Tesla got another price drop this Monday and those Model 3 are in stock at the moment. If you don't want to wait for the new 2024 version and wish to take the price benefit + government rebate, then give it a go.
The NSW EV stamp duty free and rebate will end by the end of this year. So, if you are looking for those benefits then must be quick.
Model Y & 3 purchase: Referee gets 90 days Enhanced Autopilot. Referrer gets 5,000 credits. Referrer can also earn 100 credits if the referee takes a test drive.
Limit of up to 12 order referrals and 60 test drive referrals per calendar year.
Sadly no longer works on 3 orders, including these inventory cars. Ever since highland orders opened there are no referrals on 3s. Still works for a Y order though.
I thought they brought the 3 back into the referral program now that its been a couple weeks..?
Nope. Click on a referral above and have a look. Only option when you click through is for a Y or test drive. And even when you navigate away from that page after clicking through, and then selecting a 3, it won’t apply the referral if you have a look at the invoice estimate it provides.
For me it shows a referral discount of $250 Off
+ 3 mo. Full Self-Driving Capability for all models S3XY.
That’s the us site, change to au and only the model y is there
OOS
Wow, just checked out the EV rebates. It's only $100 in VIC. What a joke. Thought we were the most left-wing state in Aus.
Yep and also the most broke.
Go woke, go broke
Yeah Andrews and his big build and everyone's fault for the debt incurred
Exactly. I'd much rather pay people to not have another car, regardless of what powers it. There's plenty of traffic already
Rich aussies want total comfort
3 and Y Luxury??
When working people can't rely on public transport, it's pretty "luxurious" of the Government to be subsidising $55,000 EVs for wealthy people to plug into their subsidised solar panels and make even more savings while we're paying $2/L+…
Maybe those people worked really hard
And working people on public transport aren't working very hard? They're just "the poors" that don't work hard enough, right?
@coffeeinmyveins: I didn't say that. But bestroadtech seems to have something against anyone who can afford solar panels, EVs, etc
@dangerdanger: You've misunderstood me. I completely respect people who purchase those items with money they've earnt. I do not respect the government giving people tax payer's money to buy $55k cars when there's much more important things that our money should be going towards, such as nuclear submarines.
@bestroadtech: Nuclear subs = donation to our USA overlords.
EVs = donation to our Chinese overlords
@dangerdanger: At least with EVs average Australians are getting value back. With Nuclear subs its just pure donation and risk of forward containment.
@The Wololo Wombat: The alternative should be the liberals growing some balls and being actual fiscally responsible conservatives, but they don't, they are just Labor lite.
To be honest though most Aussies have the government teat so far down their throat that I don't think they'd go for a more fiscally responsible government, everyone seems content for us to basically just "max the credit cards and deal with it later"
@bestroadtech: this comment was like a ray of sunshine to my subsidised solar panel, generated a good subsidised chuckle
@nzcoops: With cost of living and petrol prices on the rise, the government incentivises more people to buy EVs, especially those who may not have without the subsidy. This increases availability of petrol cars and therefore their affordability for the equally hard-working less-moneyed folk. It's clearly a win-win-win.
p.s. Pls post deal on subsidised chuckles.
-gov'munt worker browsing ozB during work hours.
when there's much more important things that our money should be going towards, such as nuclear submarines.
And nuclear power!
@bestroadtech: $55k isn't what it used to be. Even poverty pack Toyotas start in the mid 30s now. The average new car sale price in Australia is now north of $50,000, which isn't that far off this. And that's likely skewed by decked out Rangers, Hiluxes and yank tanks like RAMs that get much more generous tax subsidies.
@SydStrand: Sure, but I didn't claim that $55k was a luxury car, that was the person above me.
All I said was that it's luxurious of the Government to give away taxpayers' money to people who can already afford brand new cars.
We love to criticise people who buy Teslas but when every tradie goes out and buys a 90K ford ranger we label them a hard working aussie battler…
Not saying $55k is a bargain or that we should all be able to afford that. More that people seem far too comfortable spending huge money on cars these days, and that ultimately results higher new and used car prices generally. RIP $13,990 driveaway deals
@hornoscous: You're not wrong… I should've used the term "low income" instead of "working", though I wanted to convey that low income people (cant) rely on public transport to get to work.
@hornoscous: Agree. And those tradies get so many subsidies, vehicle deductions etc. Yet everyone bashes the EV driver
@hornoscous: but when every tradie goes out and buys a 90K ford ranger we label them a hard wanking aussie battler…
Fixed it.
Government is pushing for EV because we need to decrease our reliance of oil/petrol. It means less reliance on countries that produce oil.
This should be beneficial to everyone in the country, at least that's the idea.
@thispasito: Australia has plenty of oil, just capped off. “Why use ours when we can use others?”
Where’s the electricity for charging your EV at night come from? Owait.
I'd rather subsidise people to buy ev's than give people tax write offs to buy big American utes
@NMC: I'd rather not fund any car purchases, EV, ICE, or otherwise. It's not the government's role.
There are toll roads everywhere in Sydney ffs, but we're buying people more cars… How does that make sense? If people want to buy cars, that's great, but the government's job should be improving publicly shared infrastructure.
They will just shaft us with some other taxes at some point to recoup not just the subsidy but the fuel excise levy they will lose with EVs.
Govt currently charges excise levy of 48.8 cents per litre of fuel sold + GST on it. This financial year they expect to make $13.7 billion from Fuel excise levy alone. This is the money used for upkeep and development of the road infrastructure. Slowly and surely this revenue will steadily decrease over the years so govt will look for ways to increase taxes elsewhere.
https://www.aaa.asn.au/fuel-excise-explained/
Also, EVs tend to be 35% - 50% heavier than similar size ICE cars due to the added weight of the battery pack. This causes increased wear & tear of not only tyres but also the road surface, which will require more funding to maintain roads. So I don't think this subsidy game will last very long without increasing taxes elsewhere for rest of the population.
@dealhunter52: On that topic.
Australian motorists cannot lawfully be taxed for driving electric and hybrid vehicles.
The High Court on Wednesday ruled on a case involving Victoria's road user tax on low-emission vehicles, launched by two electric vehicle drivers in 2021.
The court found the Victorian government could not charge electric, hydrogen and plug-in hybrid vehicle owners a fee for each kilometre they travel, or whether the road user charge is a tax that can only be imposed by the federal government.
The outcome is expected to affect more than just Victorian drivers as attorneys-general for all states and territories intervened to argue for the right to tax road users and two states have announced plans to do so in 2027.
@EightImmortals: And here's NSW trying to work out how to get around it
https://thedriven.io/2023/10/18/nsw-says-its-unfair-ev-owner…
@Heybargain: Yep, no surprises there. Government doesn't give a toss about the law when it gets in the way of their agendas I've noted. :)
"The NSW government says it’s unfair electric vehicle owners don’t have to pay a specific tax towards roads"
I thought our rego was supposed to pay for 'roads'?
@EightImmortals: Well, in that case, either we're going to get shafted with taxes elsewhere as I said earlier or we going to get really bad roads in future without proper maintenance.
It seems not much thinking has gone into how to increase EV adoption without creating a big gaping hole in the state & Federal budget.
@dealhunter52: That additional 35-50% weight does almost nothing to increase road wear by passenger vehicles. The vast, vast majority of road damage is due to trucks.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-…
People with low salaries but expensive utes and 4wds ask the time, and cost the environment and their wallet
I’ve met plenty of 3 owners and they certainly act as if they’re luxury…
Just a matter of context. A Tesla isn't really luxury (a lot of other cars are more expensive or have more luxury features) but I think many of the people buying Teslas aren't really car people and this is probably their first expensive/new-car purchase.
A bit like a person getting a $2000 watch and viewing it as a luxury purchase. It's not cheap, but in the grand scheme of things a lot of people are walking around with much more expensive watches.
3 and Y Luxury??
Well they qualified for the Luxury Car Tax initially so according to the government*, yes
There is a price cut off I think for luxury car tax.
I recon Ss and Xs are, but they are no longer available here in Australia….
3 and Y are obviously overpriced though
What is "significantly higher price than average" 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%
What is "significantly higher price than average"
Good question. Considering Luxury Car Tax is about double (100%) the average car price that is a good starting point.
Another method may be one standard deviation away from the median price?
If were were talking about a carton of milk or a loaf of bread, if it was 30%-50%+ higher price than regular I'd consider it 'luxury' and not eligible for any sort of taxpayer subsidy. A Mazda 3 is about $30k so this is almost double. Granted it's not apples for apples, but it paints a reasonable picture of it being a 'premium' price point.
@1st-Amendment: Not sure why the neg. That was a reasonable response to a fairly banal comment. I would also add that there's a degree of relativism to "luxury". For insurance, someone on the poverty line might view car ownership itself a luxury.
@1st-Amendment: Not sure the exact details. But my sister in law currently has a mazda 3 and looking to replace it. They considered a new mazda 3 again, but ended up going for a lease on a tesla as they said it worked out cheaper with the government incentives etc!
The whole Luxury Car Tax is a left over from when we still produced cars and effectively taxed imported cars that were more expensive than the local upmarket cars. Probably originally set just above the price of a Statesman or a Fairlane.
It’s a double dip as there’s still GST and then Stamp Duty for the State coffers.
The Tesla offerings are nice cars, but at the current price they are essentially eCommodores. Albeit a LOT safer, don’t contribute to deaths and illness from urban pollution. Far better climate option and help reduce our reliance on overseas supply lines.
As they start hitting the secondhand market they will be like secondhand Camrys - a sensibly priced long term option - perhaps even OZB approved. 🤔
don’t contribute to deaths and illness from urban pollution.
Lol where is this pollution exactly?
And do you consider rural pollution more acceptable? As long as it's not me it's fine?
Far better climate option
Evidence?
help reduce our reliance on overseas supply lines.
You realise they are all made in China right from material mined from 3rd world countries?
As they start hitting the secondhand market they will be like secondhand Camrys - a sensibly priced long term option
A $10k used vehicle that needs a $10k battery replacement is never going be be a 'sensibly priced long term option'.
My Nephew has a Camry. It's 25 years old, drives like new, still has more range than a brand new Tesla and cost $3k. Let me know when any EV can compete with that.
This is an interesting story on the current state of the EV demand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZlsZwcIgpc&pp=ygUIY25iYyBld…
@1st-Amendment: The response from you is the usual ICE dribble and most of it I won’t bother responding to, but on the matter of death and illness from ICE vehicles if you are willfully ignorant the issue is well known and a real concern. If you are at all genuine you will educate yourself.
I just picked the first item that popped up on Google
https://www.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/news/2023/february/vehic…
Have an honest look at this aspect - you have a Nephew, perhaps they have children. It matters.
Vehicle pollution is a concentration issue and while mines are moving to electric vehicles for enclosed spaces as quickly as they can, the human health issue is not as compelling away from cities.
The response from you is the usual ICE dribble
You mean drivel?
most of it I won’t bother responding to,
Because you can't…
I just picked the first item that popped up on Google
Of course you did, it's on the Internet so it's true. Did you read the link or were you in such a hurry to react that you didn't bother?
"Vehicle emissions may cause.."
May? Or may not? This is your smoking gun?
If true where exactly are these 11000 corpses?
Do you just read stuff and believe it?
you have a Nephew, perhaps they have children. It matters.
Lol.. won't someone think of the children…
Yep. Subsidies are sometimes a necessary evil - but not for middle-class consumers to buy cars
Luxury to many Australians maybe, me included. But to plenty of people 55k on a car is nothing.
Government might want to subsidise it to improve air quality and lower reliance on oil. Even if electricity is generated by coal, a coal power plant is a lot more efficient than an ICE, and. a lot further away from homes and cities. But if you haven't noticed the country has a surplus of solar power on many days.
Even if that's the goal of the government, there's much better ways to achieve lower emissions in much fairer ways, such as by investing in public transport, or investing in renewables on rental homes. Either of those will not only lower emissions, but will also help low income people, instead of the rich getting richer…
Pretty sure every public transport network in the country is already subsidised by governments, even if they are privately owned. Rich people will drive no matter what, it's better they drive EVs yeah? And it helps the country as a whole transition to EVs sooner the more of them on the road.
@AustriaBargain: True, I could've phrased that better:
such as by investing that same money in public transport
Either way, my point stands. It's not the Government's job to subsidise expensive cars, it's to provide infrastructure for the masses.
Even if they really wanted to target EVs, they should be subsidising only the most affordable (P)HEV's, or providing long-term, lower interest loans for them, so that it is the lower-income people who benefit, rather than the people who can already outlay $55k+ on a BEV.
Or even better, back to that infrastructure argument, the Government could invest in building EV charging network. Then the Government might actually have an asset that earns an income…
Both of these would speed up mass adoption of EV's, and lower emissions, faster than funding expensive BEVs for a select minority.
@bestroadtech: Used EVs will flood the market, and be cheaper. That’s what happens when people buy new cars, they sell them cheaper so those with less money can then buy then used. Either way, it’s great as it floods the market with EVs now, which will be more affordable used to many later
@onlinepred: Even if that were the case (I don't believe it is) it still doesn't make sense to do subsidise EVs in this way. If you want to electrify the grid as fast and efficiently as possible, you would be subsidising cheaper (P)HEVs. Get more people into cars that are maximising their electricity usage, rather than getting BEVs into a small percentage of the population who aren't maxing out the electrical capabilities of the car. It's just a woefully inefficient approach to electrifying our roads.
But even if you did it how I suggested, it's still not a good idea. If the government want's to focus on lowering emissions, rather than just electrifying our roads, that same money could be better spent on things such as:
a) better public transport for the suburbs and satellite cities;
b) building EV charging stations, since one of the main reasons people don't buy EVs is range anxiety;
c) improving our electrical grid.
All of the latter is actually focused on public infrastructure as well, which is the role of the government.
Or better yet, just don't tax me so much and I'll buy myself an e-Scooter :P
@bestroadtech: Already $40k Tesla model 3s. So yea, there will be more on the used car market for cheap.
I’m fine with tax, I’m not okay with gov wasting money and making terrible decisions. Either way, many cheap used evs are already here, more on the used market thanks to subsidies etc.
@bestroadtech: Agreed on the more PT, and more logical PT that isn't determined by lobbist and politics, but actual studies on the predicted movement of the future population.
But public transport only help those in metropolitan areas.
Targeted EV subsidises would be a better solution that this blanket policy.
Make it so it's based on the gross income and remoteness area of the applicant.
Stops subsidising the rich, helps the poor get more environmentally friendly modes of transport.
@jwsc: I'm not immediately opposed to that. I would say that they should definitely be Hybrids though, especially since those more rural areas are the ones with the most range anxiety (which brings me back to my idea that the Government would be better off investing in charging infrastructure…).
Think about it, if we have 10 "EV units" to spread around, what would be better?
a) Have them spread across 10 cars and all 10 EV units used to their full potential; or,
b) Have all 10 units in one car and only being used to an average of 20% of its potential, while the other 9 cars are 100% ICE.
It's clearly B. In which case, the smart thing to do would be to subsidise upsells to Hybrid. This would be much cheaper, benefit much more people, and will reduce emissions much more.
So, for example, if you're going to buy a Hyundai Kona, the upgrade to Hybrid is an extra ~$4k. The Government could either subsidise this difference (partly or wholly), offer interest free loans to cover the $4k difference, or offer guarantees on secured car loans (similar to the way they offer LMI, etc on homes) if you choose the Hybrid option.
Just spitballin', haven't really thought of the downsides to these ideas, but I can't see how they can be any worse then just handing out money to a minority of people to have a small number of huge battery BEVs.
@bestroadtech: well 1 cars and pricing dont work like that
but lets pretend it does
you have to factor in the fact that the hybrids would be heavier because they would need 2 fuel sources and extra engine parts
so combined the total pollution would be higher than 2 EVs and 8 ICEs
well 1 cars and pricing dont work like that
In what way do cars and pricing not work the way I've described?
you have to factor in the fact that the hybrids would be heavier because they would need 2 fuel sources and extra engine parts
so combined the total pollution would be higher than 2 EVs and 8 ICEs
You're not factoring in the manufacturing emissions of BEVs vs PHEVs, and that the batteries (and Government investment) consolidated into a few BEVs won't be used as efficiently (or fairly) as they would be if they were spread across many more PHEVs.
I reckon you'll get a lot out of this video, which addresses some of my points:
@bestroadtech: 10 PHEV costs more than 8 ICE + 2 EV
multiple manufacturing chains=more shipping costs before the final product to be built
as batteries get cheaper, are you going to swap out all 10 cars that are 70% EV?
vs when batteries get cheaper replace 1 of the ICE with an EV
larger batteries have more energy loss, as long as the manufacturers don't attempt to over do the fast charging by splitting it into too many sub batteries.
but honestly it sounds like you just want to argue.
I agreed with your PT point, lets just leave it at that
@jwsc: I really suggest watching that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk
but honestly it sounds like you just want to argue.
If your goal is lowering emissions at the best price possible, there's no argument to have…
Also make sure you use a referral code! Gives you $750 off I believe and also gives someone like me 10,000 credits which helps us get new chargers (or accessories).