“A car has a finite useful life. At some point, a car will die. A car’s useful life is probably shorter here in Finland, due to the climate.”

Maybe, but given the starting price (which due to autovero is slightly higher for new cars, than for similar cars abroad. Like I’ve said timie and time again – the autovero actually lowers the benefit of car factories) they shpould bloody well last forever more or less.

“Autovero might ensure depreciation advantages during the early years of a car’s life, but eventually someone within the car’s chain-of-ownership gets screwed.”

I don’t believe this. The car market in e.g. Germany is based upon the idea that one (i.e. the “normal” German middle-class consumer) changes cars every three to five years. That’s why car dealers (e.g. in Finland – in order to CREATE conditions similar to e.g. Germany) offer very cheap insurances, for cars financed via auto-loans. The whole idea is to keep the business going, artificially. This is economically understandable in a country like Germany, with a big car industry, and where a quick turnaraound of cars creates jobs. But does it create jobs in Finland? Nope.

I think it would be interesting to check the depreciation rate between countries, but I think that the Finnish one is closer to the “true” one (or are you saying that a 20000e car is ready to be scrapped after 6 years, since that is the depreciaton rate after 3 years for e.g. German cars – I might overblow a bit, but this is at least close to the truth).

It’s in the car industries interest to keep the mileage of cars as low as possible. Why should we in Finland – where this kind of waste has no advantages whatsoever – simply surrender to this “market logic” (actually car “markets” are really a bad example of anything even resembling markets, since there are so few players, and there are patents, trade marks, … etc. that stop free entry)?

And as for someone getting screwed – thanks to the autovero – I don’t think so. Whether we have the change every 3 years, or a somewhat slower pace, someone will be the “screwed up” one. Unless we accept that a cars life-time is something like 10 years max (and 6 years normally). But that imho is really a HUGE screw up, given the starting prices for cars. How the hell can you sell something that costs half the years earnings, of a normal citisen, that is supposed to be – righteously – crap, after merely 10 years? I think there is somebody else (except finnish authorities) to point a finger against in that case.

I remember that the movie “Turner” (?) based on “a true story” about a car manufacturer named Turner (who was then effectively put out of bussiness, thanks to the “market”) who sold something like 1000 cars. This was in the 50s, I think. According to the movie, more or less all of the cars he manufactured, were still drivable when the movie appeared. That’s what I expect from car manufacturers. But thanks to the “eminent” market economy, car manufacturers can’t operate their business unless people change cars every 3 years or so. Sick.

Nowadays, when cars are so complex, that even car service (indirectly I agree, but nevertheless) is under the control of manufacturers (thus controlling service costs as well), the whole “market” has become so sick that it makes one want to puke. The autovero is simply not something I would fire myself up on that much. The “sickness” is somewhere else.

Funny though, that it is possible to manufacture (expensive) sailing boats that keep their value fairly well. But also there the countries with big production (Germany, France) show a more sick “market logic” when it comes to used boats. If you want to make money buying used things abroad, and importing to Finland for re-sale, learn to sail, go to Germany, and buy a used sailing boat. Then bring it to Finland, and sell it. No autovero there. You can then use your profit (after taxes ) to buy your dream car FOR FREE (and keep some extra money as well).

That’s the problem! Some Finn needs to buy these used cars with skewed prices at some point. Overpriced cars (due to autovero) can’t be sold anywhere else except Finland.

Incentivizing econo-cars is fine. But, the pricing needs to be on the same basis as the rest of Europe. Right now, we’re trying to outsmart the French by reducing their profit margin, but we only screw ourselves in the process.

Or more precisely, those of us with lower incomes—who can only afford used cars—get screwed the most. It sucks!

Instead, we should get our revenge on the French by taking the money we’d otherwise overpay for autovero and invest in businesses that sell them stuff. It’s the way everyone else does it, and they seem to be doing pretty well…….at least, compared to our low-net-worth asses here in Finland.

Actually, the problem is mostly that people make the stupidest kind of car purchases: they strain their finances to buy a big used car just before it faces its most radical depreciation. They bring it upon themselves. But I agree that the system benefits some people and harms others. You can choose which group you belong in.

That being said, a system where the car tax was moved into fuel could be feasible and would have superior environmental benefits to the current one.

I wonder if there are studies about car depreciation in Finland vis-à-vis other countries. It would be interesting to compare the curves. Sounds like a job for the ATCF.

Economics students and political students are both fraquently taught grand theories with highly suspect connections with the real world. The difference, to me, seems to be that political students also get a healthy dose of political history with their courses. Comparing different political systems (past and present) critically is a built in part of the field.

In economics, on the other hand, history is for the most part presented in an anecdotal fashion. “Economic history” is considered to be a realm of political or historical studies, not economics as such. The field of economics seems consider the world mainly “as it is” or “as it will be”. This is not surprising: neo-classical economic theory does not need to compare different systems and their comparative merits: it itself presents a teleological model instructing how the economic world operates and how things shall be done.

In political science similar follies (such as Marxist “historical materialism”) are easier to discard: despite the field’s high dependance on theories it remains also well grounded in historical studies and that valuable groundwork it provides. This is something economics seems to lack, and frightfully so.

Economics students and political students are both fraquently taught grand theories with highly suspect connections with the real world. The difference, to me, seems to be that political students also get a healthy dose of political history with their courses. Comparing different political systems (past and present) critically is a built in part of the field.

In economics, on the other hand, history is for the most part presented in an anecdotal fashion. “Economic history” is considered to be a realm of political or historical studies, not economics as such. The field of economics seems consider the world mainly “as it is” or “as it will be”. This is not surprising: neo-classical economic theory does not need to compare different systems and their comparative merits: it itself presents a teleological model instructing how the economic world operates and how things shall be done.

In political science similar follies (such as Marxist “historical materialism”) are easier to discard: despite the field’s high dependance on theories it remains also well grounded in historical studies and that valuable groundwork it provides. This is something economics seems to lack, and frightfully so.

We can probably assume that he is less fortunate than you. In other words, he is poorer.

So Thomas, your gain is his loss. Due to autovero.

Thomas: Not necessarily so, if [autovero] “maintains” used car market prices in Finland. There is no point really to allow any more depreceation in prices of 20000e investments.

A car has a finite useful life. At some point, a car will die. A car’s useful life is probably shorter here in Finland, due to the climate.

Autovero might ensure depreciation advantages during the early years of a car’s life, but eventually someone within the car’s chain-of-ownership gets screwed. Most likely it will be another Finn, since cars can’t be sold abroad at overinflated Finnish prices.

In your case, Thomas, thanks to the Finnish autovero, you bought an overpriced car. And to avoid losing even more money, you rely on the Finnish government to keep prices artificially high via autovero.

But, some future owner of your car—probably another Finn—will get screwed when the value sharply drops. That’s just another reason for why the Finnish autovero system is a big ripoff.

But, some future owner of your car—another Finn—will get screwed when the value sharply drops. That’s just another reason for why the Finnish autovero system is a big ripoff.

“But, I still think paying that huge tax on used cars, is a big ripoff against Finnish consumers.”

Not necessarily so, if that “maintains” used car market prices in Finland. There is no point really to allow any more depreceation in prices of 20000e investments.

I mean. If I invest 20000e (todays money – something like a bit more than a normal 1 year salary in Finland), for something, this should have a market value for 50 years onwards. Especially, if it’s an artefact, that is calculated into the planning of societies, more or less. Otherwise, you can yourself calculate, how sound the market is. If we now have a situation that is – not likeable – but perhaps liveable, why should we import the insane markets abroad? The markets abroad – in this case – feed themselves, but they do not feed us. It’s not a commodity market, when you start with prices like 20000e, that are then something like (in Finlands case, with the aid of boarder control) 14000e 3 years later. That’s a rip-off. Nothing else.

Not to mention that after you’ve spent your gazilliard euros, in Estonia suprise heirs tend to pop up to claim the property you just bought…

This is all very theoretical, but yes, I am interested in profit more than spending my money.

You see, Russia=oil=money. This equation is already beginning to lift real estate prices near the border in Finland. I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t have a similar effect in Estonia.

But based on http://www.narvakinnisvara.ee/services.php, this premium is already being discounted in the prices. Houses and flats are cheaper in eastern Finland, and shall we say, in slightly better condition. It seems that Narva is approaching Helsinki prices whereas Tallinn has probably already surpassed them.

Might be some opportunities there. I wonder how much those singles would cost.

My guess is appx. a gazilliard €. Per square meter.

Might be some opportunities there. I wonder how much those singles would cost. Or flats in the tenements, for that matter.

I’ve seen some older buildings on the outskirts of Tallinn. I’m pretty sure you can get something there that needs work. If you’re looking for an investment rental property, then make sure you can get at least middle income people in there. If you go too cheap, you’ll just attract problems.

You can probably contract with a rental agency for little money.

One thing I noticed, is that most older buildings don’t have balconies. If I were to ever move there, then a balcony would be important. I assume it would be important to most middle- and high-income renters, too.