Potential Canadian luxury tax on cars over $100K

[realtycoon]

From a policy perspective, I don't mind this. While we want to get more EVs on the road, this does seem like it should depress sales/the shift to evs dramatically. A lot of people buying cars in that price point are either not going to be discouraged by this price point to the point of not purchasing an ev. Those that are convinced to not purchase an S or an X are likely still going to end up in an EV. Not 100%, but I would garner a guess that it is not going to be statistically significant.

I think it is relatively predictable that we would see a shift towards to higher luxury/wealth taxation. From an EV adoption perspective, this is a pretty harmless impact.

This will have an impact on my dreams of a tri-motor cybertruck though!

Problem is that this starts as a tax on $100k+, before you know it, they make it a tax on $80k+, then $50k+ and then on all cars. Liberals just can't help themselves but to tax the country to death.

 

[Tarpan]

Problem is that this starts as a tax on $100k+, before you know it, they make it a tax on $80k+, then $50k+ and then on all cars. Liberals just can't help themselves but to tax the country to death.

Other than the words you chose and the sequence you out them in, I totally agree.

 

[pb2000]

Problem is that this starts as a tax on $100k+, before you know it, they make it a tax on $80k+, then $50k+ and then on all cars. Liberals just can't help themselves but to tax the country to death.

Don't worry, Alberta is still pumping lots of oil, so they won't go after anyone else until our wells run dry.

 

[realtycoon]

Don't worry, Alberta is still pumping lots of oil, so they won't go after anyone else until our wells run dry.

What does Alberta oil have to do with punishing taxation? The way I see it, Alberta oil has been dead for 10 years and isn't coming back. They can pump as much as possible, there are no pipelines to get it to market.. but its ok, we can get our oil from the Saudis

 

[pb2000]

What does Alberta oil have to do with punishing taxation? The way I see it, Alberta oil has been dead for 10 years and isn't coming back. They can pump as much as possible, there are no pipelines to get it to market.. but its ok, we can get our oil from the Saudis

Where do you suppose Canada gets all it's the tax revenue from?

 

[Blu-Ion]

Problem is that this starts as a tax on $100k+, before you know it, they make it a tax on $80k+, then $50k+ and then on all cars. Liberals just can't help themselves but to tax the country to death.

Perhaps, but more than likely the $100k limit will not move, yet vehicle prices will increase with inflation, leading to more tax revenue.
They need to build inflation into the policy to move thresholds based on CPI or some other measure

 

[cdswm3]

Where do you suppose Canada gets all it's the tax revenue from?

Ontario and BC also contribute more than they receive.

 

[pb2000]

Ontario and BC also contribute more than they receive.

BC and Ontario have a combined population of ~20 million vs ~4.4 in Alberta and yet we provide half again as much more money. I don't mind the idea of equalization, but all the sh|t talking and pipeline opposition gets old real fast when the people doing it don't even realize Alberta directly subsidizes their tax bill.

 

[Blu-Ion]

Ok not to turn this into the Great Canadian Debate here, but Alberta's GDP is dependent on the rest of Canada, and vis-versa. Alberta is not island, nor is Quebec or Ontario. Saying stuff like "Alberta subsidizes your tax tax bill" is not accurate.
It's similar to say a family where father is a doctor and makes $300k per year and the wife makes $50k, would Doctor ever say that he subsidizes his wife? No, because there are likely factors in how the wife contributes in other ways that allows him to invest and spend more effort in making income.

 

[Tarpan]

Ok not to turn this into the Great Canadian Debate here, but Alberta's GDP is dependent on the rest of Canada, and vis-versa. Alberta is not island, nor is Quebec or Ontario. Saying stuff like "Alberta subsidizes your tax tax bill" is not accurate.
It's similar to say a family where father is a doctor and makes $300k per year and the wife makes $50k, would Doctor ever say that he subsidizes his wife? No, because there are likely factors in how the wife contributes in other ways that allows him to invest and spend more effort in making income.

The problem with your framing is that it totally ignores the desire to create narratives that match a predefined conclusion.

So rude.

 

[pb2000]

The problem with your framing is that it totally ignores the desire to create narratives that match a predefined conclusion.

So rude.

There are dumb people on both sides of the argument who want a nice neat narrative that fits into their worldview. What's your point?

 

[pb2000]

Ok not to turn this into the Great Canadian Debate here, but Alberta's GDP is dependent on the rest of Canada, and vis-versa. Alberta is not island, nor is Quebec or Ontario.

I'd say Alberta is vastly more economically integrated with the US and Asia than it is with Eastern Canada.

Saying stuff like "Alberta subsidizes your tax tax bill" is not accurate.

Like it or not, it's true. The most insidious part is when oil booms happen, it drives up the C$ and makes the rest of Canadian exports less competitive on world markets, driving down tax revenue in the rest of Canada.

It's similar to say a family where father is a doctor and makes $300k per year and the wife makes $50k, would Doctor ever say that he subsidizes his wife? No, because there are likely factors in how the wife contributes in other ways that allows him to invest and spend more effort in making income.

That is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. Can I make a bad one too by suggesting Quebec is the ex wife bleeding us dry via alimony?

 

[Tarpan]

There are dumb people on both sides of the argument who want a nice neat narrative that fits into their worldview. What's your point?

I think you summarized it well.

 

[inottawa]

I was looking at the purchase page for various Tesla’s today, and noticed that the model 3 has a check box for the standard range 3 which software limits the range to 110. This allows the car to fall under the rebate MSRP. After purchase you simply pay for the software unlock.

It would be nice to see them do something similar with a range limited X to drop below 100k (I seriously doubt they’ll price adjust on the dollar not make deliveries start before the end of the year).

 

[ccudmore]

After purchase you simply pay for the software unlock.

I’m pretty sure they aren’t offering a software unlock for this.

 

[cdswm3]

I was looking at the purchase page for various Tesla’s today, and noticed that the model 3 has a check box for the standard range 3 which software limits the range to 110. This allows the car to fall under the rebate MSRP. After purchase you simply pay for the software unlock.

It would be nice to see them do something similar with a range limited X to drop below 100k (I seriously doubt they’ll price adjust on the dollar not make deliveries start before the end of the year).

The range can not be unlocked.

 

[realtycoon]

Perhaps, but more than likely the $100k limit will not move, yet vehicle prices will increase with inflation, leading to more tax revenue.
They need to build inflation into the policy to move thresholds based on CPI or some other measure

That makes too much sense. Which is why it won't happen

Government can't help themselves but grab more and more as soon as they get the chance.