JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Think luxury car prices are ridiculous? Here's why

A car costing close to $70,000 in Australia would be around $14,000 cheaper in the United Kingdom.

A car costing close to $70,000 in Australia would be around $14,000 cheaper in the United Kingdom. Photo: Supplied

Porsche dealer Sean Lygo says its "totally ridiculous" that Australians pay so much for luxury cars, while the body which represents 7.5 million motorists says the 33 per cent luxury car tax should be scrapped now that the car manufacturing industry is about to close.

Mr Lygo, who hails from the United Kingdom, is the general manager of the Porsche centre in Willoughby on Sydney's lower north shore and says the tax penalises those who may have worked hard to achieve success and want to reward themselves.

"It's unfair. It's totally unfair to charge people 33 per cent for buying a car because they've done well," Mr Lygo says.

It's not just the upper end of the market which is angry at the tax, which the federal government's tax discussion paper, released Monday, says is complex and full of anomalies.

While the Rudd government increased the tax to 33 per cent in 2008, former Treasury secretary Ken Henry called the tax "absurd", a means of penalising "people on average means with a preference for relatively expensive cars".

Joe Hockey's tax paper points out that a seven-seater family vehicle and a small sports car may end up classifed as "luxury cars" under the tax, which raised $476 million in 2013-14, or just 0.1 per cent of total tax revenue.

The paper says changes have made it much more complicated, and it is a barrier to trade because 94 per cent of vehicles subject to the tax are imported according to industry estimates in 2014.

The luxury car tax is applied at a rate of 33 per cent to the GST-exclusive value of the car including accessories, when it exceeds a threshold, now $61,884 for regular cars and $75,375 for fuel efficient vehicles.

A new vehicle costing close to $70,000 in Australia would be around $14,000 cheaper in the UK. Mr Lygo says it is ridiculous, but sales are still brisk, with market demand for new models in the Porsche line-up strong. "We are so busy," Mr Lygo says.

Australian Automobile Association acting chief executive James Goodwin says the tax should be dumped given Ford, Toyota and Holden are all preparing to shut their car making operations by 2017 at the latest.

"If we don't have a local manufacturing industry then why do we need a luxury car tax," he says. The AAA is the over-arching body representing 7.5 million motorists who are part of the various State motoring organisations including the NRMA, RACV, RACQ and RAA.

Mr Goodwin says many of the higher-end luxury car brands from offshore have been pioneers in bringing in new safety features to the Australian market and the tax is a punitive one.

"They're actually punishing the early adopters," he says.

Kayne Theodossi, general manager of Nick Theodossi Prestige Cars in the inner Melbourne suburb of North Melbourne, says he doesn't agree with the tax but thinks it will be difficult for the government to remove it completely because it will likely be replaced with something else to make up for lost revenue.

The dealership sells a range of brands including Lamborghini, Maserati, Aston Martin and Ferrari and Mr Theodossi says business is strong, with many customers business people who have built up their operations over years of hard work, rather than those spending windfalls from a rising sharemarket or soaring property prices.

"The top end is strong. It's more people who've got businesses," he says.

54 comments

  • "It's unfair. It's totally unfair to charge people 33 per cent for buying a car because they've done well," Mr Lygo says.

    Cry me a river Sean. It's a worthy way to raise revenue from those who can afford it.

    Commenter
    Pistola
    Location
    Brisbane
    Date and time
    Tue Mar 31 04:24:43 UTC 2015
    • Whilst the tax stays, which only effectively replaced the sales tax anyway plus a bit more, we, as employers, hire less staff and get more productivity from the ones we have now.
      It is when the average person wants something safer, they'll be the ones crying a river...

      Commenter
      Diesel economist
      Location
      Toorak
      Date and time
      Tue Mar 31 05:35:00 UTC 2015
    • Well yes, but why should there be a luxury car tax, but not a luxury diamond necklace tax or a Grange Hermitage expensive wine tax, or a Rolex tax? By all means tax the rich, but don't single out one particular product.

      Commenter
      John
      Date and time
      Tue Mar 31 05:46:19 UTC 2015
    • Then why stop at 33 per cent? Why not 50 per cent? Or more?

      Commenter
      brian
      Date and time
      Tue Mar 31 05:48:30 UTC 2015
    • I wish I could afford a new car which was subject to luxury tax....if i could, the least of my worries would be paying the tax.

      Commenter
      Peter@Brisvagas
      Date and time
      Tue Mar 31 05:51:21 UTC 2015
    • It is an unfair tax and the reason for its introduction, notwithstanding revenue raising, no longer exists. Our whole tax system is complicated complex and outdated and the only advantage is it keeps accountants and financial planners in jobs.

      Commenter
      Petera
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      Tue Mar 31 08:58:01 UTC 2015
    • The LCT is really a tax on Quality.
      I recently leased a Subaru Liberty GT station wagon through my small family business. I need to drive up and down the Pacific Highway regularly and need a safe reliable quality vehicle.
      That vehicle is the Japanese equivalent of a Commodore and costs about $35,000 over there.
      It is nice to drive and very well engineered and built. An excellent balance between quality and affordability. Not an excessive luxury though. Not by a long shot. Utility, not luxury.
      Why does the government feel the need to extort thousands of dollars from me for making a decision to buy quality?
      What reasonable person could ever agree to punitively taxing quality?
      Is the official position of the government in support of poor quality?
      Why on earth would they actively encourage people to purchase a poor quality product, and punish them if they aspire to support a maker of good quality products?

      An urgent review is warranted here, to address the obvious problem of Bracket Creep if nothing else.

      Commenter
      David
      Location
      Repton
      Date and time
      Tue Mar 31 09:26:16 UTC 2015
    • Another legacy from Rudd, what a train wreck. Though he's a multi millionaire so he probably doesn't care, plus he gets a driver and car for the rest of his life care of the mug taxpayer. What a joke.

      Commenter
      enough is enough
      Date and time
      Tue Mar 31 09:34:26 UTC 2015
    • Raise the threshold. Just noticed the 2015 Toyota Kluger is now above the threshold at 69k. I like the idea of a luxury house tax. Any house over a million tax it at 49%. That would raise more revenue.

      Commenter
      P
      Location
      Red hill
      Date and time
      Tue Mar 31 09:52:28 UTC 2015
  • Cheaper imported luxury cars is such a high priority and so good for Australia, just ask Mr Lygo! Maybe Mr Lygo should be allowed to redraft our tax laws. I am convinced that Mr Lygo would think that taxpayer subsidies for all Porsches is a great idea.

    Commenter
    Leonard
    Location
    Brisbane
    Date and time
    Tue Mar 31 04:33:39 UTC 2015

    More comments

    Comments are now closed
    Featured advertisers

    Special offers

    Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo

    Executive Style