Hi Everyone,
This was just announced an hour ago (link below)
https://www.caradvice.com.au/903101/victoria-to-tax-electric…
Seems to me like we are going backwards. Now Victoria and SA are the only 2 states in the world with these rules.
What do you guys thing? is this the right direction?
Tax on petrol is supposed to pay for maintaining roads. So why should not electric cars also contribute?
Under $6b spent on roads. Fuel excise approx $17b.
then shouldn't we lobby the gov to reduce the fuel excise? not to leave EV out of it?
@Keplaffintech: Government? Lowering taxes? I have a better chance of winning lotto.
It's all part of the entire budget anyway. If it gets reduced from fuel excise, it's increased somewhere else. Have to pay for all the rubbish somehow.
@brendanm: Our income tax was lowered recently - I'm about 50 bucks a week better off - good money IMO.
Just saying.
@R4: How long do you think that'll last? This is the first time I can think of that middle income earners actually got something.
@brendanm: Who knows. If the socialist Labor party get in they'll probably try and reverse it.
John Howard/Peter Costello reduced income tax quite a lot around 05/06.
There are further legislated tax cuts due in a few years, and as I earn a fairly high salary (not boasting, just saying) they will definitely be of benefit to me.
@R4: Yeah, nothing last long with the election cycle. As far as I'm concerned, people who put in the effort and hours should be rewarded, not punished.
If we're going to be fair, burning fuel has a cost far beyond the infrastructure cost.
@iDroid: Although I'm not an alarmist, I don't see why we need luxury tanks to get from A to B. Why not just get everyone on a scooter, decrease the fuel burn by about 900%
@iDroid: Unfortunately the fuel used to produce the electricity also contributes beyond the infrastructure costs. We are not quite there yet.
@zealmax: almost everyone I know that has an EV has solar panels (aside from the few that live in apartments.
aside from the few that live in apartments.
I can't imagine many people who live in apartments would have an EV unless they have dedicated charging points. I can just imagine strata going nuts if they found out someone was charging their vehicle with a common area powerpoint! lol
@bobbified: I know a few, some apartment garages have standard power points. Also inner city apartment dwellers drive a lot less than the average person and electricity is relatively cheap even at full rates. If the common area lights came on half an hour later it would save more electricity in some cases that an EV driver would use. I've even seen some that go to the local shopping centre to charge for free at their charge points, Tesla drivers in particular who then watch a movie on their in car dash while it charges
Under $6b spent on roads. Fuel excise approx $17b.
then you need to pay a get a license (and sometimes luxury car tax)
…
now + Electric car tax!?
Have to pay for those champagne breakfasts and overseas "junkets" somehow.
They don't pay for them, they're invited. And they're definitely not "gifts".
What do you think those remaining $11b goes to? And if everyone buy electric cars , government minus $17b, so what government do, tax something else … Electric cars. Bingo. Damn you guys are smart. 🤦
@boomramada: Another one that can't read. I have not said to never tax ev. At the moment, they want more people to use them, taxing them at this point is stupid. When it tips to a point where there are a greater percentage of ev, and revenue drops, then phase in a usage tax.
@brendanm: This whole thread is stupid and at what point they should start introducing the tax? Its actually better to know these things early. Imagine if some poor sucker bought a EV based on how much they can save on fuel. By knowing this people have some idea on future cost on cars, I hate surprises. I like to see how UK going to tackle this issue.
@boomramada: This is how everything happens. Things are cheap to incentivise take up of the technology. When everyone is using that technology, the amount coming in from fuel excise will be low. This will mean we don't have enough money for roads and maintenance. It's blatantly obvious they will be taxed somehow at some point. That point simply shouldn't be now.
There is no way Australia's road network of 920,000km only costs us $6b a year. No idea where you pulled that number from but by doing a little research the cost is a least $69b a year. Source here
@bsm2122: From the government budget. I'm not sure "doing a little research" is going to the website of a group who hates cars, and who is not the government.
Edit - lol, just at a quick glance, they claim $15b in "road trauma" from crashes, as part of the cost of maintains roads. Even though that's covered under CTP, and has nothing to do with maintaining roads.
They also count "land usage cost", and make up an arbitrary amount paid as "rent" for the land the roads are on. Your source is actually embarrassing.
Maximum bus rider cope.
@brendanm: How is my source embarrassing while you show nothing to prove your claim. I've tried to find the $6b in the budget for roads but can't. I did find a cost of $28.7b spent on roads during the financial year 2017-18. I have linked the source straight from the Department of Infrastructure government website. Source here
transport infrastructure spending, including infrastructure spending on roads ($5.6 billion in 2019-20) and rail transport ($1.0 billion in 2019–20)
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart…
I have already said why your source is rubbish.
@brendanm: Oh, now I see where you are misled. You only take into account roads the commonwealth are responsible for, like the national highway. The majority of funding for roads come from state and local governments.
@brendanm: It's a federal tax, just like income tax and GST. A large portion of the federal budget is given to state governments for them to spend on things such as roads.
Then reform the petrol tax.
Yes, Saudi and Russian roads with the billions sent to oil producing states.
But the tax (and excise) stays here.
@iDroid: 60c goes to the Russians and Saudis which is more than the excise.
If you as a family keeps on paying out 60c to some guy offshore, does it come back, does it benefit the business down the road?
Exactly this. The fact that the proposal is coming from 2 of Australias most progressive and green states suggests articles like this with little background and information are out to smear the proposal and governments rather than provide insight into the benefits a reasons.
Judging by the poll, they're doing a good job of it.
While I agree with the idea of evs paying for the roads the drive on there are some massive fundamental flaws with this tax.
I can understand a change like this and extra costs would be frustrating for people who have already invested in ev cars. But I guess thats that's an unfortunate part of being an early investor in a new technology which is evolving and rules and costs around it are evolving with it.
Correct, the difference in efficiency in models would be unfair but that's the model currently with fuel excise through tax being the same regardless of whether you have a 3 cylinder Daihatsu or a V12 Bugatti.
There's new roads, new bridges, freeways, lights, road widening, safety barriers and so on.
I don't know if the proposal is the best model. But it's a step towards acknowledging EV is going to be the future and the way road management is handled needs to adapt. And like with any change, it will affect some people negatively and cause push back from people who are happy with the current system.
@Herbse: Regarding your 2nd point isn't the current fuel excise applied as an additional cost per litre of fuel (currently $0.418 per litre for unleaded petrol)? So gas guzzlers are effectively paying more tax to travel a certain distance (doesn't really matter that everyone pays the same per L of fuel, as most people are most concerned with how far they can travel and how much it costs them)
With this EV tax it seems that they want to charge extra $ per km travelled regardless of how much electricity the EV used to travel that distance so this is fundamentally different to what existed before.
I'm not against eventually introducing some tax to cover road maintenance etc. once petrol/diesel vehicles end up as the minority of vehicles out there. But introducing such a tax this early when we need every incentive to encourage EV adoption is frankly stupid and/or greedy
Correct, the difference in efficiency in models would be unfair but that's the model currently with fuel excise through tax being the same regardless of whether you have a 3 cylinder Daihatsu or a V12 Bugatti.
Have a read of what you wrote, and have a bit more of a think about that.
@flametornado: This.
Roads degrade due to truck wear, cars have an almost negligible impact. The loss in fuel excise seems to be the only driver behind this argument. Personally i think it's a pretty short sighted tax and the opposite of what they should be implementing. I think the health department would have something to say about this when it's effectively penalizing those who choose to reduce pollution, reducing smog and airborne particles.
Even the conservative clusterf*ck of America subsidises electric vehicles, just goes to show the power of the oil lobby here and the influence they have.
@flametornado: Yep agreed on all your points here. What I don't understand is that other countries are promoting EVs through upfront subsidies. This feels like we're penalising EVs here by making them more expensive to run. This definitely won't help with improving uptake.
EVs also help reduce emissions in populated areas which has other health benefits. These health benefits if not emitting anything in populated areas should have a value as less illnesses, people in hospital, etc which cost the economy money. It doesn't feel like this has been costed in this fee.
@flametornado: @flametornado what kind of EV do you drive? And/or where are you buying electricity?
Why do I ask?
The Tesla model 3, allegedly the most efficient consumer EV (according to https://driving.ca/hyundai/kona-electric/features/feature-st…) uses around 15kWh per 100km or 0.15kWh/km.
My buy price is 29c/kWh which would be about 4c/km in that car.
At 22c/kWh (a good online quote I found) it's down to 3.3c/km.
At 1c/km the buy price needs to be 6.6c/kWh… I want to buy at that price from a retailer, please! Spot pricing on the AEM says that 6c/kWh is … low ( https://www.aemc.gov.au/energy-system/electricity/electricit… ).
Can you fill in the blanks for the rest of us please?
@saliya: I drive a kona electric, and I generally drive it at 80kph or less which gives me an efficiency of around 13.5 kwh per 100km.
I am also on powershop's ev pricing which gives me a 4 hour window of 7c/kwh from midnight to 4am. I also have solar panels and the feed in tarif is also about 7c/kwh.
@flametornado: @flametornado Thanks! Powershop's 7c/kWh pricing is something that's of interest! Cheers, SW
@saliya: It's not all sunshine and rainbows though, since it's time of use pricing https://www.powershop.com.au/electric-vehicle-tariff/electri….
General Usage | 01 Jul - 30 Jun | Mon-Fri
Peak 1300 to 1959
32.33 cents/kWh
Shoulder-1 0700 to 1259
23.12 cents/kWh
Shoulder-1 2000 to 2159
23.12 cents/kWh
Shoulder-2 0000 to 0359
6.94 cents/kWh
Off-Peak 0400 to 0659
13.78 cents/kWh
Off-Peak 2200 to 2359
13.78 cents/kWh
General Usage | 01 Jul - 30 Jun | Weekends
Shoulder-1 0700 to 2159
23.12 cents/kWh
Off-Peak 0000 to 0659
13.78 cents/kWh
Off-Peak 2200 to 2359
13.78 cents/kWh
@flametornado: Hi Flame, How many KM can you go on full charge if you try to maintain 95kmph? And how many mins to get it fully charged after draining it? Thanks!!
@trinkasharma: I can go somewhere between 450 and 500 km at a around 95kph, you lose 5-10% on AC if you want that on (depends on temperature). Going up and down hills hurts that another 10-15%.
I pretty much never fully charge it, I generally charge it to 80% and only got to 100% if I'm about to drive long distance. I generally keep it between 40 and 80% full but that's mostly because I can fill up 40% pretty comfortably during my off peak cheap electricity time. If I got a better charger (which is my only real regret), I would just have it charging off the solar panels.
It takes about 10 hours to fully charge from 0 (using a wall charger that I got installed), though I've never tested that, the lowest I've gone is 5%.
If you use the provided cable that plugs into a standard socket, it's more like 35 hours.
If you use a supercharger, it's 40 min from 10-80%, and another 40 min for 80%-100% (which is another reason I'd never bother with that last 20% unless it was charging overnight just before I went on a big trip).
As if to suggest that greens and those who baselessly self-ascribe the title of "progressive" are of pure intentions no matter what.
The response from a lot of people is more that this is putting the cart before the horse. i.e. this tax should be implemented in 10-20 years when there's lots of EVs
The value of the tax is minimal at the moment and it's isn't a good idea to distinctiveniss EV uptakes because of all their advantages.
@Zephyrus: That's fair enough but I didn't see a date applied to it.
It's a proposal that's part of a study that was done on EV cars. The levy is a small part of the proposal to deal and grow with them as a long term part of the community.
Beats ignoring them and hoping people continue to buy fuel cars.
@Herbse: The tax is applied in Victoria from July 2021.
Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea for a tax. Taxing usage is a good idea, the problem is that there's not many EV's on the roads and they're already very expensive to buy. There's also a lot of positive externalities from EV usage so we really should be trying to get people to buy more in the short term, not tax them.
Implementing this when we have a certain percentage of EVs and a shortfall in revenue from the fuel excise is a much better way to do it.
So why should not electric cars also contribute?
They cars themselves don't emit deadly emissions to the world and for nearby pedestrians. At least for the short to medium term, I think there should be no tax so as to encourage electric vehicle adoption.
Intelligent and successful economies/countries like USA actually give rebates and tax incentives for electric vehicles, not the the other way around.
Imagine holding up the US as a way to run our country and economy.
When you plug your EV in at night where do you think the power is coming from? Australia is still 75% coal powered..
If we'd adopted nucleur power in this country there might be some argument that EV's are better for the environment but while you're feeding your EV power produced from coal the perception that they are better for the environment is a complete farce.
@connorlo: Nuclear is a decent solution for 10 years ago, but right now that ship has sailed.
It takes far too long and it's not financially feasible to spin up a new large scale nuclear reactor right now, especially given the price drops of solar and wind, and battery storage. If such a project was started now, by the time it'd be ready to go, it'd likely be a loss leader.
On the small scale nuclear reactors, that's definitely a possibility, but that's an untried technology so there is risk in how that will perform.
@Slopshua: I'd say I'll just sit here while you go Google how much CO2 comes from an EV powered by a coal grid and how much comes from an ICE vehicle powered by petrol or diesel but let's be straight with one another here: you're not the slightest bit interested in facts, are you?
I'd also say I'll just sit here to wait for you to further elaborate on your arguments by, say, arguing for exemptions for people who charge their car on solar, or who purchase 100% offsets for their power through plans like GreenChoice, or who live in jurisdictions like the ACT which has 100% offsets, but again, being straight: you're not the slightest bit interested in nuance.
but while you're feeding your EV power produced from coal
Running an electric vehicle on 100% coal is more environmentally friendly than 100% petrol due to efficiencies in energy generation. That's in the worst case scenario, then you can add in renewables to make it better. You can't add in renewables with petrol cars.
the perception that they are better for the environment is a complete farce.
This comment is untrue but let's just give you the benefit of the doubt and say this was correct… even then it would still be better to help transition to electric cars. Why? Because the world will run out of oil one day and then all cars around the world will grind to a halt and kill the economy for real.
@watwatwat: @watwatwat
" Running an electric vehicle on 100% coal is more environmentally friendly than 100% petrol due to efficiencies in energy generation."
This is completely incorrect…
Efficiency of a thermal coal plant is approx. 40%, an older plant may be 35%, which is in line of an efficient petrol vehicle.
Now, coal has heating values between 30000 kJ/kg and 16,000 kJ/kg, Petrol is about 46,000kJ/kg thus for the same energy requirements you need to burn more coal, thus release more CO2. This is not even considering that coal has more carbon atoms per kg, thus additional CO2 is released, and not including ash produced.
@MechEng: You're not factoring in the refinement, transportation, storage, and extraction of oil to create Petrol. Petrol is a convenient medium that is very energy dense- and lots of energy is used to make it that way.
At least the coal is dug out here in Australia. Should also factor in line losses from coal power stations that bring it down to probably more like 15% efficiency end to end.
Also should note that many EV owners will charge off their own solar and batteries- it seems to be culturally very popular among that group of users.
@andgucps: Agree with you that oil is energy intense and convenient, hence the difficulty in replacing it. I would add to it cheap too.
The emissions in mining and refining emissions are already accounted at the place of emission, otherwise you will be double counting, but even if we are counting those, coal have fugitive methane emissions, transport, and processing emissions too that are not accounted for in my simplistic comparison.
If you can charge on solar it is ok, but that will not be the case for most people, or we will have cities that are covered in solar panels, what happens with people that live in apartment buildings, where do they get their solar from.
For EVs to be true low emissions, we need to decarbonise the grid (nuclear), then wont matter where you charge your ev.
There are several scientific papers about life cycle emissions of electric vehicles, I would recommend to read them before buying an EV. Refining of battery elements are highly energy intensive, and thus emit a lot, specially considering that most batteries are made in China
Other costs that people are not considering is grid upgrades, those will need to happen to accommodate a high penetration to EVs.
@MechEng: The only ICE cars that get anywhere near 40% thermal efficiency are F1 cars. So yes, a petrol vehicle. But not a road vehicle. The thermal efficiency of a regular road car is about 25%.
Australia is still 75% coal powered
Is what world is 100% non renewable (crude oil) plus the cost of actually shipping it here with (dirty) bulk diesel is better than coal which is dug up usually next to the power station?
Correct, I think most people concur that there's no issue with introducing this tax later on in the future when the vast majority of cars are EV. However, in the current state, it's going to discourage people to upgrade to electric.
We already pay stamp duty on car sales, so that should cover some of the cost.
Don't worry just like land stamp duty they will do away with that and give you an annual car tax that works out for the government to be more revenue over the long run.
Petrol vehicle are next to pay this usage charge you watch. They'll soften everyone up with the "only fair for EV's to pay" then roll it out to all road users.
As long as they reduce fuel excise in return then why not? The current system penalizes the poor who cannot afford efficient or electric vehicles. Realistically though the idea that only people that drive on roads benefit them is flawed to begin with but governments love to make taxes as complicated as possible.
That's what proponents of this scheme always peddle out as an excuse but the reality is there's nothing that ties the fuel excise to road infrastructure spending.
Now Victoria and SA are the only 2 states in the world with these rules.
What's the point in getting an efficient electric vehicle if the government is going to tax it??
Just out of interest, Germany taxes solar power for systems rated above 4 kW. Another example of what could await us in the future is the cost of electricity at fast-charging points on German autobahns: 99 euro cents (about $1.60) per kWh.
someone has to pay for the roads etc. Currently a chunk of that is from fuel tax. Perhaps you would prefer they just increased rego costs? regardless something has to give somewhere as electric marketshare increases.
$10b more is collected than is spent on roads.
and? does that mean EV users should be excluded for some reason? It is supposed to cover roads, emergency services, policing and a great deal more. I am sure they do pull in far more than the area needs but I don't see how that is a justification for giving one group a free ride.
@gromit: For the same reason that they subsidised solar panels etc. They apparently want to reduce emissions etc, so they can take the hit on the small number of EVs, to make it worth it for people to purchase them. When the amount raised by revenue is less than what is needed "for the roads", then tax EVs, as there will be a heap of them then, and prices will be lower due to the larger uptake.
Going by your logic, why should low income people who pay no/low income tax, get to use hospitals etc? They don't pay for them?
@brendanm: And for the exact same reasons many of the solar subsidizes are being rolled back and people have to pay for connectivity charges. It is better to start taxing EV's now, If you want to encourage EV use then add a few extra cents to the Fuel excise for cars. The government isn't a bottomless pit of money, everything they spend comes from tax payers, there is absolutely no reason for EV's to get a free ride here.
And actually if you want to bring in social services as an example then it would work the opposite. Social services is based on your ability to pay, going by that EV's owners generally would pay significantly more.
@gromit: You can get an ev for $60k brand new. That's the same or less than many of the SUVs people buy these days. It's not like they are $150k.
Can't say I've seen solar subsidies rolled back, if anything they are doubling down in some states and offering discounted batteries as well.
@brendanm: I wish I was in a financial position to think $60k is cheap. solar subsidies are reducing across the board, please point out where they are doubling?
@gromit: Didn't say it was cheap. Said it was cheaper than lots of SUVs that everyone seems to have no problem bearing able to afford. When you add much reduced servicing, fuel and rego costs, it actually works out quite good in the long run.
I never said doubling?
I never said doubling?
"if anything they are doubling down in some states and offering discounted batteries as well."
sorry if I misunderstood that statement then. Yes battery subsidies are coming in but that is storage. Solar feed in tarrifs have been on the decline for a long time as have government panel and installation subsidies.
@gromit: Feed in tariffs are not solar subsidies.
Victorians are eligible for the federal, as well as a state subsidy. Sa also offers battery subsidies, as well as solar subsidies.
Doubling down simply means going even further than they already were.
@brendanm: many Feed in tariffs WERE subsidies as they had rates way way above what the value of the power being injected back into the system was.
@gromit: Some council contribute $500 on Solar, in addition of the Certificates that your installer discounts the installation
people have to pay for connectivity charges
You talking about connection or the new supply charge the other way because poor people can't afford solar and they are subsidizing those that can with their daily supply charge.
It is a bit of a furphy to think 1/3 of cost of electricity is network charges then there is the daily supply charge and now they want to add another charge so you can selling solar back to them at 10.2c (in Victoria) when peak electricity is 20c+
The math don't add up but then for politicians and money grubs the math never adds up because no matter how you add there is never enough money.
They already increased rego costs and it's still not enough. Perhaps they could reduce spending elsewhere…
That is another option, though people whine just as loudly about any government spending cutbacks.
Need to pay extra for mate property these days
That's why we charge fuel efficient cars an additional tax, while we let V8s cruise around tax free - because they pay more than their fair share of fuel excise, while efficient cars aren't paying their fair share.
Oh wait we don't do that because it's batsh*t insane
“Even after the introduction of this charge for usage of our road network, people driving electric vehicles will pay between 40 and 45 per cent less than motorists driving in a car fuelled by petrol or diesel,”
Sums it up.
Gotta paid those billion dollars somehow. It is ok top public servants got paid rise
"The new charge has been brought in to offset the loss of revenue collected from the sale of petrol and diesel."
Government loses money, government puts measures in place to retain money.
The hell, I don’t own a hybrid or electric but this is stupid. They need to recoup their costs elsewhere.
They need to recoup their costs elsewhere.
People of Australia while they are more than happy for us to burn fuel from crude of such people friendly states as Saudi Arabia and Russia.
What's the point in getting an efficient electric vehicle if the government is going to tax it?? Daft 🤦