This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Electric cars?

Would you buy an electric car?

  • Already own one

    Votes: 10 5.1%

  • Yes - would definitely buy

    Votes: 43 21.7%

  • Yes - preferred over petrol car if price/power/convenience similar

    Votes: 78 39.4%

  • Maybe - preference for neither, only concerned with costs etc

    Votes: 38 19.2%

  • No - prefer petrol car even if electric car has same price, power and convenience

    Votes: 25 12.6%

  • No - would never buy one

    Votes: 14 7.1%
  • Total voters
    198
Jump to new
We also build Volvo Trucks in Brisbane
 
The you tube video on Eric Lundgren 1000mile electric car. It's had only 20,000 views since 2017 ..

 
I suspect it has far more to do with the tax revenue than it does anything else.

I mean I could be wrong, but hey, the most reliable government records...
 
Dan is getting in before there is a large number of people affected, this is a slip it under the radar snow job, clever move.
It won't be long before they are giving subsidies for BEV's to help the grid, so you might as well get in early and install a tax, then at a later date you just tweak the amount beautifull.
 
Last edited:
over9k said:
I suspect it has far more to do with the tax revenue than it does anything else.

I mean I could be wrong, but hey, the most reliable government records...
Click to expand...
I agree with you, they are using the guise of saying the BEV owners don't pay fuel excise, but that is a Federal tax anyway.
All they are doing is changing the fuel tax from a Federal to a State tax early, but the Feds will introduce another tax to replace the fuel tax anyway, so in reality the BEV tax is a whole new tax IMO.
As VC says, it is crazy to introduce a new tax on BEVs, when they are expensive anyway. The next thing Dan will be asking for will be taxpayer incentives to subsidies BEV's, which will deflect the issue to a Federal one, clever politics really.
Morals and principals have no place in politics, or the media IMO.
The thing that is really funny is, the vocal minority who keep bagging Scomo for not doing enough to encourage BEV takeup, are saying nothing, a bit of conflict of interest is confusing them IMO. They want the Libs out and Labor/Greens in, so they can't say anything negative about Labor, so Dan carries on in his merry way. ?
I think as soon as this is through all the other States will follow suite, well if they have any sense they will, if they don't and leave it to a later date they will risk losing an election over it.
 
Last edited:

I'm not sure I agree. I think it's fairer to get in early and let ev buyers know that they are going to have to contribute instead of getting people hooked on ev's and then bringing in a "gotcha" tax.

EV's are the way of the future and fuel excise has to be replaced somehow.
 
I agree with you Rumpy, all I'm pointing out is that ATM it is a very astute political move and as I said it is taking the fuel excise from the Feds to the State, which it should be anyway as the States maintain the roads.
Currently the States have to go to the Feds with the begging bowl in hand, to get grants from the fuel excise, well that is my understanding of it..
I'm only making observations as to how clever a political move it is, S.A suggested it initially from memory, Dan has gone what a great idea.
A very clever move on his part.
 
Excellent overview of the how the rapid movement to BEV cars is challenging Japans major car makers.
Highlights the range of policy practices used around the world to move rapidly to the production of BEV only cars in the next 10 years.

Chinas policies are very directed in that direction.

Why Japan's carmaking heavyweights could be facing an electric shock

Analysis: The rapid development of battery-only cars is eclipsing petrol vehicles and even hybrids, leaving Japan’s big producers racing to catch up
www.theguardian.com
 
They could easily just say the tax will begin in 2025 or 2030.
 
I'll go a step further and question why roads need to be user pays in the first place?

The vast majority of things done by government are not directly user pays, they're just funded by general taxation revenue, so I'm not seeing the reason why roads need to be user pays? In any event, even if they are, well apart from highways the rest are mostly the responsibility of local government not state or federal anyway.

In some states at least public transport runs at a massive loss, fares to use it are basically just a token contribution to stop people riding around all day for the sake of it, so there's no real argument that drivers would be unfairly advantaged over PT users if roads weren't user pays.

I've always thought John Hewson had the right idea - 15% GST on everything, scrap other taxes like fuel excise, and adjust income tax rates and welfare to avoid whacking the poor over the head. Putting aside politics, it was and remains a reasonable idea in my view - at least partly because the simplicity reduces both administrative costs and the potential to rort it.

It also automatically brings in more revenue with economic growth and inflation, thus removing the constant politics which surrounds taxation and by default shifting the focus to other matters.
 

In fact only 22 cents in the dollar of fuel excise revenue is spent on roads so motorists are funding much more than what they actually use.

But you are right, user pays is just a furphy. I pay for health insurance that I rarely use, single people pay for a education system for other people's kids etc.

All government revenue goes into one big bucket , required by the Constitution and gets spent wherever its needed.
 
The arguement about EV’s not paying for roads is just a way to create a scapegoat, it’s easier to bring in a tax if you get the majority to believe it’s some other guilty/evil group paying it.

But in reality, just as my life is better When other peoples kids get educated so I don’t mind taxes funding education, so people shouldn’t feel upset if in some tiny way they are contributing to increasing uptake of EV’s and helping clean city air.
 

One of the easiest ways to reduce pollution is reduce the number of people or at least stabilise it.

But that never enters into politician's minds. It's all got to be growth, growth , growth, like a cancer. GDP is the only thing that matters, not the quality of life.

Well, one day it's all going to come crashing down and people will blame anyone else but themselves.

A bit off topic, but never mind. At least EV's will play a part in improving our lifestyle, if the vested interests will allow it.
 
Seems I stirred the pot with this one!

For an investing forum, seems members are quite left wing on this.

I'll be the token libertarian and say that I think almost everything should be user pays and also pays for the consequences of not paying if they happen to find themselves in a pinch needing a service they opted out of.

I'm seriously considering moving to being very nearly off-grid sometime in the future.
 
These things work in cycles, if you let the pendulum swing to far to the right, it will just swing further in the equal but opposite direction on the back swing.

Hence why I am pretty much middle of the road, Eg

1. I don’t mind paying taxes, provided they are fair and spent well.

2. I want wage earners to earn a decent living from their labour, but I also want the capital owners to do decently as well.

3. I don’t mind the people that do well paying a little extra taxes to subsidise the people that drew the short straw, provided the taxes don’t become punitive to a certain classes or other.

take a look at the health care system in the USA, it’s super expensive for every body, you have to be careful what you wish for, “user pays” can end up being more expensive for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...