EV Tax Being Challenged in High Court with a Fundraiser Campaign. Please Consider Supporting The Cause

• 1
• 2

• • • • • • • • 

                tunzafun001 on 24/09/2021 - 21:52

                @CMH: You have highlighted the problem perfectly…

                Your calculation (and in fairness Tim Pallas did exactly the same) forgets the obvious…

                Electric cars require energy. They don't run on nothing.

                That 100km will require (depending on the car), but in my case 28-30kwh of electricity. Unfortunately electrical conversion is <90% efficient. So 28/0.9 = 31.1 kWh.

                So 31*0.33c/kWh = $10.23 (so another $1.02 in GST collection).

                Cheaper rates are available during the day here, but you can't get those if you are at work. Same for solar.

                Then a battery will last around 2500 -3000 cycles (mine was replaced, thankfully as "goodwill" at 61% capacity after 1460 cycles). A replacement costs around $12k, and the next one is my cost. So $4 per cycle. 100km = 2.5 cycles. So 2.5*4= $10… batteries attract GST, so another $1.

                So without the tax, the cost to drive 100km is $10.23+$10 = $20.23.

                That is the equivalent of $20.23/1.40/L = 14.45 litres of petrol.

                Add the tax and that becomes the cost equivalent of around 16L/100 petrol.

                But talking pure tax collection (if you look at the YouTube link in the heading) you will see the extra cost+stamp duty to purchase an EV model over a petrol equivalent model is equal to just over 6 years of petrol excise up front (based on the average km driven per year).

                Then they get another $2.02 in GST per 100km (which is pretty close to the average petrol excise of a modern small car as it is). Could of left it at that. Call me crazy, they might have even considered and *"incentive** for paying extra for an EV, and prepaying the equivalent tax.

                But nah, have an extra $2.50 per 100km on top.

                If you drive a PHEV (and still pay excise anyway), plus all of the above.. they decided to whack $2 per 100km on top. WTF.

                I'm happy to pay a little more to use electricity as it is better for the environment (ie my old petrol car uses 8L/100km), and as you can see from the calcs above, electric driving is more expensive.

                But paying even more, just in tax that simply goes to general revenue, which ultimately discourages EV uptake, encouraging people to buy another petrol car…

                It makes no sense however you slice it.

                • 

                  CMH on 25/09/2021 - 01:46

                  +1

                  @tunzafun001: Why use your car as an example? The numbers seem exceptionally crap; are you saying your car does 40km per charge? And for a battery that size, it costs $12k to replace?

                  Mate, a Tesla Model 3's battery doesn't cost much more, if any, to replace and (claims) does upwards of 350km. Your cost for battery replacement/km just got reduced to 10% of your claim.

                  Tesla Model 3 (2021 model at least) claims an efficiency of 147 Wh/km. x100 is 14.7kWh/100km, which is half the consumption you claim for your vehicle.

                  Based on this revised numbers:
                  14.7/0.9 = 16.33
                  16.33*0.33=$5.39
                  $5.39+$1=$6.39
                  $6.39/1.4=4.56L of petrol.

                  And immediately your case just falls to pieces buddy.

                  Again, you're just trying to defend the cost of running your car. I mean, if we're trying to calculate the worst case scenarios we could pull up fuel consumption numbers for V8s on a test track for a comparison.

                  And since you're dumping all the costs of running your EV, shouldn't we also calculate all the costs of running an ICE vehicle for a fair comparison? What happened to oil changes, spark plug changes, air filter changes, battery (yes, those need to be changed every so often on an ICE vehicle too!), coolant flush, all of which aren't applicable for an EV (in the case of the battery you already added that to EV costs)?

                  • 

                    tunzafun001 on 25/09/2021 - 12:14

                    -1

                    @CMH: I should have made the numbers simpler..so here goes.

                    The excise tax payable to the Vic government for a petrol / Diesel Car, truck, bus , motorbike

                    10000km * $0 = $0

                    The tax payable to the Vic government for a ZLEV is 10000 * 0.025 = $250
                    (or $200 for PHEVs, Hydrogen vehicles and other).

                    Easy as that $0 vs $250/ $200.

                    To answer your question. Yes, all the numbers are bang on correct. Two tonne vehicle.

                    A Tesla is great CBD car, but wouldnt make it 500m down my road and can't legally tow heavy loads. Some of us need off-road ability and towing. I can't give you accurate Tesla costs, as I don't have one. But as you say, they are probably similar, but with less cycle costs.

                    Some of your maintenance costs still apply to electric. Electric motors have cooling fluid, some require transaxle changes. A PHEV (which is ZLEV taxed), requires all those things listed.

                    But I'm sure you will still claim that is reasonable. "It's the vehicles fault"..and "You shouldn't have bought that car"….even though this BS didn't exist when I bought it years ago.

                    Also, remembering the bit I'll keep reiterating. We don't all live in the CBD. With current technology, a PHEV is the only entry point into going EV for many rural and regional drivers. The infrastructure isn't there yet. It's nowhere near the time for a ZLEV excise system.

                    But it really doesn't matter.

                    **Excise or ZLEV excise collection is not the job of the state, it's a Federal jurisdiction. The money then divided up (for actual road maintenance, not state general revenue). The state claims it goes to road maintenance. That is 100% incorrect/ a blatant lie and will be a significant part of this case.

                    Even ignoring everything else I have said…if we are going to make in-roads into this global $hit storm we have created, ZLEVS (that's all tech that is better than ICE and is now taxed), should have an incentive, not a tax.

                    • 

                      CMH on 25/09/2021 - 23:26

                      @tunzafun001: Again, all back to how it affects you and the car you bought 2 years ago.

                      I get it, the tax should be collected at the federal level. If that was the foundation of the argument I'd support it.

                      However, this is basically a protest against a tax disguised as a protest to promote green tech. It's not about being green at all, at least not based on this thread.

                      We don't all live in the CBD.

                      I know. But that's where most Australians live. Depending on which data you look at, between 71% and 86% of Australians live in urban areas. If you truly want to change the world and actually enact something that reduces the population's carbon footprint, that's where you would actually focus on. Instead you bang on about how it affects YOU.

                      If you truly believe you "will need to explain to her that we sat in traffic burning fuel going nowhere" you're much better off focusing your efforts into something that actually will make an impact.

                      Focusing on a tax that costs $300 to the average Australian driving 15,000 km on cars that cost $60,000… Like others said, most EV drivers wouldn't give a hoot. Anyone weighing up if an EV is the car for them aren't considering EV's for a myriad of other reasons; this tax probably doesn't even come into the conversation. Fix those other reasons first. Fixing this first is like buffing the scratch on your bumper while your brake lines are leaking.

                      Oh, and now that you know how much this tax screws you around, perhaps time to get rid of that PHEV? Assuming everything goes well, and the tax is eventually repealed you're still looking at a long time before it happens.

                  • 

                    tunzafun001 on 05/10/2021 - 11:48

                    @CMH: You also got me thinking about what is the average vehicle in Australia. Australia still loves a larger vehicle that can tow.

                    https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/motoring-news/th…

                    So my data would actually be conservative compared to the current top selling vehicles in Australia once/ if they become EV/ PHEV options.

                    Which is what this is all about. Getting off fossil fuels as quick as possible.

• 

  tunzafun001 on 26/09/2021 - 02:17

  "I get it, the tax should be collected at the federal level. If that was the foundation of the argument I'd support it".
  Cool, support it for just this then.

  "You bang on how it effects you".
  Just sharing first hand data. Not many drivers are yet to have EV experience, and if you take the legislation as fact (which totally omits that EVs pay a heap in GST instead ), then you would think the ZLEV tax might make sense.

  As for "$300 per avg vehicle", not many will care. I think we all should. What if the tax was $300 on solar panels, insulation batts, train tickets, recycling bins..etc.. It shouldn't make a difference. Any tax moving against the public good should ring alarm bells.

  As for "focusing your efforts into something that actually will make an impact".
  I sit on a hill and can clearly see the smog haze over the CBD. During lockdown it was the first time I saw it almost clear. Agreed, targetting Cargo ships would have a bigger impact, but they don't have a solution that has been in place for 10 years and still not adopted…and now being decentivised with a tax…that has a group willing to tackle it head on.

  As for selling the PHEV. I'm massively conflicted between giving the gas loving government money and looking after the planet. This has probably also smashed it's resale value. We are probably going to move, as its all getting rediculous in this state. But I'll still continue to support this cause.

  Curiously, Why do you think the tax would take a long time to be reversed? It only started 2 months ago?

  • 

    CMH on 27/09/2021 - 02:28

    +1

    Cool, support it for just this then.

    Problem is, that's not the argument. That's not the argument they're bringing in (and if they're really about being green, they wouldn't suggest the government bring it in the federal level). So unless you're advocating that the ends justifies the means, I wouldn't be supporting this petition.

    Just sharing first hand data.

    Problem with your first hand data is that your data is so far out of the norm any decent statistician would disregard it, but you claim it is what every potential EV owner will face.

    Curiously, Why do you think the tax would take a long time to be reversed? It only started 2 months ago?

    Curiously, how long do you think cases that get to the high court take to resolve? Are we talking hours/days/weeks/months/years? That's assuming this is heard immediately.

    As for "$300 per avg vehicle", not many will care. I think we all should. What if the tax was $300 on solar panels, insulation batts, train tickets, recycling bins..etc.. It shouldn't make a difference. Any tax moving against the public good should ring alarm bells.

    The truth is that there's taxes for using any form of infrastructure. If anything, perhaps arguments should be made that this tax be deferred in the interest of promoting EVs rather than being withdrawn.

    • 

      tunzafun001 on 27/09/2021 - 13:11

      -1

      Not sure what the issue is with my data, other than it's based on years of real world driving (Not the usual BS sticker on a window no one can achieve). Lots of nuances with electric cars that doesn't 'translate' with petrol.

      Ie. Highway driving is generally more efficient with petrol, electric is the complete opposite. I'll get 30% plus more range at 50km/h than 100km/h. So metro and regional will be different. Distance based tax doesn't work.

      Using a heater makes a huge difference, these are high drain comforts that don't really effect petrol as its a by product. No manufacturer states the 'range of their ranges'. But those handing out taxes should do their due diligence as kWh per 100kms can vary by almost 50%. But don't believe me. Jump in any EV you want. Chuck the heater on and go for a drive down a 100km/h road. Look at the range remaining.

      The temperature of the day makes a huge difference to Lithium/ electric efficiency and most importantly longevity.

      No manufacturer gives the real world data. They only gives you the best case scenario. 25C, no wind, 50km/h, flat ground, no cabin comforts turned on. The pollies have no idea how the tech works. They simply are working from a Petrol car mindset. This is the 'lack of due diligence' on the tech I referred to earlier.

      But the cost I don't really care about (but this is a tax, and lets face it, legally only numbers will talk). The moral, ethical, duty of care elements are a no brainer, but numbers are usually the answer.

      Lastly, I agree on the deferment option. This should be deferred to the Federal Government who will need to find a way to recoup the lost excise. I suspect a tax on the charging infrastructure would be the go, ie x % on the electrons going in (same as excise). But now is definitely not the time, not morally, ethically or financially and definitely not the states job.

• 

  CMH on 27/09/2021 - 23:37

  +1

  Not sure what the issue is with my data, other than it's based on years of real world driving

  Like I keep pointing out, your data sounds very much like the worst possible case scenario: heavy vehicle, tiny battery. Probably with none of the optimizations usual full EVs get since you don't have to worry about range. I'm guessing the electric motor is probably smaller than what one would expect from a 2T vehicle. If you were driving the average EV your data would be more credible.

  Using a heater makes a huge difference, these are high drain comforts that don't really effect petrol as its a by product.

  Why are we comparing creature comforts? Should we be rioting over the cost of electricity to power our air conditioners in summer too? Sounds like you're grasping at straws, but lets address it.

  Why compare just heating? There's something we could compare apples to apples: air conditioning. Turning air conditioning can increase fuel consumption as much as 20% (or a lot more if you're stationary).

  Also, range anxiety is a problem every EV driver faces. I really don't see what this has to do with the argument at all.

  No manufacturer gives the real world data.

  True, but there's plenty of real world data out there which are within ballpark of the manufacturer's numbers.

  I suspect a tax on the charging infrastructure would be the go, ie x % on the electrons going in (same as excise).

  I disagree. If you're using public roads, you pay for the privilege. A per-km charge is the only way to go. I'm more than happy for them to remove the petrol excise and get every vehicle to pay per-km: everyone's on equal footing then. As for morally, ethically or financially…. I think it depends on who you ask isn't it? Looking at the responses in this thread (and the donations so far) it doesn't look like this fundraiser is a very popular one among OzBers. Anyone but green zealots would see why.

  • 

    tunzafun001 on 28/09/2021 - 01:46

    A/C or heating, it doesn't matter. Both around 3kw. The impact of either is far more significant on electric than ICE engines. Basic physics. People will work this out for themselves. Higher rates of draining also accelerates battery degradation. Anyway..getting off track..

    "If you're using public roads, you pay for the privilege."

    Sounds good to me, but who are you going to pay for this privilege? I think the answer should surely be the entity responsible for laying and maintaining the road. This is not the case here.

    "Every vehicle to pay per km and everyone's on even footing".

    Hey, now we are agreeing, but this isnt happening yet, so too soon to implement something like this.

    I'm still not sure of the unit of measure to use to be on an even footing. Kms would have a bias for either ICE or EV (as per earlier ICE maybe favoured in highway areas, yet EV is disadvantaged. The reverse being true in CBD). Maybe that is a good thing. Not sure.

    Then what rates/ who should pay the most for road use? The heavy vehicles who do the most damage? Currently they go the other way and get tax relief /subsidies! Also,as far as I know, there isnt an incentive at all for having an EV truck.

    https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Fuel-schemes/Fuel-tax-credit…

    So a lot of reform required, but I think we agree Vic have jumped the gun.

    P.S. I notice we both seem to have negs/ +s come and go. So must be a lot of divide out there. I have never negged any of your comments. So not coming from me.

    I appreciate someone having a conversation around the topic.

    I should also point out some of my comments may appear to seem negative towards EVs. This isnt the case (I think they are brilliant), but it's new gen tech and has a few wrinkles and mindset shifts to overcome. There is definitely a lot more costs you don't think about. But the driving experience and sitting behind one in locked traffic or going up a hill (no smell/ pollution).. brilliant. Wish there was another 4WD EV option available.

    As for raising $40k so far. I think it's a highly commendable effort. Hardly anyone really gives a stuff about the environment these days (unless it has an Instagram opportunity) and especially not a road tax. People also don't realise our level of EV uptake is very poor on the global stage. So they are doing well.

    • 

      CMH on 28/09/2021 - 03:27

      +1

      I've never negged yours neither.

      I'm not sure what taxes heavy vehicles incur, but I agree they should be taxed more. On the other hand, to some extent they are a vital form of transport. Who knows how best to apportion the costs here.

      I think the answer should surely be the entity responsible for laying and maintaining the road.

      Depending on which road, would be between the state and your local council. The federal government funds a select number of critical roads. Based on this I believe the state collecting tax to pay for roads is fair, is it not?

      • 

        tunzafun001 on 28/09/2021 - 12:55

        -1

        We definitely over rely on trucks and totally dropped the ball on electric freight rail..well even diesel rail for that matter, but that is a different conversation.

        According to this, Local Councils use rate payer funds for roads and three key grant areas from the Federal Government. Ie. Roads to Recovery etc …

        https://alga.asn.au/policy-centre/roads-and-infrastructure/r…

        As we know, the Federal government get this from Fuel Excise and GST collection.

        If the current ZLEV tax revenue actually went directly into road maintenance program (as this tax proclaims it does), then I would have less issue with it. But it definitely does not.

        States have Rego, Licensing and Stamp Duty for their road infrastructure requirements.

        Getting back to an earlier comment, Tim Pallas wants to sell off and Privatise Vic Roads. So just creating income streams for padding the sale, at the expense of EVs (lowest uptake rate globally, limiting models being offered here, and a physical actual expense).

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/13219432

        Again, another conversation, but ask SA how selling off Public infrastructure worked out (China owns their energy grid). The grid hasn't been updated in years, and now they simply turn off solar exporting on sunny days as the grid can't handle it.

        As we discussed above, if we are doing it, then it should also be equally applied to everyone. This is not happening.

        I think we are starting to see the cracks in the Legislation and see how the portrayal of the tax doesn't match the reality.

  • 

    tunzafun001 on 04/10/2021 - 13:26

    Just saw some fuel consumption data in another post.
    A 2020 -21 model MG PHEV, and their data seems exactly the same.

    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/654184#comment-11145973

• 

  tunzafun001 on 19/10/2023 - 22:46

  Well..well ..

  https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/high-court-rejects-…

  massive ramifications even outside the ZLEV.

  A shit sandwich that should never have been served up. Well done Tim!

• 1
• 2