there should be a cheaper rego for modern rare cars - Page 2

Stefan · 22-07-2009, 01:44 PM

Seriously, you're suggesting that someone who can afford multiple cars has the means to afford to house them (I assume these rare cars are garaged not parked in the street) can afford to insure them. But the government should be fair and discount their rego.

HMMM this should go down well with the wider community.

:

73gscoupe · 22-07-2009, 02:07 PM

The core issue is that the TAC charge should be associated with an individual's license renewal, NOT with the vehicle registration.

I dont mind paying multiple registration charges (I have 3 cars), but part of the registration charge is the TAC insurance charge. Why do I have to pay that 3 times? Am i 3 times more likely to injure or be injured on the road because I own 3 cars?

In my opinion it is grossly unfair to have the TAC charge lumped into the registration of a motor vehicle. The TAC charge is supposed to cover injury to people, so why not associate it with a persons licence renewal.

While their at it they can bump up the TAC component for drink drive offenders.

Ducati888 · 22-07-2009, 02:09 PM

In Vic, rego isn't the main cost, the third party insurance is (CTP). All up, out of about $600 per year, $460ish is the CTP. The rest is the rego fee and GST.

If it was just a $140 ish rego fee per year that would be fine, but paying all that extra CTP per vehicle isn't. The real alternative is to charge all licence holders the CTP, not the vehicle. A licence holder can only drive one vehicle at a time, regardless of how many they own, and a vehicle can only be driven by a licenced driver, who would then automatically be covered by insurance.

As a licence holder, if you can't afford the $400 per year to have your licence, then perhaps you shouldn't be driving, like all the deadbeats who don't have third party vehicle insurance on their rides.

Seems logical to me. I'll wait for you guys to pick it to pieces.

FPV+fteT3 · 22-07-2009, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

Seriously, you're suggesting that someone who can afford multiple cars has the means to afford to house them (I assume these rare cars are garaged not parked in the street) can afford to insure them. But the government should be fair and discount their rego.

HMMM this should go down well with the wider community.

:

I am glad you are happy to fork out around 2k/year to rego your GT fleet and you probably only drive each car twice a month so you would not be interested in the government realising that you are the only driver of the cars and collectively they only do a few k's each per year and giving you a reduction in rego as you are not using the road or services all that much.
I also have a small collection of cars that each cover few K's per year I pay the full rego on all of them for the privaledge of driving on our sub standard roads but IF a system was in place to save some money on them I would be happy to use it. Like you I dare say no one drives my cars but me as they are not really replaceable.

**DJM83** · 22-07-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Hence you disagree with the proposal put forward by ieatsports_cars.

I do disagree yes if you choose to have more then one car you pay the required rego, simple

dbirdy · 22-07-2009, 08:49 PM

Ok, how about this idea. Rego should be charged as a percentage of the vehicle age.

Eg.
A brand new to 5 year old car would be charged at 100%, which i guess the majority of our daily drivers are at least 5 years old.

and for our hobby car / project car / crusing car / street machine

being around the 1960's era, knock 40% off the price since it is 40 years old?

This old would only work if the old car is our street machine....

cant · 22-07-2009, 09:01 PM

DUCATTI 888, you will never be a Polli, your way too smart!

CTP/TAC premium on your drivers lic is the best idea i have heard of, nice post pal.
.
.
.
(and whats with paying stamp duty on everything all the time?)
.

**Silver Ghia** · 22-07-2009, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cant

DUCATTI 888, you will never be a Polli, your way too smart!

CTP/TAC premium on your drivers lic is the best idea i have heard of, nice post pal.
.
.

Ummm.... did everyone miss my post #14?

flappist · 22-07-2009, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbirdy

Ok, how about this idea. Rego should be charged as a percentage of the vehicle age.

Eg.
A brand new to 5 year old car would be charged at 100%, which i guess the majority of our daily drivers are at least 5 years old.

and for our hobby car / project car / crusing car / street machine

being around the 1960's era, knock 40% off the price since it is 40 years old?

This old would only work if the old car is our street machine....

How about new car rego is free and it goes up as the car gets older.....

This will get all the rubbish off the streets

ieatsports_cars · 22-07-2009, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

How about new car rego is free and it goes up as the car gets older.....

This will get all the rubbish off the streets

I think that is a crap plan, Because their is alot of people who carn't afford to keep up dating their cars all the time, i can't , and there is a lot of bloody nice old cars on the roads too why ruin something that is going good and it is special to the owner stupid idea, then in that case you will see a lot of family's cramed in 2 door hyundai getz's and kia rio because they are cheap cars.

4Vman · 22-07-2009, 10:50 PM

What about "pay per use"?
You declare your combined annual k's on your tax return, more k's you do, the more $$ you pay.

ieatsports_cars · 22-07-2009, 10:56 PM

i dont know but i feel some thing need to be done for those people who have multi vehicles

Withnail · 22-07-2009, 11:19 PM

Governments will never allow a system for a reduced rego on your owning multiple cars as this goes against what they are trying to achieve. That is, reducing the number of cars on our roads.

Reducing the rego for your second, third car etc, would encourage people to own more cars, which goes against everything they are trying to achieve to reduce congestion, environmental damage etc.

Its irrelevant to them how much you drive it. The point is you have it, so you COULD drive it, so you increase congestion and environmental damage.

Cars to us are fun, a passion. But to governments and the wider community they are a source of pollution, cost and reduced community amenity. For example, hands up anyone who wants to live on a main road?

Mark351 · 22-07-2009, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ieatsports_cars

i dont know but i feel some thing need to be done for those people who have multi vehicles

Why? I have two vehicles, can't drive both at once.

GT69 · 22-07-2009, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

What about "pay per use"?
You declare your combined annual k's on your tax return, more k's you do, the more $$ you pay.

Problem is tax is federal robbery, rego is state robbery. Club rego is worth looking into. Last i checked (im not in a club now) you needed a minimum of 6 members and could stipulate your own rules (ie personalized plates). There are obviously tax issues and its more complicated than that. But look into club rulings in your own states. Most of the 'limited driving' is avoidable, personalized plates and putting your rego sticker on say a rear quarter window will sort out some 'by the looks of it' type things.

Last i checked in QLD you were limited to driving to events or within 15km of your home. Fine for most people, there was also something about 'testing' that allowed you to drive a certain amount of km's outside the regulated zone.

But then again, you could just cop it on the chin.

And remember the price hikes next voting oppurtunity you have...