard statistics showing double fines/demerits has any impact on road tolls. So, here is my humble opinion on reducing road tolls. Forget the double demerits/fines. Limit ALL P plate drivers to 4cyl non turbo, non supercharged, un-modified motor cars (akin to the limit imposed on P plate motor bike riders) and an IMMEDIATE 3 month loss of licence for ALL at fault accidents for all drivers, no matter how minor.

My reasoning behind that is that the huge number of bumper to bumper accidents is causing ever increasing insurance premiums and people simply don't seem to care. This will cause people to start taking their driving more seriously and hopefully that would transfer to when driving long distance, country driving etc.

It may or may not work, but surely it would be better than simple revenue gaining by governments that are more interested in reducing their poor management debt as well as filling their coffers.

That should set the cat amongst the pigeons and hopefully open a good debate.

G'day again

It would open up a good debate but you might need to open a new thread. This one is now getting old, and new readers may not persevere to follow-ups.

Cheers
John

G'day Baz&Pud

Exactly.

Also, Tassie like the ACT, probably has no caravan manufacturers and a limited second hand market. For the ACT, all new caravans will come from interstate, so there is the likelihood that dealers will be passing to consumers any stamp duty that they pay. As regards the secondhand market, we sweated on a suitable unit coming up in the ACT, but we passed on the very few that did come up - therefore, many ACT caravan buyers will be buying from interstate because they have little choice, and they will therefore get hit with stamp duty and the inexplicable registration surcharge.

Cheers
John

Before you start rorting the system(s), perhaps you should take a look at where this will lead - just have a look at countries where this kind of thing is commonplace. Let's face it, the government needs to generate revenue in order to provide essential services to the citizens (healthcare, education, roads, communications, even regulatory bodies to ensure that buildings, foods, etc. are safe). If they don't get the revenue from Stamp Duty, where will they get it from? If you start rorting the sources of revenue, the government has to invent new sources and/or cut back on essential services. This is the stuff of UNdeveloped countries... is this what you really want for Australia?

And when you're spending $50,000+ just for a caravan (and delight in telling everyone), it's not like you can't afford $1,250 in stamp duty...

G'day Timbo,

Whew! There were a couple of references from folks in response to my original thread that included misquoting sales value, and choosing not to register a a trailer, but not by Baz&Pud. I didn't get the impression that they were taking delight in telling everyone about the value of their van, simply using their figures as an example.

But . . .GST on a $50000 van = $4545.00, and I think I'm right in saying that that money finds its way back to the states. And when it is sold inTasmania, there is likely to be stamp duty. So, by the time the $50000 van is sold as a second hand unit, it has already been taxed from new, and at each rego year from then on.

I understand the revenue raising bit, and the need to pay for services, and I suppose my issue centres first, upon whether the amount of stamp duty actually reflects the administrative cost of transferring registration from one state to another, and second, whether (in our case) a $19500 campertrailer should attract the same stamp duty as a $19500 motor vehicle.

I think the feathers on the tax frog should be evenly and equitably placed.

Cheers
John

Perhaps I posted the follow-up to the wrong reply? Was merely trying to point out that you do in fact get something for that money spent on Stamp Duty, and taxes very rarely reflect the actual costs of the activity - the extension of that view is a "user pays" system whch ultimately would lead to a very low (or nil) income tax but very high taxes for using roads, medical failicites etc. for example).

You might consider the reasons for our current tax system before suggesting the feathers on the tax frog be evenly and equitably placed - that would mean that each member of the community pays equal tax whether they earn $10,000pa or $100,000pa - it might be even, but is it equitable? There is a reason for tax scales that increase the tax rate for higher income earners. Stamp Duty works in a similar way - those who can afford replace their car every 2-3 years (or buy boats, caravans, etc.) are obviously better off than those who can't, and therefore contribute more to the pool.

Yes, I too get annoyed about something miscellaneous "surcharge" tacked onto the registration with no explanation, but at the end of the day, the governments need to bring in revenue and whether they call it a "registration surcharge" or a "just another random tax for the fun of it" doesn't really change the situation much. No, I don't like paying taxes either, but I do enjoy driving on good roads, having drinkable water 'on tap', getting my garbage collected, having access to affordable healthcare,and having someone keeping an eye on safety of public buildings, restaurants etc.

One rather obvious flaw in this is if you have a large family

Daughter takes horse to Pony club on Sunday

Second son goes hooning on the PWC

You go to the tip with the rubbish

Then decide to take the boat out.

Do they all have the same plate with same nunber or different, as plates cost is part of rego.

Should people with only 1 trailer pay the same as those who have 4.

I wouldnt be happy with that.

Brushmarx , sounds reasonable to a point , but as pointed out by Graham it would be open to abuse , simpler would be that all PRIVATE use trailers are registered for use to a particular vehicle only and can only be towed by that vehicle ,,,, rego prices are now ridiculous , my 6x4 box trailer now $82.70 per yr and would not leave the yard 2x in a year , same cost for my foldup boat trailer that has never been on a asphalt road ,same cost again for the c/trailer and then to top it of it now costs $82 to register a 12ft tinny in Qld .

I understand the concerns, but as I said, it could be an option. We have a float, CT. box trailer, boat trailer, but one tow vehicle, therefor only one trailer at a time.
My theory would be extra registration fee for the vehicle being say 150% higher than the cost of one trailer rego.
If you have four trailers and four towing vehicles, pay 4 rego's. The cost of rego is supposed to be to cover the insurance and possible wear and tear on the road, but if you can only tow one trailer at a time, multiple rego's is a rip-off.
Being an option would mean you could opt out, or form a mini road train and take all your trailers together.
Cheers

Go Bob,

Bad rules and silly charges lead folks to break the rules and avoid the charges. I hope though that there are other pursuits that generate exhilarating feelings for you.

I guess somewhere, some time, one box trailer was seen to cause an accident. Solution, set up an enquiry, then accept a recommendation that says all box trailers are to be inspected.

With stamp duty I think what happens is a start point of 1% stamp duty. The the govt (Mr Stanhope's or any other) wants to raise revenue. The advice of course is, raise stamp duty by 1%. No need to think whether it makes sense across the board, or whether its equitable.

And another thing - who sees the counter person (sorry, customer service officer) stamp anything, or who actually gets a stamp (not even one for you for attending for half a day!). At least they could change the name, to say, Another Tax, a Gotcha Tax, or perhaps to humour you, Pollies' Super Tax, instead of retaining an historic nonesense title.

Cheers
John

Bob,

I meant to ask whether you had any connection with the Kaos 4WD team that used to operate in Belconnen?

Cheers
John

John

No mate. I adopted the KAOS tag when software registration asked for company name. I couldn't think of a company that I would rather work for more than KAOS (having grown up on a diet of Get Smart), so I always entered that as my company and it seemed to flow when I joined ExplorOz in the early 'noughties'.

But I have driven through Belconnen (I think) on my way out of Canberra ;-)

Bob