"Cash for Clunkers"

[87County]

You now will have all heard of this scheme

Gillard Offers Cash For Old Cars (http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillards-cash-for-clunkers-scheme-20100724-10pce.html)

so in case any of you are tempted.....

I'll raise Ms Gillard's bid another $500 to $2500 for a functioning registered pre '96 tdi 110/130.....:)


honestly, it makes you wonder if anyone has ever considered weighing the environmental cost of car "disposal" against the same cost of keeping it working

and.... it also makes you wonder if they'll try and apply it to the perenties and crush them instead of selling them to enthusiasts who will register them (if they can)

pre-election policy-on-the-go madness if you ask me :mad:


..... & I suspect that hurried board meetings at ford/hyundai/toyo will be considering whether to apply the full $2000 increase to retail prices as of tomorrow

[trog]

can you just imagine all the new cars on the side of the road behind sheds etc as they are deemed too expensive to fix as the computers are playing up or something. i am cosidering a 300 tdi to replace the td5 as it has been a p i a just to find some one in Kununarra to even look at it. Perhaps the cash should be a toyota voucher as it seems that this is the only brand to be serviced outside the capital cities.

[clean32]

I think it will not work; it will just invite a new form of income for the dealers.

Besides the people who really need the help to get out of there clunkers are the ones who 2500 is not enough to help.

as an idea maybe it would be better and cheaper for the government if there was no tax on vehicles that achieve a low running cost, including emissions fuel consumption and dealer servicing.

Recycling of cars is a big business, it is cheaper to produce steel from old cars than it is to make new steel ( energy wise) I believe its the same with polymers.

[blackbuttdisco]

There is no economic sense in me accepting $2000 then having to pay another $65000 to the replace the LR I have at the moment, even if it is a 95 model. It is paid for and runs on LPG, it is probably cleaner than some of the later model cars. My daughter is about to register her 1951 Austin so that will be another oldie back on the road. Stuff em!

[Sprint]

first thing we need to do is cash in the clunkers in parliament......

recently eyed off a Holden Cruze CDX manual at work to replace my XR8 as a daily driver, and ignoring servicing costs, interest on finance and factoring in the difference in fuel economy, i'd have to clock up around 200,000km before i broke even when compared to replacing my current car with an identical one....

and i know which one i'd sooner have!

[Captain_Rightfoot]

first thing we need to do is cash in the clunkers in parliament......

recently eyed off a Holden Cruze CDX manual at work to replace my XR8 as a daily driver, and ignoring servicing costs, interest on finance and factoring in the difference in fuel economy, i'd have to clock up around 200,000km before i broke even when compared to replacing my current car with an identical one....

and i know which one i'd sooner have!

Also, the energy required to make a new car is said to be equivalent to two years worth of fuel for the car doing average km.

The best way to save fuel for most people is to actually think about your life and minimise your vehicle usage.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

You now will have all heard of this scheme

Gillard Offers Cash For Old Cars (http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillards-cash-for-clunkers-scheme-20100724-10pce.html)

<snip>

pre-election policy-on-the-go madness if you ask me :mad:

..... & I suspect that hurried board meetings at ford/hyundai/toyo will be considering whether to apply the full $2000 increase to retail prices as of tomorrowThey are running similar schemes in the US and UK (under Brown) because of the GFC. In the UK there were complaints because the people who were in the market to accept the offer were buying low end cars particularly ones from Asia and it was doing nothing for the local auto industry. I suspect that the same would happen here.

Just before you suggest restricting it to locally produced vehicles - No it would be illegal under our free trade and WTO treaty obligations.

[d@rk51d3]

First, we need to produce a good quality local car.

Then I'd happily buy one.

[Disco44]

Bring back the horse , I say,and use the $2500 to feed him.

[KarlB]

The 'cash for clunkers' proposal MAY be a good one, that should not be dismissed lightly. It is being promoted as a carbon dioxide reduction exercise. For those that are interested a brief but good review of the issue can be found here: Automotive World - ?Cash for clunkers? and lifetime CO2 emissions (http://www.automotiveworld.com/news//77989--cash-for-clunkers-and-lifetime-co2-emissions). Note that this was written in 2009 and not specifically about the Australian Government's proposal.

Cheers
KarlB

[Slunnie]

As I understand it, the scheme was a raging success in the US.

I also tend to think that the makers wont increase the value of their cars by $2000, (unlike the total disaster that we saw happen under the Liberal government with the LPG rebate scheme which did nothing but line the LPG installers pockets with tax payers money as customer costs increased by the same amount as the rebate) because the cash for clunkers is discriminant to 15yo+ vehicles which I suspect isn't the majority of customers. What I do suspect however is that the trade in values will drop, but for a 15yo car it may not be much anyway.

With regards to the cars, they need to specifically be low emission cars, and the ones I saw nominated were the Camry hybrid, the Hyundai Getz and the Holden Cruz. I understand the Cruz is about to be released and is an Australian vehicle.

[JDNSW]

The CO2 emissions associated with the production of a car depend strongly on the assumptions made, and in particular at what stage of material production you start. They also depend on allocation of emissions for the design and tooling, and the similar allocation of emissions for the factory construction etc. You also need to include the emissions associated with disposal. In other words, you can pretty much get whatever answer you want.

The announced scheme suffers from the problem that few owners of fifteen year old cars can afford to buy a new, expensive hybrid or similar cars, and $2,000 is not likely to make much difference to this. Which is probably just as well seeing that the scheme will barely make an impression on the number of older cars.

As far as overall reduction in emissions goes, the fact that the funding is coming from more direct greenhouse initiatives means that the overall effect is likely to be negative as far as emissions go. In other words, more spin!

John

[101RRS]

It says that the traded in car is to be scrapped - so I assume that the government will pay the dealer the price they paid for the car + costs. So a good pre 95 car say worth $10-$15K is going to get scrapped - I don't think so. Cheapies maybe.

Garry

[Fluids]

IMHO it's pre election vote buying ! :(

Where's the $2k coming from ... out of YOUR (the tax payers) pockets.

Kev..

[big guy]

Most of the trends from europe do filter down here.
the states had the scheme for some time, it worked very well but the people who were really struggling to run an old car already were struggling even more to run a new car.
The states also have a o% interest charge on vehicles.
Their vehicles are much cheaper to buy in first place and with very low loans are tempting, problem is the americans general attitude which is everything has to be supersized and generally big.
Even some of their latest cars do not comply with the europeans latest emission controls. That said, it saved the car industry and many associated jobs.
Will it work here, is anyones guess as we are very attached to our older cars as we do not really experience much harsh weather hence much less wear on cars and basically very little rust which is natures way of returning matters back to where they once came from.
I like my old(97) truck, it be a shame to shelve it.:)

[Fish78]

I Agree the announcement of this scheme is just a grab for votes using $$$ as an incentive.

I support it though,I live in a town where there are many UNI students driving old bangers, many of those cars have stereo's worth twice the car and when(not if, usually) they crash its not very pretty.

Japan has (or used to) have the 5 yr rule, I believe its, no car older than 5yrs is allowed on the road without a special permit.

They did this for many reasons, New cars are more efficient, use less fuel put out less emissions, are safer and it stimulates the new car market because everyone has to buy a new car every 5 yrs.

I think that is one contributing factor to newer vehicles not lasting very long, Japanese manufactures are building them for a 5 year effective life, after that the cars are either exported or scrapped.

[olbod]

At the moment it is a voluntary scheme but after the election and
somewhere down the track I think we may see them try to price us out of our vehicles. It would be easy after running a big campaign to get Nong
support ( greenies and those sorts ), to start to up the price of registration slowly to an unaxceptable level. The price of third party insurance could also be increased alarmingly.
Then each year with roadworthy checks, they could have us go thru
the process of having the exhaust emissions tested for compliance. This would easily cost another few hundred dollars.

I would also suggest that these measures have already been looked at
and yesterdays announcement was just the beggining, to get the idea
into our minds and begin the brainwash.

I dont expect a polly to do us any favours, eh.

[digger]

Just before you suggest restricting it to locally produced vehicles - No it would be illegal under our free trade and WTO treaty obligations.

Which it seems we are the only ones honouring!!!

gee what a surprise - we do the right thing as a country and get shafted.....

and yes I agree with Darky!!

How about instead spending some money investing in aussie inventions...
stop them being stolen and finished overseas and then sold back to us...

**The black box flight recorder

**the gas making electricity generator that is installed in individual houses
(now being installed in complete cities overseas!)


and so much more.....

low forward vision again costing us dearly..

WANT MY VOTE? --
**plan to get OUT of debt,
**Invest in AUSTRALIA dont use schemes that are being dumped overseas as a cheap marketing ploy for election votes...
**stop wasting money PLEASE!!! eg:- dont spend $2mill on a guitar festival or some scheme to make the grasshoppers of the western plains zoo safer (I made that up - don't go looking for it!) the people drivingmuddy or buggered rutted roads to drop their kids 100k to school in an old 60-70's prefab building would maybe share my view.

eg - lets not stop arts funding but lets strangle it until we have the essentials in hand.... this is a vote buying scheme and lets get real, noone will take $2000 for a car worth more so it gets scrapped! (and sold overseas Im sure!)..
so what happens if someone brings in a running 1949 landrover not realising its value? or a gunbuggy not knowing that I willkill them if I find out? :) it must be scrapped according to the rules, so no history saving circuit breaker .... its crap to them and its scrap!!

maybe it should be spent on a scheme to stuff houses full of flammable poorly installed insulation so that.......<<escuse me just get this call...."what? they did that already? really? well that must be a raging success....no?? burning down?? ripping people off all over??? MMM>>> maybe not that one..


hey how about using it to regulate NATIONALLY the murray darling so that fair distribution etc is managed... oh too hard?


stuff them all!
ahh that feels a bit better...

my 5c (inflation you know!)

[Slunnie]

You dont get $2k for the car, you get an addtional $2k bonus for it assuming it meets the criteria. I dont think a gun buggy would fall into this category by somebody who knows what they have.

[akelly]

My understanding is that once you settle a price with the dealer they take a further 2k off for your "clunker". The dealer gets the 2k as a government rebate once the car is scrapped.

Obviously if the car is worth more than 2k to the dealer (as a wholesale or whatever) they just ignore the rebate.

The problems with this scheme are legion in other countries. It has been shown to achieve nothing in the US in terms of stimulating the vehicle market there and it was a disaster in Germany. Of all the rubbish that labor have trotted out, this is the one that is the easiest target.

One obvious problem is for anyone with a car worth less than 5k as a trade-in, guess what? Its now worth 2k, flat.

[Slunnie]

I don't think it was ever moved to be a stimulus policy. Its very restrictive and targeted specifically towards removing 15+yo vehicles and replacing them specifically with low emission vehicles.

[B92 8NW]

Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I reckon there's been a bit of pressure to get old cars off the road as it is anyway. I've had a few mechanics use the "it's not worth fixing" line, and make it sound like they're doing a favour, rather than invest serious $$ and labour into an older car.

One such case was a friend's 28 year old Merc, worth about seven grand and blew the head gasket. Mechanic pulled it down, rang the guy up, "Hey mate the bores are too worn, we left your car in the permit zone out the front, come get it ASAP". We went and picked it up, boot was full of all the parts. Got it home, [cast iron] head was flat as a pancake, all in good order, one bore had a bit of scuffing, it got put back together and like all old Mercs it drives around beautifully with 550,000 on the clock and a tiny bit of smoke when booted.

Same thing happened to a 1HD-T Land Cruiser, spat the big ends and got the same "not worth fixing" treatment.

Very hard to find a mechanic now who will shonk something, not all are wealthy and sometimes people who don't earn a great deal (uni students:D) need a slightly bodgy fix to last a year or two.

[discodancer]

Like others have said, I'm not sure that $2k (effectively a discount on a new car) is going to make a great deal of difference to the big picture of pollution control/greenhouse emissions etc ....where it is voluntary participation.
After all we don't even have a National annual car check scheme like the MOT in the UK which knocks out quite a few "smokers" every year.

Someone else mentioned Japan and a compulsory car age limit.. a bit tough!

Try Singapore.
Singapore is a "Fine" city...you get jail for importing chewing gum; arrested for littering; fined for eating/drinking on public transport and fined $1000 for riding your bike through a 40 meter pedestrian tunnel ( I have a photo of the large sign which is enforced!)

I was talking to a taxi driver about their system a few weeks ago..and you know how reliable a resource they are.

( here is an approximate summary, subject to correction by those who know better...but you'll get the drift)

Only the wealthy can afford cars.
Before you can buy a car you need to apply for and buy a Permission Certificate. Fortunately the cost has recently been almost halved and the Certificate ..if issued..will now only set you back about $40,000 AUD.

Once you have this, you can visit the Dealer and arrange to buy a car.
I saw ads in the "Straights Times" paper for Hyundai Getz @ $45,000

So away you go in you new car with additional annual fees etc and you can cáre for it and make it last a lifetime...BUT WAIT.. the Certificate says that I you dont dispose of it within the time limit ( it's like 6 to 10 years...depending whether its a private car or Taxi etc etc ) then the costs ramp-up bigtime and skyrocket ...making ownership prohibitive.
So you are up for the cost of a new car..again.

THIS is how you move Clunkers/oil-leaking landrovers off the roads

Maybe that's why I only saw one restored Morris Minor and one restored early VW beetle in several days...everything else was "new".

AREN'T WE LUCKY!

Cheers
Bob

[Didge]

I heard one of the pollies reply to the $2K stimulus that it would only bring forward the purchase of new cars by a year or two. It won't actually remove many from the road. What does the car yard do with the trade in? Crush it? I think not. It still gets resold where ever possible. Cheapest way to own a car is to keep it till it cannot possibly be made roadworthy again. Does Julia whoolia think about all the depreciation on new cars she is advocating? Why do people consantly want new cars? Cos the " He who dies with the most toys wins" mentality has a firm grip on the mindless masses whose egos rules their wallets and dictate they must have a newer car and trappings than the Joneses. I hadn't driven the old Def for about a week (been using the wife's RAV) and didn't really think I wanted to drive round to mum's in it today (feeling a bit tired and lazy) but as soon as I got in her, I was glad I did - comfortable, reliable, individual and oh yeah slow - but, oh wot a feeling, Landrover :)

[philco]

I seem to remember the British government a couple of years offering a similar deal, 2000 pounds it was stated on TOP GEAR so she must have got the idea and figure from them.
I can just see all the isuzu rovers lining up with all the series to get their $2000 trade in on gleaming new D4's or Range Rover Sports . . . . . YEAH RIGHT !!!!!

[philco]

Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I reckon there's been a bit of pressure to get old cars off the road as it is anyway. I've had a few mechanics use the "it's not worth fixing" line, and make it sound like they're doing a favour, rather than invest serious $$ and labour into an older car.

One such case was a friend's 28 year old Merc, worth about seven grand and blew the head gasket. Mechanic pulled it down, rang the guy up, "Hey mate the bores are too worn, we left your car in the permit zone out the front, come get it ASAP". We went and picked it up, boot was full of all the parts. Got it home, [cast iron] head was flat as a pancake, all in good order, one bore had a bit of scuffing, it got put back together and like all old Mercs it drives around beautifully with 550,000 on the clock and a tiny bit of smoke when booted.

Same thing happened to a 1HD-T Land Cruiser, spat the big ends and got the same "not worth fixing" treatment.

Very hard to find a mechanic now who will shonk something, not all are wealthy and sometimes people who don't earn a great deal (uni students:D) need a slightly bodgy fix to last a year or two.

I agree with you, many of them have forgotten customer service and how to fix a car properly

[scrambler]

The 'cash for clunkers' proposal MAY be a good one, that should not be dismissed lightly. It is being promoted as a carbon dioxide reduction exercise. For those that are interested a brief but good review of the issue can be found here: Automotive World - ?Cash for clunkers? and lifetime CO2 emissions (http://www.automotiveworld.com/news//77989--cash-for-clunkers-and-lifetime-co2-emissions). Note that this was written in 2009 and not specifically about the Australian Government's proposal.

Cheers
KarlB
Perhaps the most bizarre fact on that website is that the US scheme only refunded cars with poorer than 18mpg, and only if they were replaced by a vehicle getting better than 22mpg. In round figures (and allowing for the US gallon) this equates to replacing a car which gets poorer than 14l/100km with something that does better than 11l/100km.

In other words, my 1992 defender would qualify as a car to BUY (if it were new) and not as a car to SELL.

And that's even before considering the outrageous SUV category.

[2stroke]

Well I'll be in strife if they ever made it compulsory, Tdi 130 is '95, the wife drives a '74 LH Torana (on LPG only, doesn't even have a petrol tank) and then there's the '75 LJ50 which is still 2 stroke, like to see their pollution measuring gizmo deal with THAT! I've never had a new car and don't want one. Hell I'd rather convert them to electric than get a new one. Besides 2 grand's an insult.

[goingbush]

Americans ....:eek:

Cash for Clunkers: How to destroy an engine. - YouTube

[zedcars]

Cash for clunkers "tst tst"!
Pollies getting involved in an industry they know nothing about.

First in theory a good idea--get old gas guzzlers of the road--like old 1970/80's Chevs/Fords and Chrysler "tuna boats".

Defective idea :- Most people who own these crates are as poor as church mice and have no credit and cannot qualify for the financing, nor would some want it (evils of credit) or they are muscle car enthusiasts and only drive them on high days and holidays!

So Who benefited?:- The middle and upper class Americans who were already used to trading their 5 year old "clunker" for the latest and greatest anyway.
Car like Landrovers, 5 year old big Beemers, big American SUV "landyachts" and minivans.
These cars all went to the crusher well for the most part, some did get stripped for good take off parts but most when in whole to the crush!

What did they buy?
Asian cars mostly, it didn't do a lot for the domestic manufactures either see:-
Japanese, Koreans gain most from cash for clunkers | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/26/retire-us-usa-clunkers-sales-idUSTRE57P5C220090826)

Flawed idea for the MV repair trade:-
The vehicles taken off the road would have had about 90 to 100,000 miles on them. Just in time for some heavy repair work in the normal run of things. In other words shop revenue for the string of repair shops in "Anytown USA"!
A tranny overhaul, engine repairs, axle spring/ suspension and frame overhauls to name a few salient repair areas; all this potential repair business simply wiped off the High St for good!
Hosts of shops simply went under and left a lot of skilled mechanic blokes jobless with no prospect of immediate employment. Today they have left the industry or retired. Nowadays you cannot find well trained mechanics in the USA for love or money.

Spare parts knock on effect:-
With the loss of potential part sales dealers significantly reduced their parts holding levels simply forecasting that parts demand for those vehicles eliminated from the roads would never come back.
My local LR suppliers for example reduced their parts holding from $127,000 to $50,000 of parts value supporting only LR's in current production.
Nowadays if I want parts for a Disco or a Flandie in a hurry I have to overnight it from central parts warehouse by the likes of Fed Ex for a cost plus freight premium. This has to be covered by the customer, I refuse to eat it.
This has I supposed helped the dealer to a certain extent since the banks have reduced their cash/short term paper loans from 2008 onwards to businesses to enhance their liquidity. The dealers are therefore less indebted to banks.
In turn this has pushed up parts pricing throughout the industry. At dealer levels I have seen a 4.6 D2 cam go from $432 to $627 almost overnight.
In wrecking yards a good take out Flandie V6 is a rare as parrots' teeth. if you can find one it will be at least $3500 for good 'un.
The same for a 4,00 D2 engine, they are just too hard to find so the customer junks the truck, and more vehicles come off the road and push up the price of good used units with a valid E test. Joe public is now paying the price. Only after about 4 years of this has the new car sales starting to look healthy again.

Effect on my business (off the topic but connected)
My LR business has dropped off by about 50% over the last 4 years, there are simply less LR's now being driven out of dealer capture. Many of my older customers fell for the cash for clunker trap
This has forced us to look for other repair revenue streams.
Sprinter vans, Hybrid car repairs, and light duty diesel vehicles. Which in turn has presented new opportunities with the heavier truck end.
All this has meant more investment in tooling and equipment to handle the demand. My problem is finding the blokes with the skills!
At the moment fat chance--i have to train them in house!

Who says this easy, but if it was, everyone would be doing it!

Life in Anytown USA at the greasy end!
Cheers Dennis
zedcars

[ugu80]

Cheapest way to own a car is to keep it till it cannot possibly be made roadworthy again. Why do people consantly want new cars? Cos the " He who dies with the most toys wins" mentality has a firm grip on the mindless masses whose egos rules their wallets and dictate they must have a newer car and trappings than the Joneses.

[thumbsupbig]Too true. Unfortunately, most people don't buy cars to drive, they buy cars to be seen driving.

[3toes]

Some may remember that in the mid to late eighties the Australian car manufacturers were offering large cash bungs to us as a deposit on a new car purchase.

Pushed sales up and everyone had to then get in on the deal or see their customers move to another brand.

Problem was that all it did was pull sales forward and then it was difficult to stop as it would mean a dip in sales while the market returned to normal.

Here in the UK the cash for clunkers scheme was a success for the manufacturers based on their marketing departments reading of it. So successful they pushed for the government to spend more on it. Government was for once smart enough to see through it and refused to do it again.

What the maufactures did not mention was the cost to the economy of all the used car sales / spare parts / service work which older cars generate. This of course normally occurs outside the manufacturer network which I am sure did not influence them at all.

[zedcars]

Some may remember that in the mid to late eighties the Australian car manufacturers were offering large cash bungs to us as a deposit on a new car purchase.

Pushed sales up and everyone had to then get in on the deal or see their customers move to another brand.

Problem was that all it did was pull sales forward and then it was difficult to stop as it would mean a dip in sales while the market returned to normal.

Here in the UK the cash for clunkers scheme was a success for the manufacturers based on their marketing departments reading of it. So successful they pushed for the government to spend more on it. Government was for once smart enough to see through it and refused to do it again.

What the maufactures did not mention was the cost to the economy of all the used car sales / spare parts / service work which older cars generate. This of course normally occurs outside the manufacturer network which I am sure did not influence them at all.

3toes
Having grown up in the UK automotive business both at manufacturer and repair shop level on thing a certain; notably that the repair side of the industry is poorly represented at vital levels especially in the seat of power with the Polies where decison and policies are made.
The USA is the same inspite of having similar bodies supposedly representing interests. I bet OZ is similar in that respect!

Why you might ask, well being a bit of a sage, it is pretty obvious that our democratic systems are designed to be LISTENING systems where Polies are supposed to listen and then determine laws for the benefit of the tax payers.
AND there lies the problem.
The bigger the voice during the listening the bigger the influence, and then there are other influences which I shouldn't mention but get in the way of what is fair and reasonable for all.
Nuff said
Dennis
zedcars

[debruiser]

I Agree the announcement of this scheme is just a grab for votes using $$$ as an incentive.

I support it though,I live in a town where there are many UNI students driving old bangers, many of those cars have stereo's worth twice the car and when(not if, usually) they crash its not very pretty.

Japan has (or used to) have the 5 yr rule, I believe its, no car older than 5yrs is allowed on the road without a special permit.

They did this for many reasons, New cars are more efficient, use less fuel put out less emissions, are safer and it stimulates the new car market because everyone has to buy a new car every 5 yrs.

I think that is one contributing factor to newer vehicles not lasting very long, Japanese manufactures are building them for a 5 year effective life, after that the cars are either exported or scrapped.


If australia brings this is i'm moving to another country; one with a brain in at least one fo the heads of the government. What a crock

[EchiDna]

.......

Try Singapore.
Singapore is a "Fine" city...you get jail for importing chewing gum; arrested for littering; fined for eating/drinking on public transport and fined $1000 for riding your bike through a 40 meter pedestrian tunnel ( I have a photo of the large sign which is enforced!)

I was talking to a taxi driver about their system a few weeks ago..and you know how reliable a resource they are.

( here is an approximate summary, subject to correction by those who know better...but you'll get the drift)

Only the wealthy can afford cars.
Before you can buy a car you need to apply for and buy a Permission Certificate. Fortunately the cost has recently been almost halved and the Certificate ..if issued..will now only set you back about $40,000 AUD.

Once you have this, you can visit the Dealer and arrange to buy a car.
I saw ads in the "Straights Times" paper for Hyundai Getz @ $45,000

So away you go in you new car with additional annual fees etc and you can cáre for it and make it last a lifetime...BUT WAIT.. the Certificate says that I you dont dispose of it within the time limit ( it's like 6 to 10 years...depending whether its a private car or Taxi etc etc ) then the costs ramp-up bigtime and skyrocket ...making ownership prohibitive.
So you are up for the cost of a new car..again.

THIS is how you move Clunkers/oil-leaking landrovers off the roads

Maybe that's why I only saw one restored Morris Minor and one restored early VW beetle in several days...everything else was "new".

AREN'T WE LUCKY!

Cheers
Bob


there is some truth in that, but so much of it is wrong that it skews the story.

Basically the car ownership system is merely part of the puzzle and is no where near as "expensive" as you make it sound....
Income tax is 14% up to 160k/year, 17% if you earn more than that.
GST is 7% (on everything)
the cost of owning a car (should you choose to) is roughly 2.3 x the cost in UK - its a luxury tax no denying it, but in light of the above far far reduced taxes in comparison to Australia, the net cost is very close.

All this doesn't impact the "clunker" market really - the fact is that you can own a 30 year old car but the cost of ownership due to lack of parts etc is high and hence it can be significantly cheaper to buy new than retain old.

[3toes]

Big difference between Singapore and Australia is the size of the place. Taxi from one side to the other in 30 minutes and they are cheap. Government owns all but one of the taxi companies as they made the owners offers they could not say no to.

Your description of the car ownership process ia fairly accurate. They already have grid lock so limit the total number of cars on the road. At the same time built a world class subway system. Can still be chaeper if there are a couple of you to catch a taxi rather than use the subway train.

[3toes]

If australia brings this is i'm moving to another country; one with a brain in at least one fo the heads of the government. What a crock

There are very different expectations in the consumersw across the world and this is reflected in the cars that the manufacturers make.

Europe - cars generally go to the scrap yard at 7 to 8 years of age. At this time a car will generally have about 70k miles on it. Is a fashion thing. Marketing over decades has pushed the need to drive only the latest cars. You need style over reliability or quality / durability. Consumers have bought into character over reliability so will put up with compareatively unrelaible cars.

Japan - Cars as said below have to under go a very strict test at 5 years of age which is not usually worth the cost so the car is exported. Consumers expect nothing at all to go wrong with the car over that 5 year period which drives quality / durability.

USA - Once again durability is more important here. Average age of a car is over 10 years old so have to last. Hence they tend to fit more durable plastics which are then unfavourability reviewed against those cheaper although more tactile soft plastics in an European car. When in the UK go to a bomb site dealer in over 7 year old cars and see what is on offer. It will not generally be European.

[EchiDna]

Big difference between Singapore and Australia is the size of the place. Taxi from one side to the other in 30 minutes and they are cheap. Government owns all but one of the taxi companies as they made the owners offers they could not say no to.

Your description of the car ownership process ia fairly accurate. They already have grid lock so limit the total number of cars on the road. At the same time built a world class subway system. Can still be chaeper if there are a couple of you to catch a taxi rather than use the subway train.

keep dreamin mate ;-)

gridlock? I've never experienced it in the last 15 years of living here - peak hour traffic? yes but no worse than any other city... the limit on car numbers has nothing to do with traffic load and everything to do with tax revenues. Its simple supply and demand.

A train across the island will cost roughly AUD1 or GBP0.50 per person and take an hour. A taxi across the island (excluding any peak hour surcharges or airport taxes) will cost roughly AUD20 or GBP10 and take 30 minutes. Given that lunch costs me about AUD2 or GBP1, I could catch a cab once or eat 2 meals a day for a week... which do you think most people choose?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip>
Why you might ask, well being a bit of a sage, it is pretty obvious that our democratic systems are designed to be LISTENING systems where Polies are supposed to listen and then determine laws for the benefit of the tax payers.
AND there lies the problem.
<snip>
zedcarsYou have an odd, almost quaint, notion of politicians actually listening to the citizens. In the US you would be acutely aware that politicians only listen to money.

The rest of the population gets to pick between candidates, determined by the parties, who will be our dictators for a pre-determined period of time.

Then when they get into parliament/congress they forget about who elected them and remember only those who financially supported them.