Changes To Vehicle Import Laws – Decisions That Hurt The Poor & Middle Class The Most

balance#1 – As of September 1, we will be restricted from bringing in a vehicle or motorcycle that is 10 years of age or older. This means it is going to cost you more to buy a used car, since the newer the car, the more money the car may cost. A 10 YEAR OLD CAR OR OLDER CAN BE IN PERFECTLY GOOD & SAFE CONDITION. Why prohibit its importation? Fewer people are going to be able to afford a used car because of this, and this is also going to push people to end up going into debt taking out loans to dealerships, etc to buy cars they cannot afford. No distinction in the new Bill was made for antique cars either. Now, the Bill says the Minister for Customs (which is the Minister of Finance) can give permission for you to bring in a vehicle 10 years or older if he wants to. WHY GIVE THE MINISTER THE SOLE POWER TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHO GETS TO BRING IN VEHICLES 10 YEARS OR OLDER? The rule should be the same across the board for everyone, not set where some people can get a “yes” while others can get a “no” based on the Minister’s say so. Any exceptions to the 10-year rule should be spelled out in the law so that everyone is subject to the same criteria in law. These kinds of Ministerial discretion clauses are what encourage corruption, cronyism and victimization and keep people dependent on a politician for their success or failure.

#2 – DUTY FOR “ALL” CARS IS NOT BEING “REDUCED” TO 65%. Duty for cars was always either 65%, 75% or 85% depending on their value, etc. The cars at 75% and 85% are the luxury vehicles or higher-priced vehicles. It is those more expensive cars that will get a duty reduction to 65% – so the tax break benefits people with money. The rest of us who cannot afford those more expensive cars anyway, STILL HAVE TO PAY THE SAME 65% WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PAYING. SO THIS TAX BREAK IS NOT FOR THE POOR OR MUCH OF THE MIDDLE CLASS. Cars with “non-rebuildable titles” will also be prohibited. Now that part is okay in my view because such cars are a safety hazard and not fit for the road. But a car that has been in an accident doesn’t automatically make it a non-rebuildable-title car though; it may instead just be a damaged car with good or even “Salvage” Title (depending on which US State a car may come from) that can be repaired and made fit for the road.

It is easy for persons to say the 10-year rule is good because it will encourage people to buy newer and “better” cars. You can’t buy what you can’t afford. And if this decision was being made to help improve the environment from the buildup of older cars as some people seem to think, then its Amendment Bill would not have given the Minister the ability to pick and choose whose older cars get to come in. Is the Minister an automobile manufacturing expert to evaluate which cars are “best for the environment” and which are not? And if this was about the environment, then how come our Environmental Levy Fees that we pay on cars and other items are not used toward the environmentally sustainable disposal of those items like the government claimed they would? And where is Emissions Control/Clean Air legislation? THESE DECISIONS ARE HURTING THE POOR & MIDDLE CLASS THE MOST.