Car prices in Australia suck.

[sprjenkins]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Do you not agree that as a threadstater, you have the responsibility to provide accurate information where you can? I see it as a courtesy. I previously stated that the conclusions remain the same, however this does not exonerate you of your responsibility to provide accurate figures.

Very simply, I believe that if you are going to begin a thread that many people will read and respond to, it would be helpful to include accurate figures, or at the very least clearly indicate that the figures are quoted in different currencies.

Also, I don't appreciate being accused of "butting in" with an opinion. I have the right to respond to the opening post of the thread, regardless of whoever else has responded to it already ;)

I agree you do have a right to respond to the thread.
The figures quoted were completely accurate. The fact that it was US dollars maybe should have been addressed in the opening post, however this deficency was pointed out at least once before you felt the need to bring it up again.
As you stated the conclusion remained the same, the defiency was pointed out more than once, so I took it as a personal affront that you felt the need to beat me up over it again.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by sprjenkins

I agree you do have a right to respond to the thread.
The figures quoted were completely accurate. The fact that it was US dollars maybe should have been addressed in the opening post, however this deficency was pointed out at least once before you felt the need to bring it up again.
As you stated the conclusion remained the same, the defiency was pointed out more than once, so I took it as a personal affront that you felt the need to beat me up over it again.

You didn't answer my question - Do you not agree that, as a threadstarter, you have the responsibility to provide accurate information where you can?

I fail to see how you interpreted my opening post as a personal attack. In no way did I "beat you up" - I merely pointed out a significant flaw in your price comparison. I did not quote you or refer to you by name. Another member raised my same concerns a few posts earlier, to which you replied that you weren't bothered to convert the figures to the appropriate currency. My opening post then stated that perhaps you should have. You then rudely accused me of "butting in and stating my opinion" which I found to be quite absurd.

I'm sure that next time you will provide accurate data where possible. I see no reason to further pursue this issue, unless you still feel compelled to dispute my right to point out significant flaws in the data you provided.

[5.4 GT]

Originally Posted by nugget378

Yes good idea,tax the lower end of the market so those that can least afford it pay more...

It will force them into the local products though.

Im saying have a gradual scaling of tax so sub 20k cars are about the same as they are now with next to no tax. Between 20k and 100k (as no mainstream local products sell for above 100k) have a scalable tax system where the more expensive the car is the more you pay, within the 20k - 100k region. After 100k then allow the tax to scale down again so it looks more like a bell curve.

Have the highest amount of tax on the imported cars like the Mazda 6/Subaru Liberty etc... that are competing on price with the base model XT/Omega.

[5.4 GT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Mostly because the cheapo cars are made in countries that buy our raw resources and make the cars with them.

We put on tarriff, they either reduce purchases or put tarriffs on our wool, wheat, sugar, iron, alumina, uranium, boomarangs or whatever.

Probably not a good thing.....

Fair point.

[sprjenkins]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

You didn't answer my question - Do you not agree that, as a threadstarter, you have the responsibility to provide accurate information where you can?

I fail to see how you interpreted my opening post as a personal attack. In no way did I "beat you up" - I merely pointed out a significant flaw in your price comparison. I did not quote you or refer to you by name. Another member raised my same concerns a few posts earlier, to which you replied that you weren't bothered to convert the figures to the appropriate currency. My opening post then stated that perhaps you should have. You then rudely accused me of "butting in and stating my opinion" which I found to be quite absurd.

I'm sure that next time you will provide accurate data where possible. I see no reason to further pursue this issue, unless you still feel compelled to dispute my right to point out significant flaws in the data you provided.

If you bothered to read my reply the information provided was 100% accurate. Those are the recomended retail prices exactly, not one mistake. Do I have an obligation, no, would it be nice, yes. The only problem with the post was that the currencies needed converting. There was no significant flaws as the data was flawless.

So yeah I do feel the need to dispute this issue with you. It is beating up on someone to needlessly reiterate a point that has already been made and acknowledged and it is rude to jump into a conversation or thread and start having a go at people when you obviously couldn't be bothered reading the thread from the start.

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by DaveO_SP

It will force them into the local products though.

Im saying have a gradual scaling of tax so sub 20k cars are about the same as they are now with next to no tax. Between 20k and 100k (as no mainstream local products sell for above 100k) have a scalable tax system where the more expensive the car is the more you pay, within the 20k - 100k region. After 100k then allow the tax to scale down again so it looks more like a bell curve.

Have the highest amount of tax on the imported cars like the Mazda 6/Subaru Liberty etc... that are competing on price with the base model XT/Omega.

Dont you think all that would happen then is the local makers would raise the price to get that bottom line looking better?
I sure dont want to have my tax dollars contributing to corporate profits.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by sprjenkins

If you bothered to read my reply the information provided was 100% accurate. Those are the recomended retail prices exactly, not one mistake. Do I have an obligation, no, would it be nice, yes. The only problem with the post was that the currencies needed converting. There was no significant flaws as the data was flawless.

So yeah I do feel the need to dispute this issue with you. It is beating up on someone to needlessly reiterate a point that has already been made and acknowledged and it is rude to jump into a conversation or thread and start having a go at people when you obviously couldn't be bothered reading the thread from the start.

I strongly urge you to have a try at reading what I post before responding. You also need to grow a thicker skin, because you are acting like a paranoid child. In no way did I "beat you up". In no way did I "have a go at you". Quote me where I did. In fact, anyone reading this post, head here and make your own conclusions as to whether sprjenkins was brutally beat up.

I know very well that they are the correct North American retail prices. However, perhaps to your surprise, we do not live in North America. In fact we live on the other side of the world in a country called Australia. In Australia, we use Australian dollars, not US dollars. Why? Because we live in Australia, NOT America. These currencies are different. They have different values. So, if you compare them directly without indicating that you are doing so, the obvious assumption is that they are Australian dollars. You presented them as Australian dollars. As I already stated in my last post (I have to repeat things, because you obviously didn't read what I posted), a member brought up my same concerns a couple of posts earlier - to which you replied you couldn't have been bothered to provide the correct data. My first post then stated that perhaps you SHOULD have, to create a more accurate picture.

Since you still lack understanding of this issue, I will bring back the same example I calmly provided in my first post. Now, I could tell you that to a burger in Sydney costs $5. Yet, in Zimbabwe, it costs $10,000,000 - what a rip off, right? Wrong. The cost of the burger in Zimbabwe, once converted, costs less than $10. The figures were inaccurate, because they were presented as Australian dollars and compared directly.

I do not appreciate being told that I "had a go" at you. I do not appreciate being told that I "beat you up". I do not appreciate being told that I "can't be bothered reading the thread". I do not appreciate your recurring stupidity. It is a shame that you possess such a poor attitude. You weren't bothered to put any effort into creating this thread. You just copied and pasted numbers. Then you got mad at me for politely suggesting that perhaps you should have converted the numbers. Just grow up.

I don't even see this as a big issue. Stop replying.

[George1861]

read a while back that a guy in India bought a Maybach, over $400,000, with taxes it was over a million! :togo: