raynewman
Active Member
The fuel tax, of course, has nothing to do with road maintenance.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Petition for government subsidies for EV’s
- Thread starter P100D
- Start date
raynewman
Active Member
raynewman
Active Member
Much the same here; ICE users pay fuel tax, EV users don't.
Leave well enough alone.
It is often claimed that it does.
Example: pushbikes should not be allowed on the roads that us MOTORISTS pay for
Fossil fuels are not subsidised. I continue to see this myth promulgated and it's completely wrong. Unlike renewables which need gobs of taxpayer money to keep them going.
raynewman
Active Member
What would you call low/no interest loans to coal miners and infrastructure for their exclusive use?
Fuel tax credits (diesel rebate) are available for needy coal miners at about 42c per litre..
And when they retire they can qualify for a pensioners fuel rebate too.
Fossil fuels are directly subsidised in a variety of ways, even if you think it’s a “myth”. See the table at the bottom of this article for direct tax concessions: Tax-based subsidies | Market Forces
There is no argument that the fuel tax credit scheme is a taxpayer subsidy for fossil fuels and is by far the biggest line item at nearly $8 Bn per year. Most of the things below that are concessions generally available and so are a stretch (e.g the FBT ones listed would also apply if the vehicles concerned were electric) so I wouldn't have included them.
But, there are also public funds directed towards fossil fuels: Direct contributions | Market Forces where, for example, the Low Emission Technologies for Fossil Fuels (LETFF) program’s National Low Emissions Coal Initiative had received $233 million of its allocated $500 million funding and the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Flagships program had received $217 million of its allocated $2 billion. Don’t need CCS for renewables!
Now while renewables have also been subsidised, they perform a public good in reducing air pollution. Air pollution (which is mostly caused by burning fossil fuels) is estimated to cause 3000 premature deaths every year in Australia as well as negatively impacting people’s quality of life, so these subsidies may even pay for themselves in reduced Government health costs.
And of course we are rapidly approaching the point where renewables will not require any form of subsidy any more as prices continue to drop.
How does coal provide petrol to ICE cars.
If anything it provides cheaper electricity to those driving EVs and not signing up for a green plan.
There are some subsidies for diesel for transport and rural, but not much for a petrol vehicle.
Maybe reconfigure luxury car tax, and charge it on ICE vehicles only over a certain threshold
Ummm no, my EV is only filled with solar power. I’ve even ceased using the city supercharger just to ensure my tesla’s only run on sunlight.
Road maintenance is paid for by taxes.
ICE owners pay (high) taxes on fuel in proportion to the miles travelled.
raynewman
Active Member
Tesla owners pay (very high) taxes on their initial purchase like 30% LCT over $70,000.
As do ICE owners of equivalently priced cars - indeed they pay $3000 more
Vehicle & Energy Incentives
Effectively means most of the battery (which probably runs at $9-13,000 is LCT free), but the Tesla is still a luxury car.
Want to avoid the tax. Buy a TM3 SR+, or wait for the eventual release of a TM1/2
In the current environment I can't see either side of politics abolishing a tax that is mostly paid by the wealthy.
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
It is not a matter of "deserve" or "fair".
It's a matter of getting the best bang (emissions reduction) for your buck.
If making EVs easier to buy is the best bang for buck they should do that. I suspect there is better value to be had in other areas, eg. subsidising insulation, lower energy lighting/heating, subsidising public transport, subsidising solar, whatever.
But the bottom line is that it shouldn't be a matter of opinion, just a straight calculation.
Of course, the cheapest and most elegant solution is to simply price the thing you want less of (emissions). Then you don't have to subsidise anything, the market will do all the work.
It's a matter of getting the best bang (emissions reduction) for your buck.
If making EVs easier to buy is the best bang for buck they should do that. I suspect there is better value to be had in other areas, eg. subsidising insulation, lower energy lighting/heating, subsidising public transport, subsidising solar, whatever.
But the bottom line is that it shouldn't be a matter of opinion, just a straight calculation.
Of course, the cheapest and most elegant solution is to simply price the thing you want less of (emissions). Then you don't have to subsidise anything, the market will do all the work.
I'd call it a low/no interest loan. You're not giving anyone money that they don't already have.
Just because something is not taxed at your preferred rate does not make that a subsidy. This is not my definition, it's the dictionary's.
subsidy
noun [ C ]
money given as part of the cost of something, to help or encourage it to happen
It's a complete corruption of the language to call this tax situation a subsidy, so much so that the dictionary has a separate definition for a "tax subsidy":
a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:
When you start talking about CCS subsidies, let's offset that against the massive amount of tax that fossil fuel already raises, and you're still nowhere near what sane, rational people understand as a subsidy.
If you start complaining about low tax rates being a subsidy, then what's to stop me claiming that product X deserves to be taxed at a higher rate and is therefore getting a subsidy? It's patently absurd. And to use language like this alienates normal people who will assume that public money is being handed to oil companies.
And if you think renewables are becoming cheaper, I have a bridge to sell you. Amy place that has a high mix of renewable energy generally has the most expensive prices. See South Australia.
I am all for seeing genuine renewable energy, but this subsidy nonsense turns my stomach. Renewable energy needs to stand on its own feet to become viable. You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.
Similar threads
