Bombs away - call to tax old cars

I was reading this article in today’s paper and I thought I would post it up and see what people think about this

The Motor Trade Association aims to tax old cars in the name of safety, writes JILL PENGELLEY.
IF your car has a cassette player or if you need a key to open the boot, it's time to worry. Check the rear-view mirror because the state's motor industry is trying to run old cars off the road.
A 1999 Commodore, a 1998 Mazda MX5 - anything more than 10 years old would be shafted with extra taxes - just for being old.
Motor Trade Association (MTA) of SA executive director John Chapman sees it as a move towards modernising the state's ageing fleet and has put the proposal to the State Government.
An Australian Bureau of Statistics survey finds the average age of passenger vehicles in SA is 11.1 years, which is well ahead of the national average of 9.7 years.
A considerable number are even older, with 26.5 per cent of cars in SA manufactured before 1993.
The MTA wants a more modern, safer and less emissions-intensive fleet.
SHOULD OLD CARS BE TAXED TO ENCOURAGE THEIR OWNERS TO BUY CLEANER, SAFER VEHICLES? Have your say in the poll to the right of this page and in the comment box below.
There is wide support for that wish but almost none for the association's recommendation that owners of old cars pay more tax.
Mr Chapman argues old vehicles are more likely to be belching smoke and have defects that render them dangerous to other road users.
"Having a vehicle is a privilege, not a right," Mr Chapman says.
"I hear the arguments about social equity but is it OK for someone to drive a vehicle with faulty brakes? "I just don't get that. I'm sorry; there are laws."
He says there have been "rapid improvements" in modern cars in terms of safety equipment and this has been reflected in fewer road injuries and deaths.
SA Council of Social Service executive director Ross Womersley says incentives to change are preferable to "punishments".
"This kind of proposal always disproportionately punishes people who are on low incomes," he says.
"They may be people who are students, migrants, people who move from a two-income household to a single-income.
"There's a group of people in the market who can afford to retire their old vehicle but the group that primarily drives old vehicles will be people who have the least ability to pay."
Mr Womersley suggests the motor trade try developing an affordable fixed-price service package to help those on low incomes keep their cars in basic running order.
Independent MP Bob Such is in favour of modernising the fleet but has been arguing for some time for an inducement, rather than a penalty.
He wants the Federal Government to provide financial incentives for people to upgrade vehicles which are more than 10 years old.
France, Germany and the UK have run such schemes and Mr Such has written to the Federal Treasurer and the Finance Minister suggesting Australia follow suit.
He believes modern safer cars have contributed to slashing the road toll by nearly two thirds in the past 30 years.
However, he says a tax on old cars would amount to a "poor tax" on students and others who could least afford it.
"We offer incentives for saving water, which is good, through rebates on washing machines, but we don't seem to want to offer rebates to save lives on the roads," he says.
More than 550 cars are taken off the state's roads each week because they fail to meet national safety standards but Road Safety Minister Michael O'Brien has previously said there is "no direct correlation" between road deaths and the condition of vehicles.
Police records show 28,981 cars, trucks and motorcycles were defected in the past financial year, compared to 26,008 in the 2007/08 financial year.
This is a jump from the 22,136 vehicles deemed too dangerous to drive in the 12 months to June 2007.
The most common defect is a bald tyre, followed by problems with lights, wipers, rust, faulty steering, fluid leaks, windscreen damage, noisy exhaust and worn brakes.
Owners are required to fix defects and a Transport Department inspection is required before the vehicle can be driven but the Government has no plans to introduce mandatory testing of all cars.
Senior Sergeant Paul Isherwood, of the Major Crash Investigation Branch, says old cars are not inherently risky.
The attitude and condition of the driver counts for more.
The top five risk factors - the "fatal five" as police call them - are speed, drink and drug driving, inattention, failure to wear seatbelts and vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians.
"They're the contributors; otherwise we'd have the fatal six," he says. "Police will try and get any unroadworthy car off the road but just because they're old doesn't mean they're not roadworthy."
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.
Treasurer Kevin Foley has not responded to the whole document but has swiftly ruled out the age tax.
"The Government rejects outright the suggestion by the MTA that it introduce a tax on older cars as a means of encouraging people to buy newer, more fuel efficient cars," he says.
"Such a move would unfairly penalise those unable to afford to trade up, therefore discriminating against the less well-off and younger drivers, in particular, who may not be able to afford a newer vehicle."

I think this is a lot of bull shit as there are people out there that really look after there cars why should these people suffer

Hi all i dont mean to swear on the forum and be nasty but this is seriously fu--ed up i have two kids and misses but dont live with them i have sold my vx berlina so they could have family car and i could only afford a old car the old banana other then my foster father i would have never had decent running car and would never be able to run a decent car i know that their trying to make things a lot better in todays society but their going the wrong way about it and making it worse as for the new driving laws or drinking laws or what ever law they bring dont they know that is not gonna stop people doing stupid stuff if some one wants to be a idiot their always going to be i have admit i have done some stupid things cause i dont think at the time but i dont come in to this title as hoon driver but quite a few of us have and these other laws are just going to make more people be stupid cause their having a choker leash on todays society

idont know why you guys are firing up? f your car is in good nick with everything roadworthy then you shouldnt worry. eg Brakes are perfec no rust etc.

Mine fits into this category but id have to say mine is safer than a lot of newer cars out there. Its all good and well to spend money on mods but you have to be able to maintain your vehicle aswell...

They are not firing up about the condition of their cars Tom. If you read the article what it basically means is that if your car is more than ten years old then you have to pay an extra tax to be able to use it. It doesnt matter if it is faithfully restored and you have spent tens of thousands of dollars on it to get it perfect or if it is an old wreck you drive around in.

This is the thing that is going to upset a lot of people


cheers
Pazz

"The Government rejects outright the suggestion"

Thats all that matters out of this article.

The end result will be that police will be out to defect older vehicles more often, which then refers back to my initial post.

im glad the government has disagreed with it at the moment but i agree that the older cars should be inspected after 10yrs of age, i believe that every two years any vehicle over 10 yrs should be inspected and given a bill of health b4 being reregistered, this could be given by any qualified mechanic. this would be a way of keeping the older cars in better working order.

regarding encouraging people to buy newer car then they should drop stamp duty as a start.

more than agree with you wildvt, as long as the inspections you are talking of being done every 2 years can be done by any mechanic and not by regency. We dont want these inspections to become a defect pickup point. Only to pickup any road worthiness problems, such as bald tyres, brakes, oil leaks etc etc.

cheers

don't want to burst your bubble with the get your own mechanic to do it but i know a mechanic and im sure you all do who would just say i know you off you go without checking it it would defeat the purpose

but then again i wouldn't want regency to do it either for the above mentioned reasons

and another thing is i do all my own servicing and maintenance and know enough about cars to know whats wrong with it and when things need fixing
i don't need some posh pollie telling me my car is old just cause they have government vehicles to get chauffeured around in.

jafo wrote:

don't want to burst your bubble with the get your own mechanic to do it but i know a mechanic and im sure you all do who would just say i know you off you go without checking it it would defeat the purpose

but then again i wouldn't want regency to do it either for the above mentioned reasons

and another thing is i do all my own servicing and maintenance and know enough about cars to know whats wrong with it and when things need fixing
i don't need some posh pollie telling me my car is old just cause they have government vehicles to get chauffeured around in.

any car could have many road worthiness issues alot of people have no idea of whats what on a car so having a mechanic do the check would make sure all cars are checked, if a mechanic just ticks the box and says yeah its ok, then the car gets pulled over or in an accident and they find a fault then the mechanic could loose there licence/registration!

even though you know your car thats good but your not qualified so you may miss a very important safety issue .