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 5.0%
  • Yes - would definitely buy

    Votes: 43 21.6%
  • Yes - preferred over petrol car if price/power/convenience similar

    Votes: 79 39.7%
  • Maybe - preference for neither, only concerned with costs etc

    Votes: 38 19.1%
  • 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 7.0%

  • Total voters
    199
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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
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
 
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
 
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 ?
 
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
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Here you go again where does it mention families