Luxury Car Tax (LCT) Increase - How Do You Feel?

[tezza]

Me too I signed the contract for my T-Rex last month delivery in August guess this increase throws the $total out the window as I am sure the contract will state if taxes are incresed etc etc. My thoughts on the LCT ok we have to pay it but why not keep this one as is and put it up to 30% for those vehicles over $100k

[hgonops]

That's what you get when you vote Labor.
The Libs always looked after car enthusiasists, and our hip pocket.

[jayjay]

i'm glad that in having a mk2, my biggest cost will be rego/insurance!

is the system in the uk that carbon trading scheme? or is that only for energy production/commercial businesses? that idea of tax:fuel consumption set ratio is awesome.

My main drive is a 375KW FPV GT-P, and I average 19L/100

that makes it marginally ok...

[gareth_oau]

That's what you get when you vote Labor.
The Libs always looked after car enthusiasists, and our hip pocket.

ummm the Luxury Car Tax was introduced into parliament originally by Peter Costello in 1999

(ps, i'm an avid liberal capitalist!!, just wanted to have the facts out there)

[ranton-inc]

and the government is wondering why there is a steady stream of skilled workers leaving the country.

lol
we have the same problem here except all ours are gapping it over you you guys..

no body wants to move to NZ except Refugees and Beneficiarys..

[snodrogs]

Oh and people buy investment prioperty to GET RICH not for any socially minded "give the poor a house" kinda reason. They would still get the CAPITAL GAIN from owning the prioperty too so they are not lucking out.... just not being subsidised by the poor smo who has to rent their investment AND pay tax too...

I cannot speak for all people who purchase investment properties Richdave, but I purchased (ie. am paying off) my investment properties so that when the Govt of the day eventually sh#t-cans the pension, my wife and I have some sort of financial security that means we are not going to "exist" on bread and water for the remainder of our lives. Not to get rich quick... And in the meantime it places a safe and warm roof over somebody's head, terrific...


Is anybody else getting sick of hearing the media talk about "working families" only being those who are under the new magical $150k income threshold?? I would hazard a guess that to have that sort of income, they too would have to "WORK". I don't think the fairies drop the money down the chimney anymore...

I'm just waiting here quietly for my new Passat Wagon, which is NOT subjected to LCT.

[gareth_oau]

very true snodrogs, and as I said in my ealier posts "there are plenty of good restaurants in monaco or the Carribean" If housing no longer became an attractive investment, people would jump ship and throw their money into shares or other investments, or perhaps even into another country altogether.

Yes, some of that taxc refund could go to lower income peeople as sbsidies to buy houses, but a lot of others will still need to rent, and yet there would be very few rental properties around. furthermore, rental agents would become unemployed - a catch 22 situation.

theres no perfect solution eitrher way.

i'm putting lots into a decent super fund, so hopefully it wont go bankrupt and the govt wont change the rules too many times before i retire.

and in the meantime, i spend the balance on nice cars, good holidays etc - and enjoy it incase i die and never get to spend the super!!

[imike]

the one thing however, i don't agree with, is the price at which the luxury car tax starts. since when is a $57,000 car a luxury car. i don't consider a toyota landcruiser a luxury car.....do you?

it should be up around $70,000 - $75,000.

Cheers,
Rhys[/QUOTE]


I could not agree more - when this tax was introduced, a 3-series BMW was not considered a "luxury car" by definition of the tax.

Now all but the base models of most family cars are considered "luxury".

Seems to me that this government are kicking the very people they are pretending to help - but busy pointing at "the rich" like some kind of pantomime.

Seems the only way around it is (if you're not rich & wearing a top-hat and twiddling your mustache) you should buy an old inefficient car. Safety and efficiency are only for the RICH! (boo-hiss!)

[richdave]

I cannot speak for all people who purchase investment properties Richdave, but I purchased (ie. am paying off) my investment properties so that when the Govt of the day eventually sh#t-cans the pension, my wife and I have some sort of financial security that means we are not going to "exist" on bread and water for the remainder of our lives. Not to get rich quick... And in the meantime it places a safe and warm roof over somebody's head, terrific...

I cannot argue with your rationale and good on you for being aboe to invest but I still donot agree that you should be able to negative gear which equates to subsidisation.. Fair enough to offset your outgoings agains any income from the investment to lower tax but to offset costs above income of investment is IMO a stupid policy. The Government should put a stop to it (phased in over time).

I remember some saying the world would disapear up a camels butt if the GST was introduced... it didn't!!!

I remember some saying that the OZ dollar would never get to parity with the US dollar again... it's almost there...

The rental market and investing in property will not collapse if the Government abolishes the rort for the werathy called negative gearing. Yes things may shake up a little and change but prolly no drastic effects long term.

[VW Convert]

I cannot argue with your rationale and good on you for being aboe to invest but I still donot agree that you should be able to negative gear which equates to subsidisation.. Fair enough to offset your outgoings agains any income from the investment to lower tax but to offset costs above income of investment is IMO a stupid policy. The Government should put a stop to it (phased in over time).

I remember some saying the world would disapear up a camels butt if the GST was introduced... it didn't!!!

I remember some saying that the OZ dollar would never get to parity with the US dollar again... it's almost there...

The rental market and investing in property will not collapse if the Government abolishes the rort for the werathy called negative gearing. Yes things may shake up a little and change but prolly no drastic effects long term.

Are you suggesting that all businesses not be able to offset borrowing costs against profits? How about the raft of taxes we investors pay? Stamp duty on the mortgage, stamp duty on the purchase of the property, council rates, water rates, stamp duty on the insurance of the property, land tax etc etc.

Cut out negative gearing, the already dubious investment becomes a liability and investors will bail out in droves just as they did when the Hawke government did away with negative gearing. Would you invest where there is no return? Governments will then have to step in and build public housing........we've seen how that works in the past......and who will subsidise that?........the taxpayer.

As for being referred to as "the wealthy", I'm far from that, just an average man who is trying (but not succeeding) to make himself independent when he eventually retires......my guess is that if we were in France during the revolution you would have me marched down to Place de La Concorde for an appointment with the guillotine!

Cheers

George

[gareth_oau]

negative gearing is just a fancy name for overall investment. if a business is making money it pays tax, if one division is making money and yet another is losing money, it consolidates its revenue, and pays tax on the net income.

if an individaul has a job - he/she pays tax. however if he/she has other investments which are making a loss, then he/she can consolidate revenue and pay the net tax.

this is the principle of negative gearing, it allows indivuals to consolidate revenues and losses.

Of course, the investor will pay a very large amount of tax when the investment ripens (in theory) in due course - so its not a subsidy,its recognising short term losses vs longer term capital gains.

what you are suggesting is that nobody should be able to claim losses? you pay tax on the gains, but wear all the losses? this is hardly a balanced argument.

[rark]

How about the raft of taxes we investors pay? Stamp duty on the mortgage, stamp duty on the purchase of the property, council rates, water rates, stamp duty on the insurance of the property, land tax etc etc.

George

These taxes are not Federal. Stamp duty is a state tax, and rates are a local tax.

The Federal government is not going to reduce LCT, or income tax..... just because the State government is slogging us with stamp duty etc

[OilBurna]

Vic Govt actually cut stamp duty just over a year ago. Saved me about $600 on the Passat, changed the day before I took delivery.

[VW Convert]

These taxes are not Federal. Stamp duty is a state tax, and rates are a local tax.

The Federal government is not going to reduce LCT, or income tax..... just because the State government is slogging us with stamp duty etc

Yes absolutely true and I was aware of that. I was making a point in regards to the statements that were made regarding negative gearing which of course are off topic.

The point I was making was that whilst property investors do receive a tax deduction for their expenses they also make contributions in other ways. If negative gearing was eliminated and property investors bailed out, those taxes would not be collected and both State & Federal governments would then find someone else to slug.

Cheers

George