most Model S and X after April 1,2018 will cost consumers 6-11% more!

[sauce]

I don't think that's fair: they're not hurting companies that care, there not helping with a subsidy companies that make cars that most people can't afford, a rebate that would be, as well all know, using our tax dollars to help rich people.

The performance version, by definition, is a luxury! Nobody needs it, why subsidize it?

In other words, by capping the rebate, the government is saving tax dollars for the 95% of tax payers that can't afford a car over $75 K. Do you still think that's unreasonable?

Please read OP's original post. Nowhere are they talking of removing a subsidy. They're talking of hitting buyers with a luxury tax of around 20% for purchases above 125k. That means any 100D likely gets hit with that tax.

How is that not going to hurt Tesla's sales do tell.

 

[jkirkwood001]

Please read OP's original post. Nowhere are they talking of removing a subsidy. They're talking of hitting buyers with a luxury tax of around 20% for purchases above 125k. That means any 100D likely gets hit with that tax.

How is that not going to hurt Tesla's sales do tell.

Sorry @Paul Carter and @sauce , I misunderstood, thought BC was doing like Ontario. I agree penalizing expensive EV cars is counterproductive. I still think it can be fair to treat tax for "affordable" cars differently than "luxury" cars, but a surcharge for an EV is dumb.

 

[Phillip L]

It is typical for government that the right hand is doing something to screw up what the left hand is trying to accomplish.

 

[Dutchie]

The difference between a Model X 100D seven seater (Pearl white, white interior, PUP and autopilot just comes under $150K and a six seater with all other equal comes to just over $150K. The difference including tax can amount to more than $16K!!!
This because PST under $150K is 15% and above $150K is 20%, so your six seater is an extra 16K more!

 

[Astraviel]

The difference between a Model X 100D seven seater (Pearl white, white interior, PUP and autopilot just comes under $150K and a six seater with all other equal comes to just over $150K. The difference including tax can amount to more than $16K!!!
This because PST under $150K is 15% and above $150K is 20%, so your six seater is an extra 16K more!

I was told that the tax only looks at MSRP value.

 

[Paul Carter]

I was told that the tax only looks at MSRP value.

No. It's total price. Extra warranty and accessories that can be sold separately are a few things excluded.

 

[Whisky]

Ontario is suffering the same approach. Weak governments who sell billions of taxpayer dollars to unions and special interest groups for votes, and then they spend wastefully as if there was a limitless supply at their disposal.

Such a lazy dated argument. "Ahh unions, ahhh government waste, ahhhh taxpayers pay everything." There's not a party that hasn't wasted money and special interests continue to affect all political parties Tax cuts also cut money. Businesses influence government spending through subsidies, and that's true for all parties. Can we stop with the lazy quips that were amusing in the 80s but have long-since been proven wrong?

 

[sakimano]

Such a lazy dated argument. "Ahh unions, ahhh government waste, ahhhh taxpayers pay everything." There's not a party that hasn't wasted money and special interests continue to affect all political parties Tax cuts also cut money. Businesses influence government spending through subsidies, and that's true for all parties. Can we stop with the lazy quips that were amusing in the 80s but have long-since been proven wrong?

Calling something lazy because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is 'proven wrong'. It just means it's your (heavily biased) opinion, which proves nothing. Opinions aren't facts.

 

[Whisky]

Calling something lazy because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is 'proven wrong'. It just means it's your (heavily biased) opinion, which proves nothing. Opinions aren't facts.

Also a lazy response. You have looked at under which political parties the deficit and debt has increased the most under, right? I wish someone would update this chart: WTF: The federal budget and 50 years of Canadian debt Harper's graph looks much like the Liberal graph, with lots of increased spending and then cuts toward the end of the term.

I'm just saying, if you can't recognize the reality that neither party is working for your interests, then you have a long way to go.

 

[sauce]

@ Whisky, A little context never hurts with short assertions. You're only omitting the fact that Harper's tenure just so happened to coincide with the world's greatest recession since the great depression while all the Liberals had to deal with during their 4 terms from the mid-90s to the mid-00s was a punctual dip in the economy in 2001 after the WTC attack.

BTW, Canada was the first western country to have returned to black ink after the Great Recession's recovery. Guess you forgot about that too.

Please.

 

[Whisky]

@ Whisky, A little context never hurts with short assertions. You're only omitting the fact that Harper's tenure just so happened to coincide with the world's greatest recession since the great depression while all the Liberals had to deal with during their 4 terms from the mid-90s to the mid-00s was a punctual dip in the economy in 2001 after the WTC attack.

Need to give Harper credit for that one, he used the same sly plan thing Chretien did, he shifted debt-reduction down to the provinces by paying for less federally and pushing debts downward (plenty of attorney general reports prove). Slow clap on that one. Literally, that's exactly what Chretien did.

I mean, look, if you're one of the people that went on about the Ontario Liberal scandal and thinks Harper's Phoenix scandal is 'not the same thing' or it was really started with the Liberals previously, then there's no sense in talking further. I think you'll recognize your own pattern of coming to the same repeatable conclusion on blaming "the liberals." I'm not defending the Liberals, btw, I just think repeating made-up talking points is lazy. Each ruling party has a list of screw-ups. One side makes excuses for them, while the other side attacks them for those screw-ups. The longer we play into that game, the lazier we are in critical thinking. The more we're likely to draw conclusions from reading poorly researched articles that agree with what our preconceived notions are... etc..etc... you get the idea.

 

[sakimano]

Also a lazy response. You have looked at under which political parties the deficit and debt has increased the most under, right? I wish someone would update this chart: WTF: The federal budget and 50 years of Canadian debt Harper's graph looks much like the Liberal graph, with lots of increased spending and then cuts toward the end of the term.

I'm just saying, if you can't recognize the reality that neither party is working for your interests, then you have a long way to go.

I can't be bothered to argue party politics on a car forum. You'll notice I said 'weak governments'. I never once mentioned a party. You did that. Funny how that worked out. As I mentioned...you're so incredibly biased you are finding arguments where they don't exist.

Your reference to Harper and the Conservative government's handling of the financial crisis as 'proof' of your argument shows an inability to take in the big picture. Would it have mattered who was in power then? A liberal government was in power in America...are you saying it's Obama's fault he had to run up hundreds of billions of debts to keep the nation solvent during the financial crisis? Or was it just *sugar* timing that his party was in power? Same story here. That's an outlier if I've ever seen one and pinning it on Harper or saying 'the conservatives are the same as the liberals' because of that shows bias.

I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal and don't really have a party of choice. The liberals are frankly morons with money. The federal conservatives are frankly far too socially conservative for my liking. Fiscally speaking though, I've watched the past 15 years of government in Ontario and the past 3 years of government federally and just can't stop scratching my head about why they continue to spend themselves underwater when the time is nigh to get our fiscal houses in order.

You might be comfortable with Ontario approaching $400 billion in debt...and you might be ok with the party in power selling itself to buy your vote AGAIN, at the expense of those who earn large incomes. I'm not. My average tax rate is such that the government makes more money when I go to work, than I do. That's bonkers. I'd like to see someone take power and consider the taxes they collect a valuable asset that they treat with respect. Not something they spend foolishly in an effort to retain power.

Our economy is supposedly on the mend...yet we're still spending and running deficits like we're in the middle of the financial crisis. Something isn't right here.

 

[Whisky]

You'll notice I said 'weak governments'. I never once mentioned a party. You did that. Funny how that worked out. As I mentioned...you're so incredibly biased you are finding arguments where they don't exist.

You said: "Weak governments who sell billions of taxpayer dollars to unions and special interest groups for votes.." I think anyone reading that that's aware of Canadian politics knows exactly which parties you're referring to. If you were trying to be coy, you failed. Literally had you said "Weak governments who sell billions of dollars to special interests..." I would have nodded my head, and said yeah, basically all of them... accurate statement.

That's an outlier if I've ever seen one and pinning it on Harper or saying 'the conservatives are the same as the liberals' because of that shows bias.

I agree. Pretty much every leadership term is an outliner. They all have their difficulties. My only point is, if you look throughout time across regions, the stereotype that conservatives are great with money and liberals are terrible with money is invalid. This is far more obvious in American politics (where Democrats are infinitely better with fiscal policy compared to Republicans), and less obvious in Canadian politics (frankly, seems a wash either way), but still true. If you're now saying that you didn't mean to infer there's a difference between government waste, special interest, and political parties.. I believe we are fully in agreement.

I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal and don't really have a party of choice. The liberals are frankly morons with money. The federal conservatives are frankly far too socially conservative for my liking. Fiscally speaking though, I've watched the past 15 years of government in Ontario and the past 3 years of government federally and just can't stop scratching my head about why they continue to spend themselves underwater when the time is nigh to get our fiscal houses in order.

I'm likewise fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. The conclusion I came to several years ago, though, was conversation fiscal responsibility is BS. They cut a 70 million dollar program, and cheer, when its a drop in the bucket and that money helps people. Phoenix Payroll system is an example of something the last three political parties (including the present one) did a terrible job at. There's no saving the concept of debt. There's no reducing the debt to zero. These are pie in the sky promises no one can accomplish in our present economic structure. Sure, Harper had a positive budget. So did Trudeau. But the attorney general position was critical of both governments for off-loading costs on provinces. There are no miracles. Every organization has wasteful spending. Corporations do as well. This ideal doesn't exist.

You might be comfortable with Ontario approaching $400 billion in debt...and you might be ok with the party in power selling itself to buy your vote AGAIN, at the expense of those who earn large incomes. I'm not.

I'm not okay with the Liberals. I'm not okay with the PC party under Ford.

Our economy is supposedly on the mend...yet we're still spending and running deficits like we're in the middle of the financial crisis. Something isn't right here.

Yup! Agreed. Your choice is to support an incompetent party, and a party that voted in a rotten human being. With incompetence we get some nice public policies that help people. With the rotten party, we get someone that builds policies based on hate and ignorance. Sh**ty choice. Good luck.

That's the problem with human beings, in general. We'll act on hate all the time.