Electric cars?

[Humid]

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.

So the dad only goes to work sometimes

 

[Value Collector]

Been on the sauce mate?

Do you mean have I been consuming alcohol? No, I don’t drink Alcohol anymore.

 

[Value Collector]

So the dad only goes to work sometimes

One might go to work and one might drive to the supermarket down the road, do you know how averages work?

but if they are a family that polluted more than average, I see no problem with them taking a bit more of a tax hit.

 

[Value Collector]

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.

It already happens, poor people driving around 1997 VT commodores already pay more excise than a 2019 hydrid, Ev’s are just a continuation of the trend.

Whether you are rich or poor, we breathe the same air.

And if getting people to spend a bit more upfront on their vehicle so we can have cleaner air, it makes complete sense to me that allowing The people that buy The polluting car at the expense of societies lungs should take a bit of a tax hit.

 

[Humid]

Do you mean have I been consuming alcohol? No, I don’t drink Alcohol anymore.

There lies the problem lol

 

[Humid]

One might go to work and one might drive to the supermarket down the road, do you know how averages work?

but if they are a family that polluted more than average, I see no problem with them taking a bit more of a tax hit.

Obviously you don't
Or you can't read

 

[Humid]

Fuel costs are the biggest ongoing expense for Australians who own their cars outright, with an average spend of $71.50 a week

You should go out more
Reproduce
You might get some experience
All the gear no idea is what they say in industry

 

[basilio]

Not sure if this has been posted before, if not it is worth a watch

As usual an outstanding analysis.
Again, as usual, the arguments propounded to undermine electric cars are cherry picked , deceitful dribble.
This happens each and every time .
Yet each and ever time they get trotted out and repeated by the same die hards who clearly don't care a whit about facts as long as they can trash anything to do with a renewable, sustainable idea.

Come on folks can you do better than that ?

 

[Value Collector]

Fuel costs are the biggest ongoing expense for Australians who own their cars outright, with an average spend of $71.50 a week

Whats your point?

Thats an argument in favour of EV's not against them.

 

[Humid]

Whats your point?

Thats an argument in favour of EV's not against them.

The point is you comment about a few hundred dollars is way off the mark
And you are always right according to you lol

The answer is related to their ego, their very sense-of-self. Some people have such a fragile ego, such brittle self-esteem, such a weak "psychological constitution," that admitting they made a mistake or that they were wrong is fundamentally too threatening for their egos to tolerate. Accepting they were wrong, absorbing that reality, would be so psychologically shattering, their defense mechanisms do something remarkable to avoid doing so — they literally distort their perception of reality to make it (reality) less threatening. Their defense mechanisms protect their fragile ego by changing the very facts in their mind, so they are no longer wrong or culpable.

Sound familiar

 

[Smurf1976]

It already happens, poor people driving around 1997 VT commodores already pay more excise than a 2019 hydrid, Ev’s are just a continuation of the trend.

The difference is that what you're proposing bumps their cost up by a very substantial amount, $ hundreds per year, regardless of usage.

I'm not against EV's, heck I've been advocating an all-electric economy for the past few decades now , but things which tax those toward the bottom are political dynamite and it's very unlikely that any significant party will go near the idea.

Far more likely we instead see the lost revenue replaced with income tax, an increase in the GST or some other tax. Charging someone circa $1500 just to register a car (current costs + lost excise) isn't going to fly politically, it's just too big an upfront cost indeed for many it would become their single largest lump sum payment and that sure isn't going to get anyone planning such a thing elected.

There's no fundamental reason why road transport needs to be cost neutral to government. We don't put a tax on shoes to cover the cost of footpaths, we don't have TV and radio licensing or a tax on equipment to fund the ABC and we don't send other countries a bill for the cost of the military. For that matter we don't even recover the cost of policing from criminals and even the concept of paying to use a public toilet is very uncommon in Australia. And of course the most relevant one - in most cities public transport runs at a huge financial loss (though autonomous vehicles will, if they become a big thing, largely change that through reduction of lesser used services).

Lots of things are cross subsidised so there's no inherent reason why reduced revenue from excise charged on vehicle fuels needs to be recovered from another tax on vehicles. It could just as easily be a tax on data or a tax on stone benchtops (the latter might actually be a decent idea given how many people their production seems to be killing with silicosis but that's another story). Given that everyone benefits in some way from the existence of roads including those who don't own a car, and that light vehicles cause relatively little wear to those roads, there's no major necessity for them to be a cost neutral thing on a standalone basis.

EV's = yes certainly. There are lots of problems with oil - CO2's just one on a long list really.

Huge tax on simply having a car and being able to use it on a street without having actually gone anywhere = definitely no that's too harsh.

 

[Value Collector]

The difference is that what you're proposing bumps their cost up by a very substantial amount, $ hundreds per year, regardless of usage.

I'm not against EV's, heck I've been advocating an all-electric economy for the past few decades now , but things which tax those toward the bottom are political dynamite and it's very unlikely that any significant party will go near the idea.

Far more likely we instead see the lost revenue replaced with income tax, an increase in the GST or some other tax. Charging someone circa $1500 just to register a car (current costs + lost excise) isn't going to fly politically, it's just too big an upfront cost indeed for many it would become their single largest lump sum payment and that sure isn't going to get anyone planning such a thing elected.

There's no fundamental reason why road transport needs to be cost neutral to government. We don't put a tax on shoes to cover the cost of footpaths, we don't have TV and radio licensing or a tax on equipment to fund the ABC and we don't send other countries a bill for the cost of the military. For that matter we don't even recover the cost of policing from criminals and even the concept of paying to use a public toilet is very uncommon in Australia. And of course the most relevant one - in most cities public transport runs at a huge financial loss (though autonomous vehicles will, if they become a big thing, largely change that through reduction of lesser used services).

Lots of things are cross subsidised so there's no inherent reason why reduced revenue from excise charged on vehicle fuels needs to be recovered from another tax on vehicles. It could just as easily be a tax on data or a tax on stone benchtops (the latter might actually be a decent idea given how many people their production seems to be killing with silicosis but that's another story). Given that everyone benefits in some way from the existence of roads including those who don't own a car, and that light vehicles cause relatively little wear to those roads, there's no major necessity for them to be a cost neutral thing on a standalone basis.

EV's = yes certainly. There are lots of problems with oil - CO2's just one on a long list really.

Huge tax on simply having a car and being able to use it on a street without having actually gone anywhere = definitely no that's too harsh.

until the uptake of EVs gets into much higher percentages, the cost wil not rise into the hundreds.

By that time even the average petrol car will be burning less petrol, think hybrids/plug in hybrids etc, So the petrol tax will be bringing in less anyway.

 

[SirRumpole]

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

So how do they calculate this ?

It's like deaths caused by smoking, no doubt there are a lot , but some people smoke all their lives and don't get lung cancer.

I've always wondered how they attribute deaths due to pollution that lot's of people experience, but not all die from.

 

[Value Collector]

The point is you comment about a few hundred dollars is way off the mark
And you are always right according to you lol

Mate, it’s not that far off the mark even if we accept your figures.

you said the average family spends $71.50 / week on fuel and that they probably have two cars.

That means they are generating about $500 a year in fuel excise per car.

But either way, my point was simply that a move to transition some of the revenue lost by a decline in fuel excise into the cost of registration would only result in mild rego increases over time.

I think I said $7 per 1% of the fleet that transitions to EV, even using your figures it would only be $5.

even if your figures were $71.50 fuel per car, that would only be about $10 increase in rego per 1% of the fleet that transitions.

 

[Value Collector]

So how do they calculate this ?

It's like deaths caused by smoking, no doubt there are a lot , but some people smoke all their lives and don't get lung cancer.

I've always wondered how they attribute deaths due to pollution that lot's of people experience, but not all die from.

Just like smoking doesn’t guarantee that you get lung cancer, but smoking does increase your chances, so does living in areas of higher air pollution.

Not to mention that non cancer deaths and hospital admissions for things like asthma and other things spike higher on days of high pollution.

 

[sptrawler]

until the uptake of EVs gets into much higher percentages, the cost wil not rise into the hundreds.

By that time even the average petrol car will be burning less petrol, think hybrids/plug in hybrids etc, So the petrol tax will be bringing in less anyway.

Any loss in revenue, will be picked up somewhere else, it isn't as though the Government is a business and you can take your custom elsewhere, taxes are a guaranteed income.

 

[Value Collector]

Any loss in revenue, will be picked up somewhere else, it isn't as though the Government is a business and you can take your custom elsewhere, taxes are a guaranteed income.

yeah, of course.

that’s kinda my point, they will just make the revenue else where, increasing rego will be an easy option if they want to keep the tax’s transport related.

but as you are eluding, additional taxes could land anywhere in the economy.

 

[Humid]

Mate, it’s not that far off the mark even if we accept your figures.

you said the average family spends $71.50 / week on fuel and that they probably have two cars.

That means they are generating about $500 a year in fuel excise per car.

But either way, my point was simply that a move to transition some of the revenue lost by a decline in fuel excise into the cost of registration would only result in mild rego increases over time.

I think I said $7 per 1% of the fleet that transitions to EV, even using your figures it would only be $5.

even if your figures were $71.50 fuel per car, that would only be about $10 increase in rego per 1% of the fleet that transitions.

Here you go again where does it mention families

 

[SirRumpole]

additional taxes could land anywhere in the economy.

Extra taxes will probably land on consumers as usual.

How about putting company tax up 1 percent ?

 

[Value Collector]

Extra taxes will probably land on consumers as usual.

Every tax flows through to consumers in some way eventually.

I wouldn’t be against raising company tax 1%, except for the fact that I prefer round numbers haha.