Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Electric cars?

Would you buy an electric car?

  • Already own one

    Votes: 10 5.1%

  • Yes - would definitely buy

    Votes: 43 21.9%

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

    Votes: 78 39.8%

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

    Votes: 37 18.9%

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

    Votes: 24 12.2%

  • No - would never buy one

    Votes: 14 7.1%
  • Total voters
    196
Jump to new
Regos go up every year anyway,
Smurf1976 said:
Politically I think that’s a no go as with anything that involves a tax hike which is aimed at, in practice, largely the lower half economically as would be the case once EV’s become mainstream.

Labor just learned that one last year on another issue and won’t forget in a hurry.

If I was to take a guess as to what will actually happen then the answer is nothing directly.

Fuel excise drops.

Australian government cuts back on various grants to the states. Nothing new about that as such.

It then becomes a matter for the states to either bump up rego charges of their own accord, put tolls on roads or whatever else they want to do to raise money.

At a guess there’ll come a point where they collectively want the GST increased and that’s an easier sell politically once they say something about schools and hospitals as they will.

John Hewson’s 15% GST will end up being implemented, it’ll just be ~40 years later than he proposed it.
Click to expand...

The Government already subsidises Solar Panels etc, Maybe until Ev's are over 20% of the market they just take the hit to the revenues, They did that will LPG cars, they avoided putting excise on LPG for Years, and eventually eased into it over a number of years.
 
Value Collector said:
Regos go up every year anyway,


The Government already subsidises Solar Panels etc, Maybe until Ev's are over 20% of the market they just take the hit to the revenues, They did that will LPG cars, they avoided putting excise on LPG for Years, and eventually eased into it over a number of years.
Click to expand...

“Under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme the reduction in the cost of your solar panel is not a rebate. You will not qualify for any Government-based financial recompense at the completion of any process relating to STCs.”

I think what our bureaucratic friends are trying to get across is that the thousands of dollars you get off your solar system price (usually by assigning the rights to its STCs to your installer) does not actually come from the government.
 
Fuel excise is now 42.3 pl so if the average Ks are about 15 k pa and the average use in city traffic is 10l/100k that would mean 30l a week so 30 x 42.3 plus gst is 13.95 per week or $725 per year.

Over a year that is a Lot of income to the Feds, if they were to apply a "road users tax" of $725 pa then it would probably need a monthly payment plan.

It would be a hard sell though, imagine the uproar, ye gods !!
 
macca said:
Fuel excise is now 42.3 pl so if the average Ks are about 15 k pa and the average use in city traffic is 10l/100k that would mean 30l a week so 30 x 42.3 plus gst is 13.95 per week or $725 per year.

Over a year that is a Lot of income to the Feds, if they were to apply a "road users tax" of $725 pa then it would probably need a monthly payment plan.

It would be a hard sell though, imagine the uproar, ye gods !!
Click to expand...

A gradual increase of registration of $15 a year would hardly be noticed, remember electric cars will increase only at a gradual pace.

if 1% of cars are electric, the government misses out on $725 per 100 cars on the road, But it only has to increase rego by $7.25 across those 100 cars to make that back.
 
Value Collector said:
A gradual increase of registration of $15 a year would hardly be noticed, remember electric cars will increase only at a gradual pace.

if 1% of cars are electric, the government misses out on $725 per 100 cars on the road, But it only has to increase rego by $7.25 across those 100 cars to make that back.
Click to expand...
Why would the 99 ice have to subsidize the EV
Just add 725 ev rego surcharge
 
Value Collector said:
A gradual increase of registration of $15 a year would hardly be noticed, remember electric cars will increase only at a gradual pace.

if 1% of cars are electric, the government misses out on $725 per 100 cars on the road, But it only has to increase rego by $7.25 across those 100 cars to make that back.
Click to expand...

All the families I know have 2 cars so your rubbery figure of a few hundred bux is about 400% out
 
qldfrog said:
Why would the 99 ice have to subsidize the EV
Just add 725 ev rego surcharge
Click to expand...

Because they are reducing the air quality in our cities, think of it as an air pollution tax, and an Incentive to move the vehicle fleet away from ICE cars that pump cancer causing chemicals directly into the air in our cities, which contributes to the 1000’s of people that die each year due to air quality.
 
Humid said:
All the families I know have 2 cars so your rubbery figure of a few hundred bux is about 400% out
Click to expand...

My figures we per car, but the figures go buy liters of fuel burnt, so if you are splitting the driving between two cars it might end up being roughly the same.
 
Also keep in mind, cigarette smokers already pay upwards of $30 a week tax on their smokes.

So a petrol car driver being asked to pay an extra $15 each year in rego to help bring about cleaner air quality is minimal.
 
Value Collector said:
So a petrol car driver being asked to pay an extra $15 each year in rego to help bring about cleaner air quality is minimal.
Click to expand...
It'll be a lot more than $15 if the intention is to offset lost excise revenue since apart from collector cars, there's basically nobody who's only using 35 litres of fuel each year.

As for the smokers, well smoking is old fashioned, obsolete and no longer required. It's something that's entirely optional and has basically zero benefits with a rather long list of downsides from ruining paintwork through to causing death.

Petrol fumes aren't good, but they're nowhere even remotely close to tobacco in terms of the health damage.
 
Smurf1976 said:
Petrol fumes aren't good, but they're nowhere even remotely close to tobacco in terms of the health damage.
Click to expand...

Check out the stats and see how many people die each year from air pollution, of which vehicle related smog is a major contributor.

I see nothing wrong with fuel excise being allowed to hang around as a tax on those contributing to air pollution in our population centers.

Think of it this way.

If person A decides to take the low priced car, and in doing that drives around belching poison gas, is it really that bad to have a tax on them based on the fuel they burn?

and

If person B decides to buy a higher priced car that doesn’t blow poison gas into bystanders face, is it really that bad that they get a portion of their road usage subsidized? After all they have already spent more money and everyone is benefiting from their investment
 
Value Collector said:
I see nothing wrong with fuel excise being allowed to hang around as a tax on those contributing to air pollution in our population centers.

Think of it this way.

If person A decides to take the low priced car, and in doing that drives around belching poison gas, is it really that bad to have a tax on them based on the fuel they burn?
Click to expand...

It sounds awfully like a tax on the lower half economically.

Labor was accused of that over another issue and won't want it to happen again anytime soon. Last thing the ALP wants is to be seen as a party for the rich, that just cost them an election.

I doubt the Greens will be keen either since social justice etc has always been one of their principles and high fixed costs to simply have a car is one sure way to hit those toward the bottom. Plus if you look at their policies well they're quite clearly trying to shift away from the perception that they're the party for the inner city. Note for example their stated support for heavy industry, metallic ores mining and even the very same aluminium smelters the party for many years labelled with the derogatory term of "sunset industries" whilst advocating closure. So be it, if they're keen on a viable way forward economically then that's not a bad thing but in this context the point is they're aiming for broader appeal.

Coalition won't likely go there given they've positioned themselves on the opposite side politically. I don't agree with that move but it would be too soon for them to do shift position in the medium term.

Even less likely that One Nation would have any interest in it.

So my thinking is there's no chance of it actually being implemented since nobody who's likely to be in government or holding the balance of power is going to be keen on the idea.

Far more likely they'll let fuel excise taper off as sales drop and in due course it's the trigger for some form of broader taxation reform. If I was to take a guess - we might see excise scrapped outright at that point and a carbon price introduced on all fossil fuels not just petrol and diesel. It'll be ~2030 by that stage. :2twocents
 
Top