Tax to hit double cabs

LancelotSA said:
...and with that sentence you sum up the problem in this country. We all want, want, want but we are not interested if it is going to detrimentally affect us directly.
Click to expand...

want, want, want , but doesnt seem to be any give - remember the number of tax payers, whether directly or indirectly is miniscule in comparison to those who dont pay, after this world cup im interested to see what gets pumped back into things like infrastructure etc.

God help us if we get the Olympics
 
Luckily I just bought my 4x4 gas guzzling double cab before this tax comes in.
 
moggie said:
Maybe and also only if you plan to keep it forever. When you try and sell it in 3 years time they will find a way to impose that tax on the sale as well!
Click to expand...
Do they currently find a way to impose VAT on a second hand sale?
 
friedpiggy said:
@Lancelot

Way I see it the logic behind this can be explained with this example...
You are in a car accident, the paramedic arrives, and he goes right ahead and disinfects the graze on your knee and puts a plaster on it before focusing on the fact that one of your arms has been ripped off and blood is gushing out there.

We not saying dont do anything. Just that it needs to be done in proportion. It is pointless the police only focusing on purse snatchers. Sure crime will go down, but purse snatchers are not the reason we have 6 foot high walls with electric fencing and burglar bars on our houses. Focus on the worst of the problem first, and once you have that sorted out then go after the smaller less important remaining ones.

On that note however I hope they leave eskom alone. My electricity is already expensive enough thank you.
Click to expand...

LancelotSA said:
...and with that sentence you sum up the problem in this country. We all want, want, want but we are not interested if it is going to detrimentally affect us directly.
Click to expand...

@friedpiggy
Let that be a lesson to you. Disagree with lance and you will get a full dose of his "Holier than thou" attitude. The problem with this country has nothing to do with the corrupt government, poorly run parastatals or incompetent municipalities.
Its you my man. YOU.
 
FatBoySlim said:
want, want, want , but doesnt seem to be any give - remember the number of tax payers, whether directly or indirectly is miniscule in comparison to those who dont pay, after this world cup im interested to see what gets pumped back into things like infrastructure etc.

God help us if we get the Olympics
Click to expand...

At risk of heading off topic (although some seem determined to bring the world cup in no matter what), if you take such an interest in the world cup, and infrastructure in general, then why have you been absent in the threads discussing this exact topic. I provided links to the proposed government expenditure going forward and the fact that they have committed to spending even more in the years ahead than they did in the build up to the world cup.
 
I am not opposed to an emissions tax in principle, but only if it is implemented correctly.
1. All proceeds should be used directly for environmental purposes, e.g. water system rehabilitation, alien vegetation clearing, sewerage treatment upgrades, etc.
2. This kind of tax should be levied on users based on the amount of emissions they create on an ongoing basis, not upfront on purchase of a vehicle. If I buy a gas-guzzling SUV that I use to travel 200 km per month, I'm definitely producing less emissions than someone that drives a Prius for 5000 km per month. And why do commercial vehicles get exempted? And why does everyone that already has a car not have to pay? A far better system for all would be to add an additional levy on fuel, and to offer an incentive to people to buy more emission-efficient cars by way of a tax/VAT subsidy at time of purchase.
 
Madman88 said:
@friedpiggy
Let that be a lesson to you. Disagree with lance and you will get a full dose of his "Holier than thou" attitude. The problem with this country has nothing to do with the corrupt government, poorly run parastatals or incompetent municipalities.
Its you my man. YOU.
Click to expand...

Madman, this line of attack is becoming rather weak on this forum.

The statement made by myself was perfectly relevant. The assertion was made earlier that the government should not bother focussing on the small issues like vehicle emissions but rather focus on the big corporations, with Eskom being mentioned. In the very next breath Piggy is saying please stay away from Eskom as I don't want to be burdened with paying more for my electricity. We all want the issues resolved but lo and behold it affects us directly!

Another weak form of arguing is this repeated attempt to go off at a tangent. Of course corruption and incompetence is an issue but this thread was not about that was it? It was/is about emissions!
 
arf9999 said:
2. This kind of tax should be levied on users based on the amount of emissions they create on an ongoing basis, not upfront on purchase of a vehicle.
Click to expand...

As stated earlier, I agree fully with this.

If I buy a gas-guzzling SUV that I use to travel 200 km per month, I'm definitely producing less emissions than someone that drives a Prius for 5000 km per month.
Click to expand...

The only way to do this would be with a further fuel levy.... stand back for the backlash if that is recommended...

And why do commercial vehicles get exempted?
Click to expand...

Because, as far as I understand it, commercial vehicle manufacturers are not yet obligated to disclose their emissions numbers.

And why does everyone that already has a car not have to pay?
Click to expand...

It is obviously far easier to just implement it going forward.
 
FatBoySlim said:
and you are implying what, with that comment
Click to expand...
There was once a little frog living in a forest, called Rib.

The frog was happy, had plenty of food and friends galore and the forgettes loved him.
As time went on, the frogs tried new things, some they liked, and some they did not like.

Most of the frogs discovered that they liked to eat the blue flies, but Rib did not like blue flies.

The king frog wanted to ensure that his subjects continued to pay for his luxuries, so he declared a blue fly eating, dance and song festival to appease his subjects.
The subjects were extremely happy, except for Rib, because Rib does not like blue flies.

Rib did not want to go to the festival and the frogettes were upset with him because he never asked any of them to the festival dance.
After the festival, Rib was shunned by the frogettes.

Why?
 
This is rather narrow-minded

Someone in a citi-golf in Jhb who drives 20km to work can emit more fumes than my 4x4 twincab by the sea side 5mins from work.

Rather tax the petrol/diesel like they're currently doing, which DIRECTLY relates to the emissions of the individual, rather than a blanket tax on any vehicle with the potential of emitting more.

My 3.0L Hilux D-4D twincab gets below 9-10L/100km, which is less than most 1.4-1.6L hatchbacks etc. will do in Jhb/CT's stop-start traffic. So where's the logic?
 
LancelotSA said:
Madman, this line of attack is becoming rather weak on this forum. ......
Click to expand...
Oh you mean other people have also picked it up?

LancelotSA said:
...........The statement made by myself was perfectly relevant. The assertion was made earlier that the government should not bother focussing on the small issues like vehicle emissions but rather focus on the big corporations, with Eskom being mentioned. In the very next breath Piggy is saying please stay away from Eskom as I don't want to be burdened with paying more for my electricity. We all want the issues resolved but lo and behold it affects us directly!

Another weak form of arguing is this repeated attempt to go off at a tangent. Of course corruption and incompetence is an issue but this thread was not about that was it? It was/is about emissions!
Click to expand...

Your statement was :
LancelotSA said:
...and with that sentence you sum up the problem in this country. We all want, want, want but we are not interested if it is going to detrimentally affect us directly.
Click to expand...

Note the part in bold?
Thats not relevant to this discussion. Neither is the attitude seeping from the statement. I could give you a hundred ways in which to convey the same statement without the self-righteous undertone, but I'm not giving life lessons right now. Besides its not really possible to remove the undertone if the attitude is prevalent.
 
The reality is that there are about 7m(i stand corrected) people to collect tax from and 50m to take care of. It is a given that the current level income generated from taxes is insufficient to cater for all the "promises" that have been made to the people. So new "stealth" taxes are needed to collect more money. Surely they could just raise the current taxes such as VAT and income tax but that would cause a bigger outcry so the SARS have been tasked to find ways to collect more and more moneys.

They have already raised the property rates, electricity rates, new toll roads on the way etc. More taxes coming....i'm sure of that
 
A fuel levy, as painful as it is, is the fairest way of implementing this kind of levy. But raising funds to use to offset the results of emissions doesn't seem to be the the point. This tax is another greenie-beanie holier-than-thou vindictive regulation. Placing a punitive tax on certain private use vehicles will make a negligible difference to emissions in the grand scheme of things, but it's easy and it has an additional benefit of seeming to punish the wealthy for being wealthy.

In solving a problem, in every sphere except government, the basic premise is always to pick-low hanging fruit first. i.e. Do what has the greatest impact first, and then follow up with the next biggest impact and so on... In the case of greenhouse gas emissions in South Africa (SA is the world's 17th biggest emitter, evidently), this would be industry (including mining and Eskom), farming, commercial vehicles and then (a long way down the list) private vehicles. How about an emissions tax on coal or iron ore? Or electricity consumption (BHP Billiton could pay a few cents extra for their smelters)? edit: Or on beef and milk, after all, cow farts are full of methane which is more detrimental than CO2.
 
Last edited:
Voicy said:
This is rather narrow-minded

Someone in a citi-golf in Jhb who drives 20km to work can emit more fumes than my 4x4 twincab by the sea side 5mins from work.

Rather tax the petrol/diesel like they're currently doing, which DIRECTLY relates to the emissions of the individual, rather than a blanket tax on any vehicle with the potential of emitting more.

My 3.0L Hilux D-4D twincab gets below 9-10L/100km, which is less than most 1.4-1.6L hatchbacks etc. will do in Jhb/CT's stop-start traffic. So where's the logic?
Click to expand...

Did you ever think that you would get a logical answer from a government decision?

And....I'm afraid 9 to 10 l/100 is NOT better than most 1.4/1.6 hatchbacks...just as it is much worse than I am getting from my 2.5 Subaru...
 
But, mak2000, if the people bought cheaper cars, had smaller monthly payments and lower insurance costs, they could pay more tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X