Buyback hypothetical

[flappist]

Yes I am bored.......

There is a lot of blurb floating around about $3k buyback for old cars so I will take it one step further.

The Feds decide to solve this once and for all.

No motor vehicle less than 3 tons is allowed to be registered for private use once it is 10 years or 250,000km old.
There are no loopholes for doof doofs and the penalty for trying in license restricted to 50kw pink bubble cars for life.

Collectable vehicles can be registered like vintage or club cars are now.

To aid this transition to the new era, NEW Australian made vehicles will be subsidised for 5 years and all import duties and taxes other than GST removed.

This means that although you paid $30k for your XR6 and the new one will be only $20k so your is now worth bugger all you will only have to pay what you would have paid if this scheme were not in.

The nett result will be that first car buyers will be able to get a BA for $3k instead of a pile of junk, old falcons that are not crap will still be around but the junk removed, lots of cheap vehicles will become availabe for amateur motorsport (drags, track and tally), much less pollution, more jobs in the car industry, less road deaths due to more airbags, ABS, crumple zones etc (note I said less DEATHS, not less PRANGS).
Collectable vehicles will be preserved as they will no longer be in the hands of idiots who ruin them because they are "just old cars".

The down side is that car collectors will have to be fair dinkum not doof doofs as they will not be allowed to drive their half finished mismatched wheeled, primer painted, dodgey engined, sort of GT/HSV/VL turbo replica to maccas every night.

So is this the answer to fixing the car industry and lowering the road toll in one hit? Or is it more important that VL turbos and EAs are available to the backward cap brigade?

[mrbaxr6t]

250,000 isn't alot of kms to be honest and what if like me you use a good condition old car to get to and from work as you travel great distances to do the same thing in a car with a 250,000km limit I be needing another car every couple years sorry but no.

The line of work I am in you tend to annoy people and they have been known to seek retribution on my car - so I drive an older one that is beatup but has very good condition drivetrain so if they decide to smack up my car its not as big of a deal than them smacking up my nice car.

Heres a better idea get new drivers in more modern cars - this will save lives.

[LTDHO]

So no E-series?
We'd all have to put up with P.O.S AU's!

Car manufacturers would love this buy back process.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

So no E-series?
We'd all have to put up with P.O.S AU's!

Car manufacturers would love this buy back process.

Only until Nov 2012.....

Originally Posted by mebaxr6t

The line of work I am in you tend to annoy people and they have been known to seek retribution on my car - so I drive an older one that is beatup but has very good condition drivetrain so if they decide to smack up my car its not as big of a deal than them smacking up my nice car.

.

But then they would be in a new car too....

I used a different system years ago, I bought a plastic toy from Austria that evened the odds......

[Pinkbits]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

So no E-series?
We'd all have to put up with P.O.S AU's!

Car manufacturers would love this buy back process.

2nd post and the crap is flowing already!
Let's see how long the thread lasts.

I agree with the majority of your suggestions with the exception being the 250,000km limit.

[Scott]

Every time a new car hits the road, every older car becomes less safe. Should older cars be pushed toward enthusiasts or the tip? Yes.

Our Government in it's pandering and grovelling way, wants to be seen to heal the world. They seem happy to do this at the expense of our local manufacturing by disadvantaging them against our nearest and biggest competition by implementing all manner of taxes and rules to make them greener.

An initiative *like* this would show the world that we are caring and sharing green econo-hippies and at the same time we can relax rules on industry.

Industry becomes more viable, more jobs are had by all.

The auto industry employs 60,000 Australians - now, how many jobs was the stimulus package going to create? 100,000 from memory, that worked out great : .

So, we lose our auto industry if we keep going how we do, we lose 60,000 jobs and we send all auto profits off shore in their entirety.

OR,

We fix our industry by making Australian cars cheaper, make it harder to sell an imported car here, dramatically impact the safety of cars on the road and help the environment?

Nup, stupid idea.

[cs123]

What would that do to the upper end of the market. Imagine the depreciation on BMW and Audi or Italian exotics.

A more reasonable solution is yearly mandatory roadworthy and emission certification for all cars.

If a car is older then 10 years and in good nick then there is no reason to take it off the road.

[Paxton]

My EF is in better condition than a number of newer cars that I know of. I bought a car that I could afford, so we could get a good car as well. I fail to see the point of throwing good money after bad for the removal of old cars, when the majority of people will buy imported cars anyway.

Australia isn't like Japan. We don't have a huge domestic car industry to support, we just have three manufacturers who are trying their hardest to survive. I would be more likely to support this proposal if (and only if) it was stated that, in order to be eligible, the participant must purchase an Australian car only. That way we keep jobs, and most of the money in Australian hands. With this Government's Toyota love, it isn't likely to happen.

[The Monty]

My AU is already out of date then, lol.
280 000k's and 10 years and one month old.
Would I support it, probably, as long as we were still able to drive cars on a limited rego that are between 10-25years old before club rego becomes available.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by cs123

What would that do to the upper end of the market. Imagine the depreciation on BMW and Audi or Italian exotics.

A more reasonable solution is yearly mandatory roadworthy and emission certification for all cars.

If a car is older then 10 years and in good nick then there is no reason to take it off the road.

Think about the depreciation on Skylines, NSX, Lexus etc out of Japan.

If there is an emmission standard should that be the current standard? Good luck getting a 20 year old car to euro 3. Can you show me a 10 year old Australian car that has all the airbags, crumple zones DSC EBD etc that is available in the new ones?

If there are no import duties or taxes other than GST you do realise that many of the BMWs/Audis etc will actually be affordable by ordinary people don't you?

There are a few here who are upset that their E series or AU would have to go.
Would you not clean swap your car for say a BA2 of equivelent build?

[mcflux]

much less pollution

Consider the carbon footprint difference between the creation of a whole new car vs the continued running of an already existing car.

Both my cars have >350,000 on the odo, one's roadworthy and perfect for work/daily duties, the other's a weekend fun car. Both are worth bugger all capital-wise, and I own both completely.

more jobs in the car industry

Why should I be forced to get rid of both and buy new cars? All that disposable income I had for spending at the shops or for trips to the city or buying new furniture or to spend at local restaurants, etc etc, is now gone as I'm stuck with paying off a loan for a new-ish car. Why support one industry at the cost of many others?

Getting rid of old cars is a crap idea, it forces increased consumption of resources (for making the new cars) and would severely impact on people's financial situations (limiting "stimulating" the economy in other areas as mentioned above).

[Pinkbits]

Hopefully it will work to rid the roads of the one headlight/brake/tailight, bald tyred, unrepaired accident damaged vehicles that are on the roads.
The way to go would be yearly vehicle inspections, similar to roadworthies.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

Consider the carbon footprint difference between the creation of a whole new car vs the continued running of an already existing car.

Japan seems to think it reduces pollution significantly enough to have a scheme like this.

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

Why should I be forced to get rid of both and buy new cars? All that disposable income I had for spending at the shops or for trips to the city or buying new furniture or to spend at local restaurants, etc etc, is now gone as I'm stuck with paying off a loan for a new-ish car.

Your newish car would be cheap - hopping into a 4-5yr old BA for <$5k sounds pretty reasonable.

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

Why support one industry at the cost of many others?

Australia would have more money, which by default, means you will have a job and still be able to buy furniture... Australian made furniture.

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

Getting rid of old cars is a crap idea, it forces increased consumption of resources (for making the new cars) and would severely impact on people's financial situations (limiting "stimulating" the economy in other areas as mentioned above).

The initiative, if I get where Flappist is going, is to start supporting Australian product in a more meaningful way. The example in this case is teh Auto Industry but the same intent of approach would become a benchmark for Australian Products.

[mcflux]

Originally Posted by GTP006

Japan seems to think it reduces pollution significantly enough to have a scheme like this.

So the scrapping of a car to create a new car is reducing the environmental impact? Pollution isn't just about what comes out of the tailpipe.

Your newish car would be cheap - hopping into a 4-5yr old BA for <$5k sounds pretty reasonable.

Wow, the depreciation will make people REALLY keen to buy a new car then.

Australia would have more money, which by default, means you will have a job and still be able to buy furniture... Australian made furniture.

Not getting this bit. By forcing many people in to debt through enforced purchasing of new/near-new vehicles, Australia has more money? I would've thought the person with money in the bank who could spend it how they like would be in a better position to buy furniture... Australian made furniture. When I want something I save up for it & then purchase it, straight cash.

The initiative, if I get where Flappist is going, is to start supporting Australian product in a more meaningful way. The example in this case is teh Auto Industry but the same intent of approach would become a benchmark for Australian Products.

I do like where Flappist is coming from with supporting the local car industry, but at the cost of individual's savings and potential loss of income for various other industries where that money could have been spent.... nah

I don't know enough about economics to see how discouraging buyers (financially through tarrifs, taxes, whatever) from non-Australian products will help Australia as a whole when it comes to international trade, so I won't really go there. But I do think that forcing people into continually investing in new/ish cars would be a bad thing.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes I am bored.......

There is a lot of blurb floating around about $3k buyback for old cars so I will take it one step further.

The Feds decide to solve this once and for all.

No motor vehicle less than 3 tons is allowed to be registered for private use once it is 10 years or 250,000km old.
There are no loopholes for doof doofs and the penalty for trying in license restricted to 50kw pink bubble cars for life.

Collectable vehicles can be registered like vintage or club cars are now.

To aid this transition to the new era, NEW Australian made vehicles will be subsidised for 5 years and all import duties and taxes other than GST removed.

This means that although you paid $30k for your XR6 and the new one will be only $20k so your is now worth bugger all you will only have to pay what you would have paid if this scheme were not in.

The nett result will be that first car buyers will be able to get a BA for $3k instead of a pile of junk, old falcons that are not crap will still be around but the junk removed, lots of cheap vehicles will become availabe for amateur motorsport (drags, track and tally), much less pollution, more jobs in the car industry, less road deaths due to more airbags, ABS, crumple zones etc (note I said less DEATHS, not less PRANGS).
Collectable vehicles will be preserved as they will no longer be in the hands of idiots who ruin them because they are "just old cars".

The down side is that car collectors will have to be fair dinkum not doof doofs as they will not be allowed to drive their half finished mismatched wheeled, primer painted, dodgey engined, sort of GT/HSV/VL turbo replica to maccas every night.

So is this the answer to fixing the car industry and lowering the road toll in one hit? Or is it more important that VL turbos and EAs are available to the backward cap brigade?

good post . you make some very valid points . perspectively put; not a bad idea.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GTP006

The initiative, if I get where Flappist is going, is to start supporting Australian product in a more meaningful way. The example in this case is teh Auto Industry but the same intent of approach would become a benchmark for Australian Products.

Yep that is it exactly.

If a new G6ET was $30k and you earned $50k a year instead of $40k because we are all better off why would you not buy one every 5 years?

Of course if pokies were banned outright it would have the same effect.....

[Road_Warrior]

Who determines the criteria to make you a 'collector' and who determines what cars are collectible?

[Scott]

Ghia 5L (saving paper by not quoting it all again )

No, pollution isn't just what comes out of the tailpipe, I have no idea what the offset is between a new and existing car is but the value isn't just in emissions either. Substantially reducing the road toll would be a great sideline benefit wouldn't it?

Resale/depreciation would be better, not worse. If you bought a new BA XT for $33k, today it is worth $8k. Over 5 years, you have lost $25k. In the example above, you paid $20k for it and sold it for $3-$4k and have only lost $16-$17k. Over 5 years, you would be ~$8,000 better off.

That's a lot of Australian furniture to come out of "extra money saved".

In todays environment, getting more debt is the better of two evils. Few people are in a position to never have to borrow money and when they do, lets try and make it for the purpose of buying Australian.

[GT0132]

delete , double post

[GT0132]

Interesting...So what happens to new car prices after 5 years when the subsidy no longer exists?...I'd say car prices would be at least back up to where they were pre subsidy, so we're still not solving the affordability issue for those that drive 10 years old cars because of financial reasons.

Say I drive a 5 year old car when this "hypothetical' scheme is introduced. The value would drop like a lead balloon overnight as the transitional govt subsidy makes the new car more affordable thus reducing re-sale demand on my 5 year old car....Not to worry though as Santa Claus Rudd will give me $3k..(but at what point do I qualify for the $3k though.....once car is 10 years old?....If so I'm out of luck as my car's only 5 years old)...

However let's say I qualify....So I take my $3k in cash and trot down to the Ford Dealer and buy a new XR6 for $20k, a reduction from $35k due to temporary subsidy ($17k out of my own pocket + $3k of Rudds)....I keep the car 5 years then decide to update.....Wooops, sorry sir, the subsidy is now over and I'm gonna sting you $35k for the new XR6....I didn't use my old car a lot - clocked up 40,000 kms in 5 years . However because half it's finite life is over it only has a trade in value of $5k...so i'm up for a $30k change because of no subsidy.

Back to reality, I heard a story on the news the other day that Australia currently has the highest proportion of cars over 10 years old than at any other time in our history. I'd suggest this would have a lot do with affordability, so I can't see how this scheme would help....It would be great for the first car but thereafter the same affordability issues I'd suspect.

I voted, yes but needs more work

[Mr Hardware]

Japan seems to think it reduces pollution significantly enough to have a scheme like this.

Well i think japan might have been wrong once before too

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Who determines the criteria to make you a 'collector' and who determines what cars are collectible?

Anyone can be a collector and any car is collectable.

Once a car is on "Club" rego it must be driven as per the rules, i.e not a daily driver, club runs/shows/cruises or within X kms of your house.

[HSV587]

What an absolute crock of crap.Im a bit of a wheeler and dealer,always buying/selling/fixing different sorts of cars,and currently own cars from the 70s from all of the big 3.My old 202 kingswood ute has never let me down in 8 years of ownership,only thing that has cost me money on it apart from rego was having the starter motor rebuilt,the AP6 valiant is the same,dad drove that old slanty for nearly a decade with nothing but basic servicing,dads XP ute,XC GS rally pack ute.....all the same,and on full tasmanian rego....I cant think of any late model cars that you can drive for 10 years without spending anything on it,and Ive owned plenty of them too...and to be quite honest,if i was driving down the road and someone pulled out of a side street and there was no way of avoiding the accident,Ild a lot rather be driving my old 1972 Galaxie than in a new hyundai or some other simalar crap...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GT0132

Interesting...So what happens to new car prices after 5 years when the subsidy no longer exists?...I'd say car prices would be at least back up to where they were pre subsidy, so we're still not solving the affordability issue for those that drive 10 years old cars because of financial reasons.

Say I drive a 5 year old car when this "hypothetical' scheme is introduced. The value would drop like a lead balloon overnight as the transitional govt subsidy makes the new car more affordable thus reducing re-sale demand on my 5 year old car....Not to worry though as Santa Claus Rudd will give me $3k..(but at what point do I qualify for the $3k though.....once car is 10 years old?....If so I'm out of luck as my car's only 5 years old)...

However let's say I qualify....So I take my $3k in cash and trot down to the Ford Dealer and buy a new XR6 for $20k, a reduction from $35k due to temporary subsidy ($17k out of my own pocket + $3k of Rudds)....I keep the car 5 years then decide to update.....Wooops, sorry sir, the subsidy is now over and I'm gonna sting you $35k for the new XR6....I didn't use my old car a lot - clocked up 40,000 kms in 5 years . However because half it's finite life is over it only has a trade in value of $5k...so i'm up for a $30k change because of no subsidy.

Back to reality, I heard a story on the news the other day that Australia currently has the highest proportion of cars over 10 years old than at any other time in our history. I'd suggest this would have a lot do with affordability, so I can't see how this scheme would help....It would be great for the first car but thereafter the same affordability issues I'd suspect.

I voted, yes but needs more work

No the 20k is permanent, it comes from removal of taxes and cheaper manufacturing costs due to increased output, the subsidy is maybe 3 or 4k that makes up the difference vetween what you would have got and what you did get.

Currently: new XR6 35k, 5 year old XR6 18k, difference $17k.
New plan: new XR6 20k, 5 year old XR6, 10k, difference $10k (so you are 7k better off) but you have paid a lot of interest on the original $35k so you get a $4k bonus to offset that.

Does that make it clearer?

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by HSV587

What an absolute crock of crap.Im a bit of a wheeler and dealer,always buying/selling/fixing different sorts of cars,and currently own cars from the 70s from all of the big 3.My old 202 kingswood ute has never let me down in 8 years of ownership,only thing that has cost me money on it apart from rego was having the starter motor rebuilt,the AP6 valiant is the same,dad drove that old slanty for nearly a decade with nothing but basic servicing,dads XP ute,XC GS rally pack ute.....all the same,and on full tasmanian rego....I cant think of any late model cars that you can drive for 10 years without spending anything on it,and Ive owned plenty of them too...and to be quite honest,if i was driving down the road and someone pulled out of a side street and there was no way of avoiding the accident,Ild a lot rather be driving my old 1972 Galaxie than in a new hyundai or some other simalar crap...

What this bloke says is right on the nail........If there is only one honest, no BS post on these forums in the past 2 years I've been on here then this has gotta be it.

[GT0132]

Originally Posted by flappist

No the 20k is permanent, it comes from removal of taxes and cheaper manufacturing costs due to increased output, the subsidy is maybe 3 or 4k that makes up the difference vetween what you would have got and what you did get.

Currently: new XR6 35k, 5 year old XR6 18k, difference $17k.
New plan: new XR6 20k, 5 year old XR6, 10k, difference $10k (so you are 7k better off) but you have paid a lot of interest on the original $35k so you get a $4k bonus to offset that.

Does that make it clearer?

yep, cheers mate...much clearer now

[mcflux]

GTP006, I 100% agree, safer cars on the road is a good idea, but just because my work car only has a single airbag & doesn't have ABS or all the other fancy features a new car has, doesn't make it a deathtrap.

Not getting the resale logic if a car has a lifespan of 10 years rather than typically 30+. Where is the massive subsidy coming from? (who is paying for this to happen)

[Scott]

Originally Posted by GT0132

Interesting...

If you owned a 5yr old car that you bought new for $35k, it's value today would be something like $8-$12k (BA XT as the example).

So, 5 yrs is up and you are going to replace it because that's what typically happens. You will trade in your BA for $12k and buy an FG for $35k. You are out of pocket $23k.

Instead, this deal comes in and your BA is only worth $3k as a trade but you only spend $20k on a new FG. You are out of pocket $17k.

In 5 yrs time, your FG is only worth $4k as a trade but you want a new car and spend $36k. You are out of pocket 32k. If the deal had not happened, your FG would be worth $12k and you would be out of pocket $24k.

In summary, if this plan was introduced, you would be in a current car in 5 yrs time and the whole thing would have cost you $49k.

If the plan was not introduced, you would be in a current car in 5 yrs time and the whole thing would have cost you $47k.

The whole excercise cost you an additional $2,000 over 10yrs and meant that you bought Australian cars - note that there is no $3k lollie bag included in these calcs.

Bloody cheap way of keeping jobs I think....

[nugget378]

I cant see how any one can argue that making new cars cheaper, so the less well off can have a newer model, or be able to update more often is a bad thing..

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Ghia5L

GTP006, I 100% agree, safer cars on the road is a good idea, but just because my work car only has a single airbag & doesn't have ABS or all the other fancy features a new car has, doesn't make it a deathtrap.

Not getting the resale logic if a car has a lifespan of 10 years rather than typically 30+. Where is the massive subsidy coming from? (who is paying for this to happen)

Your car is a good one, bloody good infact. Problem is that with every newer, safer car that hits the road, the damage they will do to your car in a prang is devastating. Your car gets "deadlier" because newer cars are built to drive straight through yours. Tree's remain just as hard though