There's so much wrong with this article, I don't know where to start...
Daphne Bramham: We shouldn’t be subsidizing luxury cars, even if they’re electric
Daphne Bramham: We shouldn’t be subsidizing luxury cars, even if they’re electric
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Ktowntslafan
Member
f-stop
Active Member
There's a "luxury tax" additional 3% added to the PST in BC on all new cars over $57,000 (!)
So total PST of 10% on a new Tesla (plus the Federal gov't share, 5% GST)
Left a comment ...
"I wonder what it cost BC Hydro to install those 1,000 charging stations so that the rich can tootle around the province on free electricity."
If there are actually 1000 charging stations around the province they're not likely used much by Tesla drivers. These stations may make some sense for limited range EV's but are really only suited for emergency or destination use by a Tesla. They are mostly very low power 3 KWh units and incapable of charging a Tesla in any reasonable time frame. Tesla's Superchargers are 135KWh, designed for long distance, fast charging and are paid for by Tesla, not the government. Most Tesla, and in fact most EV drivers charge at home.
Also, the buyer of a $30,000 car will pay $2100 in provincial sales tax. The buyer of a $150,000 car will pay $15,000 in provincial sales tax. A $5000 rebate will result in the $30,000 buyer paying no tax and in fact receiving $2900 from the government. Meanwhile, the $150,000 car buyer will still be paying $10,000 in PST.
The rebate is a net 15% reduction in price for the budget car and a 3% reduction in price for the luxury car. As the point of the rebate is to promote electric vehicles this seems quite fair to me.
"I wonder what it cost BC Hydro to install those 1,000 charging stations so that the rich can tootle around the province on free electricity."
If there are actually 1000 charging stations around the province they're not likely used much by Tesla drivers. These stations may make some sense for limited range EV's but are really only suited for emergency or destination use by a Tesla. They are mostly very low power 3 KWh units and incapable of charging a Tesla in any reasonable time frame. Tesla's Superchargers are 135KWh, designed for long distance, fast charging and are paid for by Tesla, not the government. Most Tesla, and in fact most EV drivers charge at home.
Also, the buyer of a $30,000 car will pay $2100 in provincial sales tax. The buyer of a $150,000 car will pay $15,000 in provincial sales tax. A $5000 rebate will result in the $30,000 buyer paying no tax and in fact receiving $2900 from the government. Meanwhile, the $150,000 car buyer will still be paying $10,000 in PST.
The rebate is a net 15% reduction in price for the budget car and a 3% reduction in price for the luxury car. As the point of the rebate is to promote electric vehicles this seems quite fair to me.
While there are factual errors everywhere in that piece (come and pick you up on demand, eh?), I will go against the grain here and say I agree with the overarching ideal. That is, assuming a fixed pool of rebate cash, I'd rather see that pool be allocated toward the Model 3 and/or any other viable EV that comes along for the masses. Here in California, I have been supportive of the income phase-out for the statewide rebate. It's far from perfect, but it's a way to ensure that the incentives work for the people who are on the fence. I'm sure there are many examples where this isn't the case, but at the higher Tesla price ranges, I'd argue that rebate/incentives are far less effective than they'd be on the buyer of a 35k car. My feeling is that if I forego a rebate on a car I'd buy anyway, and two more people end up in EVs that wouldn't have, that's more along the lines of what the incentive means to do.
Since I'm not a Canadian, I don't want to weigh in too much more with regard to the provincial sales tax (and how any vehicle in that price range already pays it), etc. But I do not think it's unreasonable to question the efficacy of taxpayer subsidies on certain vehicles.
Since I'm not a Canadian, I don't want to weigh in too much more with regard to the provincial sales tax (and how any vehicle in that price range already pays it), etc. But I do not think it's unreasonable to question the efficacy of taxpayer subsidies on certain vehicles.
I also support how California is changing the EV incentive rules. It's the right thing to do.
Ktowntslafan
Member
+1!. Someone in Ontario can claim 25 14k incentives in a year for some vehicles, but one person who is trying to do their part and stretches to get a Tesla can only can get 3k on it. Certainly not fair. An income cap for families purchasing would be way more fair.
Ktowntslafan
Member
Jaff
Active Member
There are enough social programs in this country for wealth redistribution (Progressive income tax rates / claw backs for OAS & Family assistance programs / HST consumption taxes / etc.)
The EV incentive program should not be a part of any wealth redistribution scheme...it should be pure of goal, with the goal being rapidly increasing the amount of EVs on the road asap.
The EV incentive program should not be a part of any wealth redistribution scheme...it should be pure of goal, with the goal being rapidly increasing the amount of EVs on the road asap.
Another good point. There are many issues in the electrification of transportation. Charging infrastructure and the right to charge in multi-unit residential buildings is right up there too. I hope to have the response outlining all of these factors.
mknox
Well-Known Member
The current Ontario program has nothing to do with fairness. Seriously. It is an incentive program to try and nudge a behavior change with dollars. The government believes that Tesla or other $75k + vehicle purchasers do not require the nudge in order for them to purchase. I wish they would release their research to support this, but that is what it is all about.
However, I agree that a vehicle-agnostic formula (based on some proxy like battery size) with an income cap is a far more equitable way to go.
The reason to subsidize PEVs is that they are objectively better than non-PEVs and that they are currently more expensive because the new tech has a cost premium. The income of the buyer, or the price of the vehicle does not matter. It should simply be based on the underlying cost premium of electrification. Price and income-based caps are just idiotic politics. Whether or not the buyers need the subsidy is irrelevant.
Jaff
Active Member
Mike, I agree that this Guv policy as amended has nothing to do with fairness, however, as usual, they are making a mistake....this is a program which should be fair, but they have made a friggin hash of it!
To continue the discussion about what this is really about (Guv fairness, or lack thereof), will throw us way offside into politics.
To continue the discussion about what this is really about (Guv fairness, or lack thereof), will throw us way offside into politics.
Ktowntslafan
Member
I don't really see it as a wealth redistribution system. I believe there is an argument to be made that economic incentives are more meaningful, and therefore more effective at the lower income brackets. I think tax incentives should be structured to get the biggest return on the investment, which is why I support income phase-outs. To be fair, I'm falling short on pulling up good data on the efficacy of tax incentives as a function of income. Therefore, it's possible that my basic assumption is flawed, despite seeming "obvious".
mknox
Well-Known Member
Sorry, to be clear I meant the incentive program was not designed to be fair. Incentive programs rarely are. Nothing to do with partisan politics. Again, not defending it... just trying to differentiate between a program that offers a reward for doing something vs. a program that is intended to drive a behavior change (with Ontario's being the latter). I think what is at issue is whether or not the incentive is "needed" for $75k + cars... and with a lack of data, I don't have that answer.
Ktowntslafan
Member
I see this debate as:
Entrepreneurial vs Analytical
Number crunching is futile while GM and Koch Bros. are working the back room.
At this stage it's important we listen to the entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurial vs Analytical
Number crunching is futile while GM and Koch Bros. are working the back room.
At this stage it's important we listen to the entrepreneurs.
Similar threads
- Article
