Call to cut Luxury Car Tax on Australian-made vehicles

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Why do you care what car someone wants for their business. They are still paying more for the vehicle, not like they are getting it free.
If my business required me to drive around all day, I would like a more comfortable car and not just the base model.

LCT is crap anyway. Get rid of it on all cars from everywhere.

That's fair, if the difference comes from your salary.

Not a cent extra from tax regardless of whether you pay more of your own cash or not, that money is meant for society, and running your business, not for you. Leather seats and woodgrain are definitely not required for a business. You should feel fortunate you're allowed to claim you're car and depreciation/transport costs. There are many people paying more tax than small business owners that can't even claim public transport. That should already be good enough, but it's never enough for some.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

I hope to **** you are not married and are responsible for anyone other than yourself......

If I wasn't married and was only responsible for myself I'd make a perfect capitalist wouldn't I?

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yep the reason why you do not have a permanent job is everyone else's fault.......

I didn't say that.

What I quite clearly said was the reason that MOST PEOPLE are casual is due to the businesses making full/part time positions redundant and replacing them with casual. that is full time work with a casual title therefore no sick/annual leave.

Either you're ignorant or went straight to uni from school but they all abuse the casual position, why hire someone fulltime when you can fire them any time you want and pay them no sick leave. My old boss even admitted that.

you're in denial mate.

[drew`SEVNT5]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Stops dodgy business owners from abusing their tax privileges. Well helps prevent it.

Take a look on the road, the cars that half ladders on top are claimed along with the ones with advertisements (stickers/decals).

Half the cars on the road with ladders on top (meaning tax deductable almost always) are XR6 turbo's whereas the other half actually use their tax dollars genuinely and buy vehicles intended for trade work.

Then you get the cars with advertisements on the rear windscreen/paint jobs/decals. This is where the real scum become apparent, almost all of them are BMW's, Audi's or spec'd out accords and Territory's.
They should be in a Yaris, it's good enough for all the government advetising.

If you are serious, then you need to put away the drab green uniform and the hat, comrade.


*edit*

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

I didn't say that.

What I quite clearly said was the reason that MOST PEOPLE are casual is due to the businesses making full/part time positions redundant and replacing them with casual. that is full time work with a casual title therefore no sick/annual leave.

Either you're ignorant or went straight to uni from school but they all abuse the casual position, why hire someone fulltime when you can fire them any time you want and pay them no sick leave. My old boss even admitted that.

you're in denial mate.

Why are there lots of people in casual jobs? Because there skillset doesn't make them valuable enough to employers to keep.

I myself, have always had FULL TIME jobs, from the day I finished year 12. Started off with a traineeship, rewarded that employer with a few good years, then moved onto a higher job. Rinse and repeat. I do a casual job occasionaly, driving trucks for extra play money.

If you don't have the skillset to be useful enough for an employer to want to keep you, its your own fault.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by GT0132

Are they the same greedy business owners you talk about that give employment to around 70% of the workforce in this country? Remember mate without those with the balls to go out on their own in business, create and provide jobs to others we'd be in a pretty sorry state. Nobody was ever given a job by a poor man

You do realise that what you just said also applies to the working class right??? Without workers the businesses would be nothing.

They're both equally as important. One cannot exist without the other.
Everyones quick to thank businesses for job positions but no ones quick to thank the workers if a company excels.

Both do it for their own selfish motives, they don't provide jobs because they're the salvation army, they do it to expand. Just like the workers do it for themselves.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

If you are serious, then you need to put away the drab green uniform and the hat, comrade.


*edit*





Why are there lots of people in casual jobs? Because there skillset doesn't make them valuable enough to employers to keep.

I myself, have always had FULL TIME jobs, from the day I finished year 12. Started off with a traineeship, rewarded that employer with a few good years, then moved onto a higher job. Rinse and repeat. I do a casual job occasionaly, driving trucks for extra play money.

If you don't have the skillset to be useful enough for an employer to want to keep you, its your own fault.

Why are there lots of people in casual jobs? Because there skillset doesn't make them valuable enough to employers to keep.

How would you know that?? They're initially hired as casual no chance given.
As for skillset, that's why there's training/trial periods, that's not a valid answer anyway as you're allowed to fire someone if you can prove they're not skilled enough, which you should have to prove anyway (as I explain later*). That's not what casuals for. You seem to think you can fire people as you please, they need a commitment of a job just as you need a commitment for them to show up to that job.

Casual is not a ******* tool for scumbags to abuse, it's there for people who don't want commitment, yet employers disregard that all together and use it as a way to run a sweatshop.

*I agree if they lack skill fire them, that's a perfectly valid reason. However skill can be a matter of opinion, some employers expect too much and some workers do too little. If you're trying to overwork them/force truck drivers to speed 30k's over just because all your other speed snorting truck driving employees do then that's not on. If he's gonig under the limit and damaging cargo then fire his slack ****.

It depends what you mean skill, that and overworking are 2 different things.
Which is why casual is bad for this.

Casual is basically the way of reinventing the sweatshop.

[GTPete]

Anyway, as a business owner Im looking forward to purchasing a S/C GT and legally writing off as much as I can through my business. I agree that this tax should be scrapped/lowered for Australian manufactured vehicles.
This can only be a good thing for business and the economy.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

I didn't say that.

What I quite clearly said was the reason that MOST PEOPLE are casual is due to the businesses making full/part time positions redundant and replacing them with casual. that is full time work with a casual title therefore no sick/annual leave.

Either you're ignorant or went straight to uni from school but they all abuse the casual position, why hire someone fulltime when you can fire them any time you want and pay them no sick leave. My old boss even admitted that.

you're in denial mate.

No in actual fact I have been employing full time staff since before you were born some of whom have worked for me for over 25 years.

All of my staff have one thing in common, they have a positive attitude and see the big picture rather that just look in the mirror all day thinking "ME ME ME"........

In actual fact MOST people employed in the private sector are full time and many of those who do start casual or part time are offered full time once their true personalities and attitudes are revealed.

Of course the morons and misanthropes never attain a full time position as they have nothing to offer their employers and workmates other than grief......

The amusing thing about your attitude to LCT is if there were not any LCT then employers would have more money with which to possibly employ extra staff, offer more hours to existing staff or possibly offer permanent positions.
More high end cars like FPVs which are rather labour intensive would be sold employing more people and years later more high end cars would be available second hand for young struggling workers to enjoy.

Of course this will not do anything for morons and misanthropes so I suspect you do not care.......

[Joe5619]

If you can afford a 70K + brand new car, you can afford the TAX & I feel no pain for you!!!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

If you can afford a 70K + brand new car, you can afford the TAX & I feel no pain for you!!!

Quod erat demonstrandum.....

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

We have so many people on casual employment due to the sheer greed of businesses yet again. And that attitude is a direct result of employers abusing the casual position.

I know this first hand as I've worked in 3 casual job positions, all been closer to full/part time casual, without any leave. Casual means, inconsistent shifts, no reliability, no obligation, as it says casual.

You forgot to mention that a casual employee is also paid more in an hourly rate,by a considerable rate.

When I had a stint out of the ambo's I worked casual for QAS, when I did decide to return I worked four weeks as a casual on fulltime hours and made a bucket load more money than I do now as a full time.

Casual staff self fund leave and sickies (just like their employer does), that is if they have a brain in their head. Why do your think so many nurses, paramedics and a whole host of other workers choose casual? It is because they earn more money that way.

Think of it this way, I work full time but a dude hanging off a traffic control sign during night time road works earns more per hour than I do. Consider that I had to study for 3 years, train others and prove my skills annually, what does he do?

Stops the greedy business owners from ripping off society. Without it they'd find some nonsense excuse to justify a luxury car as a work car

Does it? Or do you just pay more for their goods and services to cover that LCT?

Lets be real on the topic, mid $50k is not a luxury car any more, the threshold needs to be raised.

[geckoGT]

As someone that has worked their way up from a lower class, single parent abusive childhood and through hard work and determination made it to a good career that earns reasonable money and has on occasion spent more than $57k on a car (without any tax break), I have a present for a select few here.

[flappist]

Here's an idea.

If as stated by our comrades "luxury cars" should be taxed then in the interest of fairness to all they should be taxed every time they are sold not just the first time.

After all that $20k BA GT is a "luxury car" but a Hyundai i30 is not so anyone buying this "luxury car" should pay for the privilege and pay the same tax as the original purchaser.

So your $20k GT become a $35k GT you capitalist pig or you can be a good little battler and buy a Camry.

It is only fair.........

[Magna]

if people stop buying local cars heaps of jobs will be lost, not just ford, holden and toyota but all the businesses that make the parts for them and all the small businesses around them like take away shops. the government should exempt local cars and remove the fbt on leases on local cars.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

I didn't say that.

What I quite clearly said was the reason that MOST PEOPLE are casual is due to the businesses making full/part time positions redundant and replacing them with casual. that is full time work with a casual title therefore no sick/annual leave.

Either you're ignorant or went straight to uni from school but they all abuse the casual position, why hire someone fulltime when you can fire them any time you want and pay them no sick leave. My old boss even admitted that.

you're in denial mate.

Maybe at KFC they have more casual then full time.
My work has about 200+ Fulltime people and 1 casual.

I guess you probably hate us too because our work cars are mid spec Prados worth about $65,000.
$15,000 Yaris wouldn't cut it for us.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by flappist

Here's an idea.

If as stated by our comrades "luxury cars" should be taxed then in the interest of fairness to all they should be taxed every time they are sold not just the first time.

After all that $20k BA GT is a "luxury car" but a Hyundai i30 is not so anyone buying this "luxury car" should pay for the privilege and pay the same tax as the original purchaser.

So your $20k GT become a $35k GT you capitalist pig or you can be a good little battler and buy a Camry.

It is only fair.........

What annoys me is that LCT is some BS taxation threshold made up to snare X number of $
without any thought of impact in the community, what message does it send taxing cars in the mid $50K?

Answer:
Don't get ahead or we will juice you like an orange, what about the GST and stamp duties that's already being paid?

An $80,000 car buyer is already paying 2 x GST of a Falcon or 4 x that of a Fiesta, why should they be stung even more?

[JG34JA]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Without businesses the workers would be nothing.

Fixed it for you.

[GTP owner]

I did not realise a topic could get so heated over a simple thing such as a tax on moderately expensive cars. I find it interesting how one's background seems to blur their opinions so that they see them as fact. Moreso when they think that the tax applies to someone else, and that because they do not earn as much or want to spend as much as that ona car, then it is alright to tax the living daylights out of them.

So I see one argument as this: Eveyone who earns so much that they can afford an "expensive car" should be forced to pay lots of tax because they do not need such an expensive car. The logical end point to this line of thnking is that we only need a box on wheels, which will be dictated by the govco, will cost x amount, and have a GPS in it to make sure you are not breaking any laws. Good people do not need powerful or luxurious cars that can exceed the speed limit.
Attached to this mentality is that businesses are greedy, out to make money (god forbid that - they should be there for the good of the people), and do not care about their workers (because they are a burden). Any excess money a business makes should be turned back into employing more people, because that is whya business should exist.
These people have obviously never run or owned a small business, and are unlikely to. I think they should move to North Korea, where their attitude would be welcomes by their comrades.

The second attitude is: If you have worked hard for your money, why can't you spend it on something you actually like? If I work 12 hour days, 6 days a week, without sick leave, without someone else paying my super, without holidays, without double pay on weekends, why can't I save and spend it on a Lambo? And if I do, why do i have to pay so much more for my car just because the government has to support more bludgers that think everyone else is rich?

So where do I fit in? I have employed 6 staff for the last 14 years. Our last "new" member was employed 9 years ago to replace one that was leaving. We gave them the choice of casual or full-time. They all voted for casual. We are happy to oblige. They help us make money, we pay them for their great service. We treat them like a family, and i think our retention shows this. But if I want to spend some of my money on a car, I hate haivng to pay such a huge rip-off to Govco. They already get their fair share of blood out of me, why do i have to indulge them more? I could waste our excess on business trips overseas, on leather waiting chairs in the reception area, or a really nice car. Why does the car attract the tax?

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

We have so many people on casual employment due to the sheer greed of businesses yet again. And that attitude is a direct result of employers abusing the casual position.

I know this first hand as I've worked in 3 casual job positions, all been closer to full/part time casual, without any leave.

So being so aware of this, you would have put the extra hourly rate paid due to being casual (casual loading) into the bank to pay for a week of leave in 3-4 months i guess?

[ianxy351]

Regarding the casual emplpoyment argument above, as the law stands today, a casual employee has the same access to unfair dismissal laws as a permanent person - if they work on a regular and systematic basis for 6 months in a business of 15 employees or more (12 months for a small business) they are protected from the whims of a 'nasty' business owner who lets them go without offering procedural fairness, has a valid reason, etc.

This reduces the whole argument to whether a casual employee would rather receive a 25% loading in lieu of sick / annual leave. From experience, most employees choose casual over permanent when given the choice. And irrespective of being given a choice, they enjoy the same legal protections as permanent employees.

So, the argument is not about whether 'rich' employers are ripping off their employees. Its about whether LCT is reasonable and fair. $57k may have been reasonable a decade or more ago, but now it is just ridiculous.

And that still doesnt answer the question of why it should exist at all given the secondary benfits these cars bring to the community - costs of servicing, tyres, etc.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

I did not realise a topic could get so heated over a simple thing such as a tax on moderately expensive cars. I find it interesting how one's background seems to blur their opinions so that they see them as fact. Moreso when they think that the tax applies to someone else, and that because they do not earn as much or want to spend as much as that ona car, then it is alright to tax the living daylights out of them.

So I see one argument as this: Eveyone who earns so much that they can afford an "expensive car" should be forced to pay lots of tax because they do not need such an expensive car. The logical end point to this line of thnking is that we only need a box on wheels, which will be dictated by the govco, will cost x amount, and have a GPS in it to make sure you are not breaking any laws. Good people do not need powerful or luxurious cars that can exceed the speed limit.
Attached to this mentality is that businesses are greedy, out to make money (god forbid that - they should be there for the good of the people), and do not care about their workers (because they are a burden). Any excess money a business makes should be turned back into employing more people, because that is whya business should exist.
These people have obviously never run or owned a small business, and are unlikely to. I think they should move to North Korea, where their attitude would be welcomes by their comrades.

The second attitude is: If you have worked hard for your money, why can't you spend it on something you actually like? If I work 12 hour days, 6 days a week, without sick leave, without someone else paying my super, without holidays, without double pay on weekends, why can't I save and spend it on a Lambo? And if I do, why do i have to pay so much more for my car just because the government has to support more bludgers that think everyone else is rich?

So where do I fit in? I have employed 6 staff for the last 14 years. Our last "new" member was employed 9 years ago to replace one that was leaving. We gave them the choice of casual or full-time. They all voted for casual. We are happy to oblige. They help us make money, we pay them for their great service. We treat them like a family, and i think our retention shows this. But if I want to spend some of my money on a car, I hate haivng to pay such a huge rip-off to Govco. They already get their fair share of blood out of me, why do i have to indulge them more? I could waste our excess on business trips overseas, on leather waiting chairs in the reception area, or a really nice car. Why does the car attract the tax?

Well said.

the other side of that is from the employee perspective such as myself. I work a 40 hour week and then on average do 10-30 hours overtime a fortnight so that I can afford things that I like to have, primarily a nice car. Now if my interest is in having a nice car that I enjoy why should I pay more tax for that right. Look at it from this point of view, if I was to spend $80k on a car I would pay much more tax than if I was to spend $40k on a car and $40k on a boat. Why is the car considered a luxury and the boat is not?

If it is reasonable that my nice car, the one that I buy as a reward for all my hard work is considered a luxury and therefore should attract more tax, why is it not the same for those with more than one car? For example I could spend $30k on a run about and $55k on a toy (eg XR6T) and not pay LCT, but the moment I buy 1 car and spend $85k I get taxed more, is not having a second car considered a luxury?

[JC]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

I did not realise a topic could get so heated over a simple thing such as a tax on moderately expensive cars. I find it interesting how one's background seems to blur their opinions so that they see them as fact. Moreso when they think that the tax applies to someone else, and that because they do not earn as much or want to spend as much as that ona car, then it is alright to tax the living daylights out of them.

So I see one argument as this: Eveyone who earns so much that they can afford an "expensive car" should be forced to pay lots of tax because they do not need such an expensive car. The logical end point to this line of thnking is that we only need a box on wheels, which will be dictated by the govco, will cost x amount, and have a GPS in it to make sure you are not breaking any laws. Good people do not need powerful or luxurious cars that can exceed the speed limit.
Attached to this mentality is that businesses are greedy, out to make money (god forbid that - they should be there for the good of the people), and do not care about their workers (because they are a burden). Any excess money a business makes should be turned back into employing more people, because that is whya business should exist.
These people have obviously never run or owned a small business, and are unlikely to. I think they should move to North Korea, where their attitude would be welcomes by their comrades.

The second attitude is: If you have worked hard for your money, why can't you spend it on something you actually like? If I work 12 hour days, 6 days a week, without sick leave, without someone else paying my super, without holidays, without double pay on weekends, why can't I save and spend it on a Lambo? And if I do, why do i have to pay so much more for my car just because the government has to support more bludgers that think everyone else is rich?

So where do I fit in? I have employed 6 staff for the last 14 years. Our last "new" member was employed 9 years ago to replace one that was leaving. We gave them the choice of casual or full-time. They all voted for casual. We are happy to oblige. They help us make money, we pay them for their great service. We treat them like a family, and i think our retention shows this. But if I want to spend some of my money on a car, I hate haivng to pay such a huge rip-off to Govco. They already get their fair share of blood out of me, why do i have to indulge them more? I could waste our excess on business trips overseas, on leather waiting chairs in the reception area, or a really nice car. Why does the car attract the tax?

Excellent post!

IMO, anything, within reason, to prop up an ailing industry would be a good thing. Cutting the LCT on high end Australian models would mean more middle income earners may be able to stretch to the "Luxury" variants of the falcadors.

[markof]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

I did not realise a topic could get so heated over a simple thing such as a tax on moderately expensive cars. I find it interesting how one's background seems to blur their opinions so that they see them as fact. Moreso when they think that the tax applies to someone else, and that because they do not earn as much or want to spend as much as that ona car, then it is alright to tax the living daylights out of them.

So I see one argument as this: Eveyone who earns so much that they can afford an "expensive car" should be forced to pay lots of tax because they do not need such an expensive car. The logical end point to this line of thnking is that we only need a box on wheels, which will be dictated by the govco, will cost x amount, and have a GPS in it to make sure you are not breaking any laws. Good people do not need powerful or luxurious cars that can exceed the speed limit.
Attached to this mentality is that businesses are greedy, out to make money (god forbid that - they should be there for the good of the people), and do not care about their workers (because they are a burden). Any excess money a business makes should be turned back into employing more people, because that is whya business should exist.
These people have obviously never run or owned a small business, and are unlikely to. I think they should move to North Korea, where their attitude would be welcomes by their comrades.

The second attitude is: If you have worked hard for your money, why can't you spend it on something you actually like? If I work 12 hour days, 6 days a week, without sick leave, without someone else paying my super, without holidays, without double pay on weekends, why can't I save and spend it on a Lambo? And if I do, why do i have to pay so much more for my car just because the government has to support more bludgers that think everyone else is rich?

So where do I fit in? I have employed 6 staff for the last 14 years. Our last "new" member was employed 9 years ago to replace one that was leaving. We gave them the choice of casual or full-time. They all voted for casual. We are happy to oblige. They help us make money, we pay them for their great service. We treat them like a family, and i think our retention shows this. But if I want to spend some of my money on a car, I hate haivng to pay such a huge rip-off to Govco. They already get their fair share of blood out of me, why do i have to indulge them more? I could waste our excess on business trips overseas, on leather waiting chairs in the reception area, or a really nice car. Why does the car attract the tax?

Great post. Agree with everything you said.

[jpd80]

I think no one here would dispute that tax should be fair but, whenever additional taxes are heaped on products,
it's because an ideology says that "capacity to pay" should govern how much tax is paid, that's a slippery slope.....
GST shows how a broad based tax should work and if that rate was adjusted to 15%, the government would
reap (rape?) far more tax from everyone and not have to worry about LCT rubbish.....
With a progressive tax like that as the value increases, so too does the amount of tax.
IMO, adjusting GST is a far better way to go.....

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by jpd80

I think no one here would dispute that tax should be fair but, whenever additional taxes are heaped on products,
it's because an ideology says that "capacity to pay" should govern how much tax is paid, that's a slippery slope.....
GST shows how a broad based tax should work and if that rate was adjusted to 15%, the government would
reap (rape?) far more tax from everyone and not have to worry about LCT rubbish.....
With a progressive tax like that as the value increases, so too does the amount of tax.
IMO, adjusting GST is a far better way to go.....

But that would take money away from the professional government funded DVD watchers.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

I did not realise a topic could get so heated over a simple thing such as a tax on moderately expensive cars. I find it interesting how one's background seems to blur their opinions so that they see them as fact. Moreso when they think that the tax applies to someone else, and that because they do not earn as much or want to spend as much as that ona car, then it is alright to tax the living daylights out of them.

I wrote a long answer along with this one but realised I would be wasting my breath anyway.. so I'll just pile onto yours and say.. +1.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

But that would take money away from the professional government funded DVD watchers.

That's right gecko, good taxation ideas have no place in government policy.

[Polyal]

Other than the fact that its obvious why LCT exists, revenue for Gov...is it not there to protect our local industry aswell?

Removal of this tax will seal the deal for the Falcon (and the commy). You can blah blah all you want that they should lift their game but at the end of the day their cars employee Aussies, who generally spend their earning in Australia and around the cycle goes.

Removal, or lessening, of LCT on locally built cars gives incentive for jobs to stay here if it increases or atleast stabilize local sales.

Everyone seems to ***** on about buying local, save local jobs, but when it comes to the crunch the individual largely doesnt give a squat, its whats best for them (which is understandable aswell).

So, WGAF if imports get LCT..really...oh poor diddums gets slugged for buying his/her Merc..big deal. Go buy a full spec Commy or Falcon then. For some reason over the past 10 years (probably longer) owning a luxury Aussie car has become "bogan" or not good enough to match Mr and Mrs Jones....

All those local businesses want us to buy local, well it goes both ways.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Well said.

the other side of that is from the employee perspective such as myself. I work a 40 hour week and then on average do 10-30 hours overtime a fortnight so that I can afford things that I like to have, primarily a nice car. Now if my interest is in having a nice car that I enjoy why should I pay more tax for that right. Look at it from this point of view, if I was to spend $80k on a car I would pay much more tax than if I was to spend $40k on a car and $40k on a boat. Why is the car considered a luxury and the boat is not?

If it is reasonable that my nice car, the one that I buy as a reward for all my hard work is considered a luxury and therefore should attract more tax, why is it not the same for those with more than one car? For example I could spend $30k on a run about and $55k on a toy (eg XR6T) and not pay LCT, but the moment I buy 1 car and spend $85k I get taxed more, is not having a second car considered a luxury?

Spot on. But more people buy cars worth 57k+ then people who buy boats. Government knows this so they tax cars so they make more money.

If they got rid of LCT that may encourage more people to buy more expensive cars. Which means the governments would make more in GST and stamp duty.

If anyone did the sums. I bet half of your income goes to the government in some way, shape or form.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Other than the fact that its obvious why LCT exists, revenue for Gov...is it not there to protect our local industry aswell?

Removal of this tax will seal the deal for the Falcon (and the commy). You can blah blah all you want that they should lift their game but at the end of the day their cars employee Aussies, who generally spend their earning in Australia and around the cycle goes.

Removal, or lessening, of LCT on locally built cars gives incentive for jobs to stay here if it increases or atleast stabilize local sales.

Everyone seems to ***** on about buying local, save local jobs, but when it comes to the crunch the individual largely doesnt give a squat, its whats best for them (which is understandable aswell).

So, WGAF if imports get LCT..really...oh poor diddums gets slugged for buying his/her Merc..big deal. Go buy a full spec Commy or Falcon then. For some reason over the past 10 years (probably longer) owning a luxury Aussie car has become "bogan" or not good enough to match Mr and Mrs Jones....

All those local businesses want us to buy local, well it goes both ways.

All good and well if your definition of a luxury car is a six cylinder Falcon, which like many, mine isn’t....