Cash for commuting

TimC said:

On 2006-01-16, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Absolutely and utterly agree with you here. The novated lease scheme
is absurd and environmentally evil. It's a rort such that high income
earners can get cars for free and then drive them everywhere because
they have to. It's right up there with negative gearing in terms of
gross and obscene rorting of the public purse.

Is negative gearing a necessary evil, perhaps?

No. The common thing touted as it's being necessary is the rent
increases after Keating pulled it in the 80's or 90's (can't remember
the exact dates), but they fail to mention that the same increases
happened with rents before and after NG was removed.

What determines rental prices is supply & demand, not government
handouts to landowners looking to hide their cash from the taxman (and
the taxman is us .. so they're stealing from us)

Quoted message said:

I quite like having cheap (by mortgage standards) rent, because some
investor is getting most of their money off the government.

But the price of land has gone up so much *because* of this rort,
making the repayments higher, the only people that benefit from it are
the ones who own already, and they won't give back what we have let
them steal from society without a lot of FUD and a big fight.

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:28:04 +1100

ghostgum said:

able to salary sacrifice home loan repayments.
Perhaps in that sort of job you could salary sacrifice a bike.
Does the FBT concessional rate for cars also apply to motorbikes?

used to be that motorbikes didn't get hit with FBT at all!

Alas, they found that loophole and closed it. I think they are at the
same rate as cars now.

Zebee

vaudegiant said:

Why do we need middle class welfare to ride bikes?

They're already cheaper, faster (sometimes!) and much better for us.
Building regs these days (so I believe) require facilities for bike
parking and changing clothes etc too I think?

Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
incentive does anyone need?!

Those incentives to which you quite rightly refer matter less if
drivers are able to obtain further incentives to keep driving. Its a
bigger question than whether it's middle class welfare. The
consideration is whether to manipulate driver behaviour by rewarding
certain types of behaviour. If it is good enough to do this with
motorists, then why not cyclists (or more importantly, potential
cyclists). If the argument against it is one of unneccessary 'middle
class welfare' for cyclists, then the same should apply to motorists,
and let's then cancel all subsidies for motoring.

I would advocate the removal of the subsidies for motorists, yes.

Quoted message said:

COLOR=Blue]They pay more taxes, for starters. Fuel is some 50% or so
tax.
Then there's rego, GST on parking, GST on parts, maintenance, oil,
headache tablets, medicine, gym membership, physio, astrologer etc etc
etc. Do the sums, you're miles ahead.

I may well be miles ahead (although many people these days have company
cars and are immune to many if not all the costs) but that doesn't mean
that the gap should be narrowed by a driving subsidy. Drivers may well
pay more taxes (only in relation to car ownership), but I could possibly
pay more tax overall than many drivers.

Considering the negative impact that unneccessary driving is having on
Melbourne (financial, environmental, public health, public space etc)
and the very many positive aspects of cycling, why shouldn't commuting
cyclists be allowed access to what motorists already are.

As above, I think that's looking at things from the wrong side -
ultimatly, we want the same thing, more people riding, less driving,
but I would suggest that rather than bribe people to ride (which will
only get rorted anyway) that the 'pay people to drive' thing get
quashed - or at least erroded in such a way that it isn't political
suicide for the government that tries to do it. I think that's roughly
what Bracks is trying to do.

Bleve said:

Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
incentive does anyone need?!

Wow, it's only $1.30 here.

Theo
:-)

Zebee Johnstone said:

Hello Dorothy Dix, nice to meet you 🙂

I've just asked my HR dept if I can salary sacrifice a pushbike.
Let's see what they say!

Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?

New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!),

ZZZZZZIIIIIIIIP

Theo

PiledHigher said:

Of course now some one will tell me that the rode 100,000km on one set
of tyres and they were commutiong a thousand k's a week on dirt tracks
on the silk cords that were remaining!

My motorcycle service man has a tyre hanging up in his shop which is worn
down to below the thread. In the centre there is a section 50 mm wide where
the canvas is no longer showing. That tyre came from my motorcycle. No, not
me, the next owner.

Theo

Bleve said:

Sorry 'bout the rant, I'm just sick to death of people trying to rip
off "our" tax system to line their pockets and buy more widescreen
TV's

Oops! Helped my son out on Saturday by supplying the ute to take home his
60" TV.

Theo

Theo Bekkers said:

Bleve said:

Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
incentive does anyone need?!

Wow, it's only $1.30 here.

*doh*

Bleve said:

But the price of land has gone up so much *because* of this rort,
making the repayments higher, the only people that benefit from it are
the ones who own already,

How? I bought my block for $62,500 six years ago. The same undeveloped
blocks in my area are now selling at $195,000. What have I gained?

Theo

Bleve said:

Theo Bekkers said:

Bleve said:

Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
incentive does anyone need?!

Wow, it's only $1.30 here.

*doh*

Maybe they have bigger litres there?

Tam

Theo Bekkers said:

Bleve said:

But the price of land has gone up so much *because* of this rort,
making the repayments higher, the only people that benefit from it are
the ones who own already,

How? I bought my block for $62,500 six years ago. The same undeveloped
blocks in my area are now selling at $195,000. What have I gained?

~$130,000?

On 2006-01-16, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Theo Bekkers said:

Bleve said:

But the price of land has gone up so much *because* of this rort,
making the repayments higher, the only people that benefit from it are
the ones who own already,

How? I bought my block for $62,500 six years ago. The same undeveloped
blocks in my area are now selling at $195,000. What have I gained?

~$130,000?

When he chooses to sell, anyway.

--
TimC

Quoted message said:

You seem to be implying here that one gets rich after gaining a PhD?

Of course one does. The other 99 out of a hundred get bitter.
-- Paula responding to TimC on ARK

Bleve said:

Quoted message said:

Do you read a whole post before replying or just hit reply and start
typing? I'm assuming the latter otherwise you'd have read:

You assume incorrectly, but understandably.

Then you should be more careful about how you word things.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Tamyka Bell said:

Bleve said:

Theo Bekkers said:

Bleve wrote:

> Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
> incentive does anyone need?!

Wow, it's only $1.30 here.

*doh*

Maybe they have bigger litres there?

Yup. Just like that US state that legislated the value of pi to be equal
to 3, Bleve's area has increased the litre by two orders of magnitude.

(Actually, I suspect that that legislation was quashed before it passed,
but I could be wrong. If I were betting on it, I'd say it was quashed,
but hey.)

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

Theo Bekkers said:

How? I bought my block for $62,500 six years ago. The same undeveloped
blocks in my area are now selling at $195,000. What have I gained?

Nothing until you sell it and pay fees, taxes and other charges.
Villa from $92K to $239K max over same period.

then, everything else has gone up that you might be interested in,
unless it is 100 miles from anywhere with no services.

Stuart Lamble said:

Tamyka Bell said:

Bleve said:

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
>
> > Petrol's back up to $130/l, and it won't go far south ... what more
> > incentive does anyone need?!
>
> Wow, it's only $1.30 here.

*doh*

Maybe they have bigger litres there?

Yup. Just like that US state that legislated the value of pi to be equal
to 3, Bleve's area has increased the litre by two orders of magnitude.

heh, wasn't that 4, not 3?

Quoted message said:

(Actually, I suspect that that legislation was quashed before it passed,
but I could be wrong. If I were betting on it, I'd say it was quashed,
but hey.)

Only in America! (and then, 10 years later.. here 🙁 )

Euan said:

Bleve said:

Quoted message said:

Do you read a whole post before replying or just hit reply and start
typing? I'm assuming the latter otherwise you'd have read:

You assume incorrectly, but understandably.

Then you should be more careful about how you word things.

Fair critisism, I'll be more careful.

Zebee Johnstone said:

The only secure pushbike parking I've so far found is chockers early too.

ISTR you're in the CBD - where in town, because I know a few spots.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
"We have the concentration span of 10 year old ADD children who have
just eaten a tube of toothpaste." Dr Chris

Zebee Johnstone said:

Hmm.. what do you reckon for running costs?

New helmet every 2 years (quiet Theo!), new shoes every 2 years (quiet
hippy!), but how many grams of Nutrigrain per km?

Well, I smash my helmet every year so I'd like that one dropped and the carbon soles on these babies (http://www.thehippy.net/nucleus/index.php?itemid=128) do get awfully scratched so I'm happy with the 2yr replacement option. Don't forget tyres or the lolly-snakes subsidy! 🙂

hippy

Bleve said:

EuanB wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

There is that, espeically when you have to do MINIMUM kilometers to
maintain the tax benefit. That's just so wrong!

Absolutely and utterly agree with you here. The novated lease scheme
is absurd and environmentally evil. It's a rort such that high income
earners can get cars for free and then drive them everywhere because
they have to. It's right up there with negative gearing in terms of
gross and obscene rorting of the public purse.

Sorry 'bout the rant, I'm just sick to death of people trying to rip
off "our" tax system to line their pockets and buy more widescreen
TV's

Correction. The novated lease scheme leaves the motorist a lot worse off than private ownership if they drive less than 15000km a year, a little worse off if they drive between 15-25000 a year, about the same/slightly better off if they drive between 25 and 40000 a year and better off if they drive more than 40000km a year.

All of that is conditional on being on the top marginal rate _after_ the lease payment and FBT provision is taken out of the salary (i.e, all of the pre-tax payments would have attracted the highest marginal rate). These days, this really does rule out most people. Most people drive less than 40000km a year, so the main benefit (that I took advantage) is the convenience of having an all-in vehicle cost that is predictable.

The total FBT exemption for a laptop computer is much more of a rort that gives any high income earner a free (almost) computer. The purchase is pre-tax, there is no FBT and you can depreciate the laptop over three years, collecting deductions for each of those years (as long as it is used for _business_ purposes).

Ritch