Cash For Clunkers In Australia.

[Andy43]

Philbey

Guess its just a process of evolution.

Pitty a excel cannot match a KE30 with locked diff in the dirt when it comes to the fun factor.

I guess we need to start driving Excels backwards.

Cheers

Andy

[Trev]

Hey

Guess what she carn't count.

 

200,000 cars off the road at 2,000 a pop cost = 400,000,000.

But there only putting in 396,000,000.

Cheers

Andy

 

You can't spell :jamie:

 

They are probably paying a percentage of it leaving the dealer to cover the extra $20.

[Felix]

Sorry to say it but for me and my family of "wife" and two kids, it won't work - we're thinking of a bigger car.

You try fitting four people (at the moment five - three adults and two kids), a minimum of $150 of grocery's and a days shopping of other crap into a car smaller then the lancer. I need a bigger car damn it.

 

Nah, you'll be right, buy a Diesel Toyota Prado which is on the approved vehicle list. :jamie:

 

To be eligible for the payout, old-car owners must purchase a new car that has a greenhouse rating of at least six out of 10 on the government's Green Vehicle Guide website.

[7shades]

Check it out

 

 

Oh don't get me started on those Climateworks f*cks...

 

Trivia time!

 

Guess who runs it... Ex deputy-premier John Thwaites, of the Labor party.

 

Info:

 

http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/c...ks-for-alp.html

Edited July 28, 2010 by 7shades

[altezzaclub]

It is a brilliant article! It should be framed 20foot high inside the Parliamentary debating chamber so ALL politicians can see it every day and realise how fking stupid they are and how easily they are ridiculed by a good journalist.

 

Cash for Clunkers, $400/ton for CO2

Nuclear power, $40/ton for CO2 AND lots of electricity.

Plant a tree $10/ton for CO2

 

Madness!

 

 

Green is the mantra of Gillard the gullible

 

* By Andrew Bolt

* From: The Daily Telegraph

* July 28, 2010 12:00AM

 

 

ALL you need know about Julia Gillard's "cash for clunkers" promise is that it's a green scheme. Forget the details of the Prime Minister's plan to pay motorists $2000 if they vow to buy a new green car instead.

 

No real need to know more, since you've been bitten so often by such green pets that you must know you're about to be chomped again.

 

It's always the same.

 

If it's green, it will cost more than they say, deliver less, and be riddled with rorts to boot. Think of the Rudd Government's pink batts fiasco, sold as a green fix, only to become a honey pot for every scammer from Karachi to Bondi.

 

Think of the Green Loans scheme or the solar hot water rebates - both scrapped, too, after being rorted until we bled.

 

Think of wind farms, producing less green power than advertised. Or think of Victoria's desalination plant, sold as the green alternative to a dam, yet costing taxpayers not the first-advertised $3.1 billion but since-admitted $5.7 billion - four times the price of a dam for just a third of the water.

 

Or take the collapse of the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, drained of millions by carpetbaggers who pushed boxes of free low-energy light bulbs and low-flow shower nozzles on to customers to cash in on the fistfuls of over-priced abatement certificates they got in exchange.

 

Just why green schemes are so prone to flop or be fleeced is no coincidence. The word "green" - or "sustainable" - is like holy water. Sprinkle it on a sinner and even the greatest conman is redeemed.

 

It then becomes almost evil to question the sales pitch, or do the most basic value-for-money check. And so we now see with Gillard's cash-for-clunkers a promise so absurd that it should disqualify her from the management of our $1 trillion-a-year economy.

 

Gillard's promise is to pay $2000 a piece to the first 200,000 voters to drag a pre-1995 car to the scrapyard, as long as they promise to replace it with a new green car, such as the Holden Cruze, Hyundai Getz or Toyota Camry Hybrid, now retailing for $39,000.

 

The aim of this $396 million plan, says Gillard, is to help save the planet from our wicked gases, which she claims are heating the world to hell.

 

"Australians own a lot of old motor cars, and those old cars guzzle a lot of petrol and they spew out a lot of pollution," she preached. "The amount of carbon we anticipate saving through this measure by getting the 200,000 old cars off the road is one million tonnes."

 

And already we're in La-La Land. Even accepting the Government's own rubbery figures (and its warming alarmism), this means Gillard will spend $400 on each tonne of CO2 saved.

 

Does this make any sense at all, when we can remove that same tonne of CO2 by planting trees for a mere $10? Or remove countless tonnes for just $40 a pop by switching to nuclear?

 

Or put the maths this way: To pay for her plan, Gillard is taking cash from a fund meant to develop alternative energy sources such as solar. This means taking cash from things like solar panels, which can remove CO2 for around $250 a tonne, and splashing it instead to a used-car giveaway to do the same job for twice the price. Yes, it really is that mad.

 

Correction. That's just a taste of how mad it is, because this scheme makes no sense on any serious level - financial, environmental or social.

 

Go through its list of inanities. Does the cost of the damage done by CO2 come close to the $400 a tonne that Gillard is paying to avoid it? No.

 

Will Gillard's plan even save the emissions she claims? Probably not, given how much CO2 will be emitted to make all the new green cars needed to replace the bombs she's buying.

 

Is the cost to taxpayers of this switch to green cars really "just" $396 million? No, since this Government gave another $200 million to build exactly the local models of green car Gillard says are green enough to qualify for her trade-in. She's subsidising not just the buyers but the manufacturers.

 

Is this at least a handout for battlers? No, since you first have to be rich enough to buy a new car for a price in most cases north of $35,000.

 

Is this scheme fair? Not on the poor, since used cars they might once have hoped to buy for less than $1000 are now worth $2000, thanks to Gillard, who'll turn them into scrap.

 

Is this plan ripe for rorting? You bet, since cars which might have been scrapped anyway - or have been already - could now be driven to Gillard's taxpayer-funded knackers' yard instead for that $2000.

 

But won't this help manufacturers? Yes, if you're talking about foreign car-makers, who cleaned up most under Barack Obama's own "cash for clunkers" scheme last year. In fact, five of the seven models listed by Gillard as green enough to qualify for her $2000 trade-in deal are imports.

 

Will local manufacturers still win? Ah, now you may finally have touched on the real point of this charade.

 

Actually, Toyota's locally made hybrid Camry needs all this help and more.

 

Despite getting $70 million in handouts from the Federal and Victorian governments, it's been a market dud, selling fewer than 3000 so far.

 

Maybe that's what this is really about - a government spending millions to make the last millions it spent not look like waste.

 

But even then, as Germany found with its own "cash for clunkers" stimulus program last year, the extra demand for new cars stimulated by such handouts often just brings forward by a year or two the decisions of motorists to buy them. Once the bribes end, so does the demand, leaving the manufacturers with a big hole where once there might still have been buyers.

 

This, then, is the $396 million scheme unveiled by Gillard on the weekend - yet another green-plated disaster that will cost more than you're told, achieve less than you're promised, and get rorted like most of the others.

 

So how can it be defended?

 

Why, it's green, isn't it? And aren't greens more interested in that seeming than any achieving anyway?

 

True enough, because that's just how Gillard's plan is defended even now by Climateworks, the activist outfit which proposed it to Labor.

 

Sure, conceded Climateworks executive director Anna Skarbek, this way of removing CO2 is about four times more expensive than most of the alternatives.

 

"You can cut carbon emissions by 25 per cent by doing things that cost not much more than $100 a tonne of carbon, but things like the cash-for-clunkers scheme can give you a role in signalling behaviour," she said.

 

This is just for "signalling behaviour", then?

 

So it's the gesture that counts - and never mind if what's actually achieved is insanely expensive and utterly futile.

 

This is the Age of Seeming, after all.

 

Which is why the only things that get done by green schemes are the taxpayers.

 

Over and over.

[ke70dave]

oh i like that.

 

what amazes me, is surely a good percentage of people in politics are somewhat inteligent.

 

can they not see the flaws? or is there something they arent telling us.....

 

damn i need to buy a real cheap car quick, then when ive saved up for a brand new turbo 1 series BMW, get my $2k.

[7shades]

They are intelligent. They are very, very clever.

 

They've found a way to get paid extremely well, free car, free house, paid expenses, all out the taxpayer's pocket, retire wealthy, AND convince the public its money well spent.

 

If that isn't clever, I dunno what is.

Edited July 29, 2010 by 7shades

[philbey]

ah shady your cynicism runs rampant!

[altezzaclub]

ah shady your cynicism runs rampant!

 

but accurate!

[rob83ke70]

idealism probably won't work in politics - the green party seem to be over estimating the intelligence and the "niceness" of the australian public....

 

the labor party need to put a little bit more thought into the consequences of their ideas with the mindset that people are arseholes and are going to try and rought everybody involved no matter how underhanded it is.

 

on the topic of batts - I don't see how the death of anyone installing insulation or even housefires are anything to do with the government - if you took your corolla to a mechanic for an oil change, and he left the sump plug loose, and it fell out and your engine sustained damage as a result, is it the fault of toyota for providing a sump plug as the means of changing the oil (allowing the opportunity for it to be left loose) or is it the fault of the mechanic who didn't tighten it?

 

and keith, if the mechanic's workshop was very busy and they employed a heap of non skilled workers to do oil changes and one of them left the plug loose, it is exactly the same scenario - it is either the mechanic's fault who didn't tighten the sump plug, OR it is the mechanic's supervisors fault for not sufficiently explaining how to tighten the sump plug. the fact that toyota designed the engine with a sump plug as the means of draining the oil is irrelevant.

 

anyway, thats probably completely off the topic of this post - we digress...

 

cash for clunkers is a nice idea on the surface - the cost of new cars will now go up by the amount of the rebate - anyone buy a home and use the first home owner's grant? how much did the bank the real estate and the conveyancer manage to take off you? and new cars aren't always what they are cracked up to be.

 

maybe we need incentives to ensure that our cars are kept in good mechanical condition. I've seen plenty of new cars with dirty air filters, under inflated tyres, and general neglect which can't be good for emissions....

 

anyway I've probably ticked off enough people to make my life interesting lol

 

Robert.

[Felix]

anyone buy a home and use the first home owner's grant? how much did the bank the real estate and the conveyancer manage to take off you? and new cars aren't always what they are cracked up to be.

 

Yep, settled 2 weeks ago. The banks charges weren't that bad, mainly mortgage insurance, which anyone would have to pay. Conveyancing/legals was a LOT less than we expected, under 2 grand. Real estate agents take their percentage cut no matter how much a house costs, 1st home owners grant or not. The 1st home owners grant, plus the NIL stamp duty made buying a house surprisingly easy, should have done it 18 months ago... Probably saved 20 grand compared to someone buying a second house/investment property.

 

Didn't tick me off, but made me smirk at how off based/uninformed your statement was. :lolcry:

[rob83ke70]

yeah yeah it was just me. I somehow scored dodgy people that did their best to rip me off when we bought the house. we got about 2000 out of 7000 of the first home owners grant.

 

the whole process for me was us trying to rush it through, and the conveyancers and bank trying to slow it down because the longer it took the more they tried to sell you more stuff or charge you more fees.

 

if I did it again (which I can't now) I'd do it differently. Not a good example. Apparently it was just me that got ripped.

 

Robert.

[altezzaclub]

No, I got ripped... I bought two rentals in Aussie before we moved here, & I got no rebates or subsidies for those because neither were a "family home". But when we moved here and I bought a family home.. "I'm sorry Sir, you don't get a rebate or anything because you ALREADY OWN A HOME"

 

I appealed, and when the ATO confirmed their decision I took it to a disputes tribunal. Still made no difference, they are determined to rip off every immigrant they can. In actual fact the land tax ("stamp duty") they rip you $15,000 for was meant to end when GST was introduced and the Federal Govt gave the State Govts money from that to replace stamp duty. But being a Govt, always hungry for someone else's money....

 

Also, Australian conveyancing and rental management costs are much higher than in NZ, so they do make easy money here. Maybe its just part of a richer country, you earn more but you pay more so you are no further ahead.

 

Rob- your scenario with the mechanics instead of the insulation installers needs the Govt to provide free car tuneups, so the garage gets overwhelmed from what is not a normal business expansion and employs whoever they can. ie- without the Govt intervention in the market, your quality of worker would be much higher. Yes, the insulation worker getting electrocuted or the mechanic dropping the jack on himself are their faults, but it would not have happened if the govt hadn't intervened in the market.

[rob83ke70]

with the free tune-ups hypothetical scenario it is still the fault of the workshop supervisor (for not providing enough instruction or quality assurance) or the employee (for not listening to instructions or making the mistake) though. doesn't matter how busy it is, the job has to be done right.

 

the thing that irked me so much about the media's big blow up of the insulation scheme problems was that I don't recall anyone mentioning once that the employer had failed to instruct the employee or the employee had made a mistake.

 

Robert.

[Felix]

we got about 2000 out of 7000 of the first home owners grant.

 

:lolcry: Not good.

 

Our bank handled the first home owners grant for us and put the grant towards the deposit. Our solicitors were great, basically we sat back and they organised everything for us. The real estate agents however were pricks... we had a few issues up front, but our solicitors sorted them out.

 

altezzaclub, you already had 2 investment properties? No wonder they wouldn't give you the first home owners grant.