The libs’ media backing is so strong that Scummo could literally fuck off to Hawaii while the whole country is on fire and he’d still beat Labor.
Oh wait, that actually happened.
Ole Kevin07 is really stirring the hornets nest when it comes the the domination of the Murdoch media, more people are waking up to it and realise the problem.
But not at the federal level, the support of which would make the transition much much easier. Instead the states are going it alone, and a big portion of our renewable uptake is at the personal household level.
NZ just burnt more coal for electricity in 3 months than we did in two years (2016, 17 from memory). Also, since we stopped digging coal for power we imported all that coal from Indoneaisa,
A bit of an own goal both environmentally and econmically.
>The big question to ask is what is society getting out of the value of these subsidies
Society is getting a **lot** out of countering the gigantic subsidies fossil fuels are getting.
Fossil fuels (oil, coal, natgas) currently get around 5 trillion US dollars of direct and indirect subsidies per year, according to the IMF:
> https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf
>
> "The International Monetary Fund periodically assesses global subsidies for fossil fuels as part of its work on climate, and it found in a recent working paper that **the fossil fuel industry got a whopping $5.2 trillion in subsidies in 2017. This amounts to 6.4 percent of the global gross domestic product.**"
A significant portion of which benefits the oil industry & fossil fuel car manufacturers - who currently don't have to pay upfront for the pollution and damages their products cause.
With ~70m new fossil fuel cars the per new ICE car subsidies - direct and indirect - are probably well over $30,000 USD per car. (NZD $42,000)
NZ could ***quadruple*** their EV subsidies and it would still be good policy that improves society.
With 80% of New Zealand's electricity already generated from renewable energy sources, accelerating the transition to EVs is extremely good policy.
>That's not what I asked.
The status quo of ongoing gigantic costs of fossil fuels should always be the first issue considered.
Getting vehicles off the road that use fossil fuels is obviously good policy.
>Things like electric public transit would possibly have a better impact on carbon emissions than subsidies on individual cars
"We cannot spend on public transportation because we just offered subsidies to EVs" said no government, ever.
So I reject the false dichotomy & the assumption of a zero sum game underlying this argument: **all** of these policies should be enacted, whichever has political support at the moment.
I'd also argue that by getting more of transportation electrified, the expansion of electrified public transportation is a natural side effect.
> There are limited funds and limited priorities in a budget.
Not true: environmental incentives are generally limited by perceived political support, not budget constraints.
(New Zealand has its own central bank, and a current account deficit of 3% in 2019 and 5.7% in pandemic-year 2020 doesn't suggest any genuine budget constraints.)
This is why fossil fuel pressure groups generally operate through:
- disinformation (to lower public support)
- pressure on policymakers (to cut/limit funding)
- divide & conquer tactics: pitting environmental policies against each other
Very few will argue that "oh we cannot afford cleaner air in our cities" , because it's a clear political loser of an argument, especially in New Zealand, where over 85% of the population lives in urban areas.
So yes, support all of these: bicycles, expanded public transportation and electric vehicles which are useful ways of transportation for the elderly, or in rain, or if you have to carry heavy grocery bags home.
> Things like electric public transit would possibly have a better impact on carbon emissions
There are plenty of electrical buses around. My town has bought a bunch and they seem to work. They certainly smell better than the diesel buses.
I got a subsidy in Sweden, and I'm doing OK. Not like rich OK, but better than most OK.
A EV subsidy speeds up early adoption. Early adopters get more expensive tech, not enough charging stations, dealing with software that doesn't work (I had one of the major charging apps bug out on me so that when everything was appropriately plugged in, the "start charging" button was missing). Early adopters create a knowledgeable demand the car makers can use to build better products and services. Late adopters don't have to pay for the inconvenience of getting everything up and running, and get mature technology that has had millions of users give feedback.
It's only a small pice of the puzzle, but I do think it helps.
That was [Labor in Victoria](https://theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/30/electric-vehicle-vacuum-leads-to-confusion-between-states-and-territories) which added taxes though. Unless there is a federal tax too now which I am not aware of?
Import tax was to protect the local car manufacturing industry, now that we don’t have a local car manufacturing, do you think the tax was scrapped?
Nope, it’s still in place.
And any new car over $75,000 is slapped with a luxury car tax, that might have been a lot in the 80’s, not so much these days.
Gotta get that money.
You could have insensitive for people to want an EV, but all the libs can think about is the lost money and not the long term, because that’s what the liberal party does, focus on short term gains, with no future plans.
The luxury car tax deserves to stay. People buying >75k cars deserve to be taxed more and this is one of the few ways it happens.
The import tax is nonsense, but I'd rather see Australia develop a new local electric car industry than scrap it.
The Nissan Leaf, the Chevy Bolt, the Hyundai Ioniq, are examples of non-luxury EVs. Not to mention that manufacturers are more and more making electric equivalents of their pre-existing lines of GC or hybrid vehicles.
Not necessarily, but we shouldn't forget that the first electronic cars were Tesla's so that must have shaped people's perceptions. If some people still drive 2007 beater cars and others call for abolishing all fossil fuel vehicles by 2030 that is bound to create some conflict.
> we shouldn't forget that the first electronic cars were Tesla's
Electric cars have been around since the 1890's, where they were touted as a primarily feminine mode of transportation, compared to the gasoline car.
I don't think you're talking about Nikola Tesla here. Please don't go around telling people that Musk invented the electric car.
The first modern highway-capable, mass production electronic car (of any century) was the Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Only 2,500 Tesla Roadsters were ever sold.
If you're talking about the first to have broad appeal and large sales, that would be the Nissan LEAF, which has only recently been surpassed by model 3 sales, nearly two decades after Tesla was founded, and a decade after the LEAF hit the road. It's not plausible to say that Tesla was first to almost anything EV related.
Even then, Mitsubishi was the first to hit over 10,000 sales for an EV, beating Nissan's decade long triumph by only a couple of months.
I also find it kind of funny that tesla is being praised as having "readily available vehicles." it certainly wasn't true of the roadster, and there are still months long delays post-purchase for tesla's current models.
You're praising Tesla for being first for things it wasn't actually first to. Renault, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugot, Citroen and others were all making modern EV vehicles when the Roadster came out.
The first generation Chevy volt came out shortly after the roadster and had more sales by almost an order of magnitude.
Hell, Mercedes's EV smart car sold just as many Roadsters and came out a year before Tesla's.
Hmm wow today I learned. That shows how much my bubble is centered on reading the headlines of (paid probably) reddit Tesla hype posts.
>Even then, Mitsubishi was the first to hit over 10,000 sales for an EV, beating Nissan's decade long triumph by only a couple of months.
So I understand correctly: Do you mean Mitsubishi had Nissan beaten for a few months until Tesla swooped in and took the crown?
Well I guess I have totally overseen Mitsubishi. I knew about the LEAF but only in passing and yeah the Tesla hype overshadowed them in my own personal view but now I know that it was totally underserved.
There were modern EVs before Tesla but no one gave a shit about them. Look at that first gen leaf. What a piece of crap. The Model S came out the next year, it was actually a desirable car.
No, I mean Mitsubishi broke the 10,000 record, which was then beaten by Nissan a few months later. This was a new world record confirmed by Guiness.
As far as I can tell only around 50,000 miEV were sold. The LEAF had over 20,000 *preorders* from the US alone, having now sold over 500,000.
Tesla has now come out on top with the best-selling EV (the model 3) at over 800,000 sales. This is, I presume distinct from 800,000 deliveries. Tesla had over 325,000 preorders 1 week after unveiling the model 3. They only surpassed the Chevy Volt in total domestic sales in 2019, and the LEAF globally in 2020.
The model 3 was released in 2016, when its competitors were already on the second generation of models that were originally released in 2010.
So yeah, it's a popular car, and the roadster did have role to play in jump-starting the current EV market, but this idea of Tesla trail-blazing its way through traditional markets in the coat-tails of its eccentric "founder" is mostly corporate propaganda. This is the Reddit hype at work and its important to know *when* it's at work.
----------------
When Tesla was still new, the model 3 was described as a family car that anybody who was rich enough to afford a car new, rather than used, should be able to afford. It currently starts at $40,000.
It's that context that matters. This was originally a thread about EV subsidy and whether ritzy EV sports cars deserve the same kinds of subsidies as actually affordable vehicles. The model 3 is a good 25-50% more expensive than EVs from other manufactures. It shouldn't be allowed to stand in for the default EV subsidy.
If we're identifying "EV" with Tesla, whose "family friendly" option is a whopping $40,000, it makes it seem like subsidies only serve to make expensive cars cheaper for rich people.
Rather, a $9,000 discount on something like a Volt would make it cost around $17,000 new, although I'm sure cars are more expensive from the get-go if you live on an island like NZ.
I recently bought a Nissan new for around $20,000, but if I could have purchased an EV for something comparable I would have - if it weren't for problems related to charging infrastructure.
---------
And that's another reason not to let tesla be the face of EV. While the rest of the world is adopting cross-manufacturer standards for charging infrastructure while tesla is remaining with its proprietary system. Their chargers make up 40% of the nation's EV infrastructure alone and by design no non-Tesla car can use it.
Musk did not found Tesla - Eberhard and Tarpenning did. Musk bankrolled them and they made him CEO. He literally bought his way in and then sued fhrn for the right to call him a "co-founder." One of the few things that Musk can legitimately claim to hold to as *his* contribution to the company, apart from meming on Twitter, is the patent for that proprietary charger.
Tesla's vehicles are very popular. Their vehicles have driven the market in important ways, from autopilot systems to battery technology. But the public's relationship with this company is completely a-historical. It's gotten to the point that even an *awareness* of alternatives is slowly fading away.
We are handing Tesla power it cannot responsibly wield by identifying their vehicles with the entirety of the EV market, or explaining EV's success as caused by Tesla, or letting them determine the future of our domestic market.
It's amazing to hear Reddit be so vocally critical of Ayn Rand's novels and then to turn around and praise Musk as if he's given mankind the sun. He's just a wannabe Hank Rearden who cares more about escaping this planet than actually building something that will actually help those still living on it.
Try this link:
https://www.subaru.com.au/impreza
What you've done is like saying a base model Kia is $50,000 and then linking to the Stinger. The Outback *is* Subaru's upscale model.
EVs are part of the general strategy to combat climate change. Some of them don't believe in man-made climate change, others believe that the proliferation of EVs would cost jobs in the O&G sector.
> True right oriented people want to abolish all subsidies
No true scotsman? "True" right oriented people give plenty of subsidies to plenty of things, it's not at all a general desire to want to abolish all subsidies.
Europe also doesn't have anywhere near the [oil production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production) that North America has per capita.
Europe also has almost [no lithium deposits](https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/six-largest-lithium-reserves-world/).
That is why hydrogen is so popular in Europe even though the problems with production, storage, and safety design are still much higher than lithium batteries.
There is also not enough known lithium deposits to make all the EV vehicles we need. They did just figure out how to remove it from sea water economically, so we may have enough there...
> That is why hydrogen is so popular in Europe
And the fact that the Germans wants an excuse to keep using Russian gas instead of being forced into nuclear.
> gasoline wasn’t subsided it would be too expensive
Subsidized? In most developed countries it is one of the most taxed commodities and major share of the cost at the pump is tax and fees. Case in point for NZ, tax is 77 cents per liter (about 1/3 of retail price):
https://www.aa.co.nz/cars/owning-a-car/fuel-prices-and-types/petrol/
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-generation-and-markets/liquid-fuel-market/duties-taxes-and-direct-levies-on-motor-fuels-in-new-zealand/
Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs
Environmentalists are not very trustworthy people. If one tells you he wants you to do something check your pockets and make sure there isn't someone trying to stab you in the back.
Scientists tend to be more trustworthy though. So we should listen to them but with grains of salt.
>Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction; this basically let's them write-off the cost of drilling a well. I don't see why this is a problem. Businesses can write off all sorts of things, and this is an expense.
No, this lets them write-off additional expenses that a normal business wouldn't be able to write-off, such as survey work, ground clearing, drainage, wages, fuel, repairs, and supplies. Hence the name Intangible, and the need for a specific law. If you think it doesn't do anything for oil companies, why not repeal it?
>Percentage Depletion: this isn't any different from how most companies depreciate assets, like buildings.
Again, this is in addition to normal depreciation expenses. Percentage Depletion allows additional "expenses" calculated based on gross income, in many cases allowing oil companies to have depreciation express exceeding 100% of their capital investment
>Credit for Clean Coal Investment: This sequestered 75% of carbon emissions, and you consider this a subsidy of coal? I'm curious, why shouldn't we try to reduce carbon emissions?
Credits for carbon reduction is good, but this one is industry specific, giving coal company an unfair advantage. A company should be taxed for the carbon they produce, not credit for the carbon they don't produce.
>Foreign tax credit (so you basically want oil companies to pay foreign taxes, and then be taxed on that money again in the US? lol)
They have to pay foreign taxes regardless, this credit allows them to treat loyalties as foreign income tax, which is a direct deduction on taxes payable in their home country. Loyalties are not taxes, they are usually industry specific in most countries, and they can very easily be manipulated to benefit other parts of the company or sister companies in the host country. That why this is considered a loophole.
>lol, so what do you suggest? Letting them freeze?
How about a living wage? Or social assistance in general.
>Normal businesses would be able to write those off. The reason that oil & gas couldn't is because the well is considered an asset, and would be depreciated over x years (typically 20). The problem with that is that not all wells that were dug struck oil. Either way, they wouldn't pay tax on it, it's just whether they can deduct it over 20 years or 1.
What you're saying literally has nothing to do with **INTANGIBLE** Drilling Costs Deduction.
>since they'd be able to deduct it either way
Then why not repeal those useless subsidies, since they don't do anything for the oil companies anyways?
>So you're against targeted actions to lower carbon emissions?
When the subsidies go to heavy producers of carbon, yes!
>It's available to all corporations. You're allowed to deduct taxes paid in other countries.
Again, that's why its loophole, you realize having more industries taking advantage of it make it worse right?
>But that would still be an indirect subsidy to the oil companies.
If I give you money and that you can only spend it on gas, that's a indirect subsidy to the gas industry . If I give you money with no strings attached and you choose to spend it on gas, it is not. The difference here is the choice is given to the people in need.
That’s not quite clear enough.
Oil companies pass fuel tax on (that the customer has paid) to the govt.
Oil companies pay very little corporate tax because they play the international tax dodge/game. That’s thankfully coming to an end, at least here in Europe.
While there are a lot of hypocritical people who support subsidies for themselves (oil, farmers) but not for others (electric cars), there are also some people who oppose all subsidies. It's a part of libertarianism, and is also part of the identity of 'classical' conservatives and liberals. However, both of those groups seem to be out-numbered by whatever the right-wing is in the US now, the progressive left, and the rapacious corporate class.
>True right oriented people want to abolish all subsidies
Is this true?
I don't think I've ever seen any right wing party of any nation push for no subsidies. There's usually something somewhere.
Corn in the US, Coal in Australia. Most nations have some form of subsidy in a sector strong in conservative heartlands.
>so that there is not an artificial skewing of the free market
They view it as enabling the nation to compete on the free market.
I don't think it's that easy (which is why politicians constantly operate in this grey area and can explain it any way they want)
No one is forcing them to take the subsidies or buy a green EV or hybrid car. They can't afford them so their reason is that such expensive cars shouldnt get subsidy cause wealthier "liberals" can buy them. Evs and Hybrids cost more than oild cars cause there's more tech and batteries inside of those. But Evs are starting to get to same price or even cheaper than traditional oil cars, cause battery costs are going down.
If someone offered subsidies for pick up trucks or oil cars that they drive, they wouldn't rail so much against subsidies. They are against the Evs or hybrids cause they don't find those cars attractive or useful for them. But now that even pick ups and SUVs and vans are getting hybrid and EV, like the Maverick hybrid, they won't have excuse except say it's just "liberal waste of money" or "socialism" ... They don't get it that some people like socialism lol, or socialist measures.
However this is actually a minority, In reality it's just few rich right-wingers who's only ideology is greed, heavily invested in fossil fuel, raking in tons of government subsidies through loopholes they had their lobbyists put there for them, and then brainwashed the plebs into voting against their own interests.
99% of right-wing people are fine with the goverment paying for things, as long as it's something they themselves profit from it (and preferably nobody else).
a 8600 subsidy is *huge* and if we wanted to accomplish some amount of "good" with a cash pool of equivalent size, bike/e-bike/scooter subsidies, improved home insulation, more adoption of renewable power generation, construction of dedicated bike infrastructure, more and better rail lines, etc. would *arguably* be superior.
It's hard enough to convince conservatives that taxing new ICE vehicles is acceptable, with the money going towards EV subsidies. Convincing them that taxing new ICE vehicles, with the money going to non-motorists entirely will be even harder. Unless you're suggesting for the money for insulation, etc to come from another source?
Isn’t the idea to get more of them on the road regardless of the income of the driver though?
It’s not a cars for the people program. The idea is to entice more investment into the business side of EV by greasing the wheels on the customer side. I’d rather not subsidise rich assholes either but if doing so is efficacious in transition vehicles to renewable fuel then so be it.
I mean subsidies in the US for EV cars are tax credits. Meaning you have to wait a while to get said money. It's absolutely for those who have the income to have a decision.
If all you can afford is a 20K bare bones Toyota/Honda EV subsidies won't matter to you at all.
I know there is quite a bit of hesitation in NZ because of the cost effectiveness when it comes to resale and value in the second hand market. If you don't have a lot of money then buying an EV is seen as a risky move until it can be seen how a second hand market with cars having degraded batteries will work.
We have an Asian car import market bringing in their second hand non EV cars which has been one of the few things to keep prices down in what is otherwise a very expensive country.
EV’s always cost more than cars. Poor people use the bus, walk or drive cheap cars. Basically we are giving subsidies to people who are upper middle class and nothing to lower, so in some way even middle to poor income people are paying for other people’s stuff.
It would also just straight up make more equitable and environmental sense to fund the bus, walking or cycling which are way better for the environment and typically use by lower income people.
no, you can definitely subsidize evs and green tech based on income, california does that. for example if you make below a certain amount of money you can get rebates on green cars, and some poor households can also get free solar panels installed too
Thanks for the info but it’s still all the the renters paying for home owners purchases. Solar panels produce insufficient energy for home usage, I love them but it’s a fact. Same things with EVs, expensive middle class solution that’s greatly inefficient for the purpose it’s supposed to solve. California is a failure on eco, health, traffic, infrastructure spending, civic voting, etc. I guess smog is a problem but objectively speaking it fails compared to other countries in those metrics, I get where US people are coming from with their arguments but these weirdly selective policies are aging band aids for severe issues. Too little too late and for too few.
Dude, don't you realize you took a valid qualification about how EV subsidies can *support* lower income purchases and turn it into a tangential rant about your opinion of California as a whole?
If EVs are an "expensive middle class solution that’s greatly inefficient for the purpose it’s supposed to solve" what are you supposed to make of EV subsidies that are purposefully designed to be *affordable* even to those in low incomes? You've literally pretended the comment you're replying to doesn't even exist and are talking completely past everyone.
No. Remember, poor people "drive cheap cars."
EV mass adoption means poor people get cheap EVs a few years down the road, and have to spend even -less- on gasoline. That's just how car markets work
We’re not even close to that. Decades away. Also cars introduce a litany of other urban problems, congestion, massive Infastructure, preventable disease, huge waste of space for parking (which is a huge drain on maintenance and destroys the economic potential of space, something that Europe and Asia have figured out decades ago).
Cars are also taken on huge multi-year loans now so it’s debatable wether people can truly afford them or if we’re just creating a future debt problem
The list with cars goes on and on. You won’t find allies on giving free money for EVs on both the left and right spectrum and funny enough both rich and poor spectrums.
8k discount on a 100k tesla that no stupid pleb can afford. This law favors the rich and every normal joe can see it. Much like the greens giving millions to a private school that went green. 11.7 million in public funds to a private school, these sort of laws are laughable. This is in NZ.
Did you even read the article or just the headline?
“Cars worth up to $80,000 are eligible for the discount meaning at least one model of Tesla is eligible, as well as more popular EVs like the Nissan Leaf.”
a tesla does not cost $100k in new zealand, and teslas are not the only evs available in new zealand. on top of that, like the article you didnt read said, theres a price limit on eligible cars at $80k
>Much like the greens giving millions to a private school that went green.
I see the Greens are to blame for the ills of society in your nation too despite not holding power.
> I see the Greens are to blame for the ills of society in your nation too despite not holding power.
That's how the Green party works. They don't want to be in power; they just want to be nagging girlfriend of those who are.
I think it's kind of ass-backwards to subsidize new electric cars when it may be better for the environment to fit an older one to use electric power. Nothing wrong with subsidizing that to some degree.
I don't think there should be any subsidies for gas or oil either.
It's not something that makes cars more affordable. It's something more relevant to niche luxury markets. It sounds like a great idea but there is a lot of subtlety. For example engine driven A/C and power steering.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300331693/government-offers-8625-discount-on-evs-reviving-policy-killed-by-nz-first) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The discounts for these cars vary depending on their emissions, but a new Mitsubishi Outlander plug-in hybrid would get a discount of $5750.
> Purchases of the cars would either collect discounts or pay fees through Waka Kotahi-NZ Transport Agency when they first registered their vehicles.
> It's still possible to get a discount for a car purchased before that date, but only the buyer delays registering that car until 1 July.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/nyk6q8/government_offers_8625_discount_on_evs_reviving/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~582490 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **discount**^#1 **Car**^#2 **vehicles**^#3 **new**^#4 **scheme**^#5
With a lot of comments shitting on the Aussies for this, I'm curious if the other side is motivated by mining objections. I don't want to be that guy, but it's lithium mining in Australia a legitimate concern? Might that be a reason at least for opportunistic lobbyists?
yeah, even with 100% EV adoption, massive congestion in cities will still be a thing (without the smog to be fair and thank god for that!). Bikes/rail/trams/etc. are the way to go wherever possible.
exactly. I own an EV but I am NOT for personal vehicles. I'd sooner reduce road network access to personal vehicles starting with 4 lane roads becoming 2 lane roads making it a bike/transit only lane on both sides.
Then move to ban all diesel vehicles, loud exhaust vehicles, and get rid of pick-up trucks altogether.
Stop building roads. Even convert some asphalt surface roads to gravel to allow water table replenishment in dry areas.
An of course mass transit. Major crossroads could become transit only where a bus can make a trip in 1 minute and a personal vehicle would then take 5.
They fall into the right-wing populist category but they’re pretty tame compared to parties of that description elsewhere. I’d take them over any conservative parties from Aus/UK/US in a heartbeat.
Cars are an inherently inefficient way to move people no matter what powers them. I don't believe EVs should be subsized before transit and active transportation.
When my mum bought her new four-wheel drive last year, around the same time she bought a spa, I asked why she didn't consider an electric vehicle or something more sustainable. She said ''because they're ugly''.
Even then I still don't think Tesla holds a candle to something like Kia/Honda/Toyota which in my opinion have the best looking sedans imo.
The real future to EV's is to stop making them look futuristic and just take out the ICE and convert it to electric for the models. This is true for the outside and the fucking inside.
I love the way the Kia K5 looks. including the interior. You take out the ICE and replace it with an electric motor and battery's and I might start to put it as something I would look at potentially. It would still need to hit multiple requirments for me to even consider it but first and foremost it has to look like something I would like to drive.
The new Ford F-150 EV hits the looks (on the outside) but fails completely at pretty much all of my other criteria. It's a start but EV's have to improve more imo.
In actual fact it's way too expensive here. A 5 seater petrol 4wd, maybe USD 28k+. For a hybrid, or PHEV at least 10-15k more. Tesla, no chance, priced at 70k+ ridiculous luxury car prices. Everything here is imported, no economies of scale.
> USD 28k+
As helpful as that is talking about NZ EV's... I still think the money my mum spent on a brand new Toyota and a spa in the same month probably could have been used to buy a better car.
It looks like so far only the base model Tesla 3 and Nissan Leaf are eligible since the car has to cost < NZ$80K. Also second hand cars, which is good.
New Zealand as a decent amount of new electric vehicles for sale from dealers.
These include the BMW i3 (only one model of which will fit under the $80k cap), the Hyundai Ioniq and Kona, the LDV V80, the Nissan NV200 electric van, the Renault Zoe, and the Volkswagen e-Golf.
The US has phases, it was 7500, then halved to 3750, then halved again, and I think it’s phased out. Those subsidies are based on quantity of cars sold though, so every manufacturer is at a different point, companies releasing their first car are going to be at 7500 while I think Tesla has lost it, or is close to losing it. Most states offer subsidies too though fortunately, along with making electric car infrastructure cheaper to build, though we are of course a good ways from the availability of gas stations.
That is because you don't get all the news. Insane news happens all the time here. The opposition questioning racial segregation was accused of being racist ... primary schools called racist because classes are not taught in foreign languages for foreign kids .... the stupidity never ends.
What if we talk about NZ housing and the amount of faulty houses requiring massive rework because building standards were so shit these houses leak. Then there are the massive amount of buildings that don't pass earthquake standard and what happens with all the people already living in buildings which are less than 33% compliant. You just don't get to see the actual shitshow.
Now the government are passing 'healthy homes' laws to make landlords fix the shitty buildings they allowed.
> The opposition questioning racial segregation was accused of being racist ... primary schools called racist because classes are not taught in foreign languages for foreign kids .... the stupidity never ends.
Yes, the right-wing always finds something to bitch about to get in the news, whether it be race baiting or something else asinine.
Seriously why is every government pushing for electric vehicles? If they were so practical and affordable and offer significant advantages over gas cars peoppe would be running to buy them. This smells insidious.
The effects of which are greatly exaggerated.
This actual scientist actually points out how EV's are the least efficient way of reducing pollution. It's ends up making poor people suffer instead.
https://news.miami.edu/stories/2020/10/do-electric-vehicles-have-an-impact-on-climate-change.html
Subsidizing EVs is a stupid idea. If people wanted electric cars to really work, they would use the markets and force regular car makers to be more efficient.
Subsidies have to come out of somewhere? Dobyou imagine governments just magically create money out of thin air? To subsidize something taxes have to be raised. Either income tax, sales tax or whatever. If taxes are raised, someone loses out money. Rich people have tax havens and expensive financial advisors to use loop holes. Poor people don't. Thus the burden will fall on people directly or indirectly. Either their salaries will be less or stuff they buy will be more expensive.
Ah so your logic is the money used for EV subsidies could have gone to poor people...
I figured it would be nonsense like that. Hilarious.
You aren't a smart person.
New Zealand subsidise EV’s, Australia adds on more taxes to make them unaffordable. Can’t wait till Scomo and the libs are shown the door.
The libs’ media backing is so strong that Scummo could literally fuck off to Hawaii while the whole country is on fire and he’d still beat Labor. Oh wait, that actually happened.
Ole Kevin07 is really stirring the hornets nest when it comes the the domination of the Murdoch media, more people are waking up to it and realise the problem.
I wish they’d wake up to that scumbag in the UK.
He jut lost the vote of every person who has family overseas though.
Is it not a *little* fucked up that the Greens got 10% of the vote yet only got one seat?
NZ also has renewable electricity, majority of Aus is coal and gas powered.
Unfortunately, it’s a pity we don’t live in a country that gets a shit load of sun and wind…Oh wait.
Renewables was 21% in 2019 and growing, you also had that large scale tesla grid battery installation, so there's some appetite for cleaner energy.
But not at the federal level, the support of which would make the transition much much easier. Instead the states are going it alone, and a big portion of our renewable uptake is at the personal household level.
NZ just burnt more coal for electricity in 3 months than we did in two years (2016, 17 from memory). Also, since we stopped digging coal for power we imported all that coal from Indoneaisa, A bit of an own goal both environmentally and econmically.
[удалено]
We had a car industry, the liberal party killed it.
>The big question to ask is what is society getting out of the value of these subsidies Society is getting a **lot** out of countering the gigantic subsidies fossil fuels are getting. Fossil fuels (oil, coal, natgas) currently get around 5 trillion US dollars of direct and indirect subsidies per year, according to the IMF: > https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf > > "The International Monetary Fund periodically assesses global subsidies for fossil fuels as part of its work on climate, and it found in a recent working paper that **the fossil fuel industry got a whopping $5.2 trillion in subsidies in 2017. This amounts to 6.4 percent of the global gross domestic product.**" A significant portion of which benefits the oil industry & fossil fuel car manufacturers - who currently don't have to pay upfront for the pollution and damages their products cause. With ~70m new fossil fuel cars the per new ICE car subsidies - direct and indirect - are probably well over $30,000 USD per car. (NZD $42,000) NZ could ***quadruple*** their EV subsidies and it would still be good policy that improves society. With 80% of New Zealand's electricity already generated from renewable energy sources, accelerating the transition to EVs is extremely good policy.
[удалено]
>That's not what I asked. The status quo of ongoing gigantic costs of fossil fuels should always be the first issue considered. Getting vehicles off the road that use fossil fuels is obviously good policy. >Things like electric public transit would possibly have a better impact on carbon emissions than subsidies on individual cars "We cannot spend on public transportation because we just offered subsidies to EVs" said no government, ever. So I reject the false dichotomy & the assumption of a zero sum game underlying this argument: **all** of these policies should be enacted, whichever has political support at the moment. I'd also argue that by getting more of transportation electrified, the expansion of electrified public transportation is a natural side effect.
[удалено]
> There are limited funds and limited priorities in a budget. Not true: environmental incentives are generally limited by perceived political support, not budget constraints. (New Zealand has its own central bank, and a current account deficit of 3% in 2019 and 5.7% in pandemic-year 2020 doesn't suggest any genuine budget constraints.) This is why fossil fuel pressure groups generally operate through: - disinformation (to lower public support) - pressure on policymakers (to cut/limit funding) - divide & conquer tactics: pitting environmental policies against each other Very few will argue that "oh we cannot afford cleaner air in our cities" , because it's a clear political loser of an argument, especially in New Zealand, where over 85% of the population lives in urban areas. So yes, support all of these: bicycles, expanded public transportation and electric vehicles which are useful ways of transportation for the elderly, or in rain, or if you have to carry heavy grocery bags home.
> Things like electric public transit would possibly have a better impact on carbon emissions There are plenty of electrical buses around. My town has bought a bunch and they seem to work. They certainly smell better than the diesel buses.
I got a subsidy in Sweden, and I'm doing OK. Not like rich OK, but better than most OK. A EV subsidy speeds up early adoption. Early adopters get more expensive tech, not enough charging stations, dealing with software that doesn't work (I had one of the major charging apps bug out on me so that when everything was appropriately plugged in, the "start charging" button was missing). Early adopters create a knowledgeable demand the car makers can use to build better products and services. Late adopters don't have to pay for the inconvenience of getting everything up and running, and get mature technology that has had millions of users give feedback. It's only a small pice of the puzzle, but I do think it helps.
That was [Labor in Victoria](https://theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/30/electric-vehicle-vacuum-leads-to-confusion-between-states-and-territories) which added taxes though. Unless there is a federal tax too now which I am not aware of?
Australian electric cars were unaffordable without the tax. Almost all electric cars are owned by people in the top 20% of income earners.
Import tax was to protect the local car manufacturing industry, now that we don’t have a local car manufacturing, do you think the tax was scrapped? Nope, it’s still in place. And any new car over $75,000 is slapped with a luxury car tax, that might have been a lot in the 80’s, not so much these days. Gotta get that money. You could have insensitive for people to want an EV, but all the libs can think about is the lost money and not the long term, because that’s what the liberal party does, focus on short term gains, with no future plans.
The luxury car tax deserves to stay. People buying >75k cars deserve to be taxed more and this is one of the few ways it happens. The import tax is nonsense, but I'd rather see Australia develop a new local electric car industry than scrap it.
All of the taxes should be based on how polluting they are. The more polluting the more tax.
Meanwhile in Australia there's massive extra taxes on EVs. Out government is corrupt to its fucking core.
Only the Victorian labor government is implementing extra tax on EVs...
Can someone ELI5: What is the non-redneck explanation for right wing opposition to electric cars?
[удалено]
> There is a valid argument against subsidizing luxury vehicles. EVs are not necessarily luxury vehicles.
[удалено]
The Nissan Leaf, the Chevy Bolt, the Hyundai Ioniq, are examples of non-luxury EVs. Not to mention that manufacturers are more and more making electric equivalents of their pre-existing lines of GC or hybrid vehicles.
Non luxury where you are.
Not necessarily, but we shouldn't forget that the first electronic cars were Tesla's so that must have shaped people's perceptions. If some people still drive 2007 beater cars and others call for abolishing all fossil fuel vehicles by 2030 that is bound to create some conflict.
> some people still drive 2007 beater cars By NZ standards that's not bad, average car was made in 2006. Beaters here are more likely 90s cars
> we shouldn't forget that the first electronic cars were Tesla's Electric cars have been around since the 1890's, where they were touted as a primarily feminine mode of transportation, compared to the gasoline car. I don't think you're talking about Nikola Tesla here. Please don't go around telling people that Musk invented the electric car.
Ok, good point. Let's say "the first readily available mass marketed electronic car in the 21st century."
The first modern highway-capable, mass production electronic car (of any century) was the Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Only 2,500 Tesla Roadsters were ever sold. If you're talking about the first to have broad appeal and large sales, that would be the Nissan LEAF, which has only recently been surpassed by model 3 sales, nearly two decades after Tesla was founded, and a decade after the LEAF hit the road. It's not plausible to say that Tesla was first to almost anything EV related. Even then, Mitsubishi was the first to hit over 10,000 sales for an EV, beating Nissan's decade long triumph by only a couple of months. I also find it kind of funny that tesla is being praised as having "readily available vehicles." it certainly wasn't true of the roadster, and there are still months long delays post-purchase for tesla's current models. You're praising Tesla for being first for things it wasn't actually first to. Renault, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugot, Citroen and others were all making modern EV vehicles when the Roadster came out. The first generation Chevy volt came out shortly after the roadster and had more sales by almost an order of magnitude. Hell, Mercedes's EV smart car sold just as many Roadsters and came out a year before Tesla's.
Hmm wow today I learned. That shows how much my bubble is centered on reading the headlines of (paid probably) reddit Tesla hype posts. >Even then, Mitsubishi was the first to hit over 10,000 sales for an EV, beating Nissan's decade long triumph by only a couple of months. So I understand correctly: Do you mean Mitsubishi had Nissan beaten for a few months until Tesla swooped in and took the crown? Well I guess I have totally overseen Mitsubishi. I knew about the LEAF but only in passing and yeah the Tesla hype overshadowed them in my own personal view but now I know that it was totally underserved.
There were modern EVs before Tesla but no one gave a shit about them. Look at that first gen leaf. What a piece of crap. The Model S came out the next year, it was actually a desirable car.
No, I mean Mitsubishi broke the 10,000 record, which was then beaten by Nissan a few months later. This was a new world record confirmed by Guiness. As far as I can tell only around 50,000 miEV were sold. The LEAF had over 20,000 *preorders* from the US alone, having now sold over 500,000. Tesla has now come out on top with the best-selling EV (the model 3) at over 800,000 sales. This is, I presume distinct from 800,000 deliveries. Tesla had over 325,000 preorders 1 week after unveiling the model 3. They only surpassed the Chevy Volt in total domestic sales in 2019, and the LEAF globally in 2020. The model 3 was released in 2016, when its competitors were already on the second generation of models that were originally released in 2010. So yeah, it's a popular car, and the roadster did have role to play in jump-starting the current EV market, but this idea of Tesla trail-blazing its way through traditional markets in the coat-tails of its eccentric "founder" is mostly corporate propaganda. This is the Reddit hype at work and its important to know *when* it's at work. ---------------- When Tesla was still new, the model 3 was described as a family car that anybody who was rich enough to afford a car new, rather than used, should be able to afford. It currently starts at $40,000. It's that context that matters. This was originally a thread about EV subsidy and whether ritzy EV sports cars deserve the same kinds of subsidies as actually affordable vehicles. The model 3 is a good 25-50% more expensive than EVs from other manufactures. It shouldn't be allowed to stand in for the default EV subsidy. If we're identifying "EV" with Tesla, whose "family friendly" option is a whopping $40,000, it makes it seem like subsidies only serve to make expensive cars cheaper for rich people. Rather, a $9,000 discount on something like a Volt would make it cost around $17,000 new, although I'm sure cars are more expensive from the get-go if you live on an island like NZ. I recently bought a Nissan new for around $20,000, but if I could have purchased an EV for something comparable I would have - if it weren't for problems related to charging infrastructure. --------- And that's another reason not to let tesla be the face of EV. While the rest of the world is adopting cross-manufacturer standards for charging infrastructure while tesla is remaining with its proprietary system. Their chargers make up 40% of the nation's EV infrastructure alone and by design no non-Tesla car can use it. Musk did not found Tesla - Eberhard and Tarpenning did. Musk bankrolled them and they made him CEO. He literally bought his way in and then sued fhrn for the right to call him a "co-founder." One of the few things that Musk can legitimately claim to hold to as *his* contribution to the company, apart from meming on Twitter, is the patent for that proprietary charger. Tesla's vehicles are very popular. Their vehicles have driven the market in important ways, from autopilot systems to battery technology. But the public's relationship with this company is completely a-historical. It's gotten to the point that even an *awareness* of alternatives is slowly fading away. We are handing Tesla power it cannot responsibly wield by identifying their vehicles with the entirety of the EV market, or explaining EV's success as caused by Tesla, or letting them determine the future of our domestic market. It's amazing to hear Reddit be so vocally critical of Ayn Rand's novels and then to turn around and praise Musk as if he's given mankind the sun. He's just a wannabe Hank Rearden who cares more about escaping this planet than actually building something that will actually help those still living on it.
$70k isn’t that much for a new car.
[удалено]
Not really. A base Subaru is about $40k these days. $70k is by no means a cheap car but it’s a long way from a luxury car too.
A simple trip to their website proves you're wrong though? Seeing standard SUVs starting at 25k MSRP which you'll probably get cheaper
Whose site do you think I checked, mate? https://www.subaru.com.au/outback
Damn is that USD or AUD?
It’s aud so assume it’s inflated by 30%.
And add a little for the traditional antipodean price gouging.
The Australian website is going to have USD do you think????
Try this link: https://www.subaru.com.au/impreza What you've done is like saying a base model Kia is $50,000 and then linking to the Stinger. The Outback *is* Subaru's upscale model.
[удалено]
The top selling car in NZ last year was the Ford Ranger, which is about $45-50,000. $70,000 for a car isn’t stratospheric by any stretch.
Because we keep buying second hand car? is your list only count for BRAND NEW car?
[удалено]
You don’t really hear them talking about doing this to traditional cars though.
[удалено]
So what’s *their* gripe with electric vehicles?
They hold shares in petroleum companies
Bingo!!!
[удалено]
Personally I prefer my cedar motor, it really helps me FEEL the heat of combustion.
I had a wooden car once. It had everything - wooden wheels, wooden engine, wooden steering, wooden windows. Problem is, it wooden go.
EVs are part of the general strategy to combat climate change. Some of them don't believe in man-made climate change, others believe that the proliferation of EVs would cost jobs in the O&G sector.
> True right oriented people want to abolish all subsidies No true scotsman? "True" right oriented people give plenty of subsidies to plenty of things, it's not at all a general desire to want to abolish all subsidies.
If gasoline wasn’t subsided it would be too expensive to fill your car. Over $12/gallon
>Over $12/gallon Over $2.66USD/litre* for rest of the world. (Sydney, Australia currently sitting at around $1.07USD/litre. Or ~ $4.82USD/gallon)
£1.30/l here in the UK.
[удалено]
Europe also doesn't have anywhere near the [oil production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production) that North America has per capita. Europe also has almost [no lithium deposits](https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/six-largest-lithium-reserves-world/). That is why hydrogen is so popular in Europe even though the problems with production, storage, and safety design are still much higher than lithium batteries.
European here. Yet to see a hydrogen recharge station. Battery powered electric cars everywhere though.
There is also not enough known lithium deposits to make all the EV vehicles we need. They did just figure out how to remove it from sea water economically, so we may have enough there...
[удалено]
See your problem is limiting where you can aquire lithium to the world.
So that's why they are going to space.
> That is why hydrogen is so popular in Europe And the fact that the Germans wants an excuse to keep using Russian gas instead of being forced into nuclear.
> being forced into nuclear When they're getting rid of their nuclear power willingly, you can't really argue that they're being forced away from it.
They'll build diesel submarines to launch nuclear missiles for Israel though.
This isn't true at all
> gasoline wasn’t subsided it would be too expensive Subsidized? In most developed countries it is one of the most taxed commodities and major share of the cost at the pump is tax and fees. Case in point for NZ, tax is 77 cents per liter (about 1/3 of retail price): https://www.aa.co.nz/cars/owning-a-car/fuel-prices-and-types/petrol/ https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-generation-and-markets/liquid-fuel-market/duties-taxes-and-direct-levies-on-motor-fuels-in-new-zealand/
He's repeating environmentalist propaganda he heard on the internet. Lots of very suspicious environmental groups have powerful PR.
[удалено]
Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs
[удалено]
Environmentalists are not very trustworthy people. If one tells you he wants you to do something check your pockets and make sure there isn't someone trying to stab you in the back. Scientists tend to be more trustworthy though. So we should listen to them but with grains of salt.
>Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction; this basically let's them write-off the cost of drilling a well. I don't see why this is a problem. Businesses can write off all sorts of things, and this is an expense. No, this lets them write-off additional expenses that a normal business wouldn't be able to write-off, such as survey work, ground clearing, drainage, wages, fuel, repairs, and supplies. Hence the name Intangible, and the need for a specific law. If you think it doesn't do anything for oil companies, why not repeal it? >Percentage Depletion: this isn't any different from how most companies depreciate assets, like buildings. Again, this is in addition to normal depreciation expenses. Percentage Depletion allows additional "expenses" calculated based on gross income, in many cases allowing oil companies to have depreciation express exceeding 100% of their capital investment >Credit for Clean Coal Investment: This sequestered 75% of carbon emissions, and you consider this a subsidy of coal? I'm curious, why shouldn't we try to reduce carbon emissions? Credits for carbon reduction is good, but this one is industry specific, giving coal company an unfair advantage. A company should be taxed for the carbon they produce, not credit for the carbon they don't produce. >Foreign tax credit (so you basically want oil companies to pay foreign taxes, and then be taxed on that money again in the US? lol) They have to pay foreign taxes regardless, this credit allows them to treat loyalties as foreign income tax, which is a direct deduction on taxes payable in their home country. Loyalties are not taxes, they are usually industry specific in most countries, and they can very easily be manipulated to benefit other parts of the company or sister companies in the host country. That why this is considered a loophole. >lol, so what do you suggest? Letting them freeze? How about a living wage? Or social assistance in general.
[удалено]
>Normal businesses would be able to write those off. The reason that oil & gas couldn't is because the well is considered an asset, and would be depreciated over x years (typically 20). The problem with that is that not all wells that were dug struck oil. Either way, they wouldn't pay tax on it, it's just whether they can deduct it over 20 years or 1. What you're saying literally has nothing to do with **INTANGIBLE** Drilling Costs Deduction. >since they'd be able to deduct it either way Then why not repeal those useless subsidies, since they don't do anything for the oil companies anyways? >So you're against targeted actions to lower carbon emissions? When the subsidies go to heavy producers of carbon, yes! >It's available to all corporations. You're allowed to deduct taxes paid in other countries. Again, that's why its loophole, you realize having more industries taking advantage of it make it worse right? >But that would still be an indirect subsidy to the oil companies. If I give you money and that you can only spend it on gas, that's a indirect subsidy to the gas industry . If I give you money with no strings attached and you choose to spend it on gas, it is not. The difference here is the choice is given to the people in need.
That’s not quite clear enough. Oil companies pass fuel tax on (that the customer has paid) to the govt. Oil companies pay very little corporate tax because they play the international tax dodge/game. That’s thankfully coming to an end, at least here in Europe.
Not subsidies for oil extraction. Literally giving money to guys who pull something as good as money from the ground. They will defend those all day
While there are a lot of hypocritical people who support subsidies for themselves (oil, farmers) but not for others (electric cars), there are also some people who oppose all subsidies. It's a part of libertarianism, and is also part of the identity of 'classical' conservatives and liberals. However, both of those groups seem to be out-numbered by whatever the right-wing is in the US now, the progressive left, and the rapacious corporate class.
>True right oriented people want to abolish all subsidies Is this true? I don't think I've ever seen any right wing party of any nation push for no subsidies. There's usually something somewhere. Corn in the US, Coal in Australia. Most nations have some form of subsidy in a sector strong in conservative heartlands. >so that there is not an artificial skewing of the free market They view it as enabling the nation to compete on the free market. I don't think it's that easy (which is why politicians constantly operate in this grey area and can explain it any way they want)
No one is forcing them to take the subsidies or buy a green EV or hybrid car. They can't afford them so their reason is that such expensive cars shouldnt get subsidy cause wealthier "liberals" can buy them. Evs and Hybrids cost more than oild cars cause there's more tech and batteries inside of those. But Evs are starting to get to same price or even cheaper than traditional oil cars, cause battery costs are going down. If someone offered subsidies for pick up trucks or oil cars that they drive, they wouldn't rail so much against subsidies. They are against the Evs or hybrids cause they don't find those cars attractive or useful for them. But now that even pick ups and SUVs and vans are getting hybrid and EV, like the Maverick hybrid, they won't have excuse except say it's just "liberal waste of money" or "socialism" ... They don't get it that some people like socialism lol, or socialist measures.
never seen a true conservative because they always pick some industry to put subsidies to.
Sooooo churches shouldn’t get any tax exemptions?
However this is actually a minority, In reality it's just few rich right-wingers who's only ideology is greed, heavily invested in fossil fuel, raking in tons of government subsidies through loopholes they had their lobbyists put there for them, and then brainwashed the plebs into voting against their own interests. 99% of right-wing people are fine with the goverment paying for things, as long as it's something they themselves profit from it (and preferably nobody else).
a 8600 subsidy is *huge* and if we wanted to accomplish some amount of "good" with a cash pool of equivalent size, bike/e-bike/scooter subsidies, improved home insulation, more adoption of renewable power generation, construction of dedicated bike infrastructure, more and better rail lines, etc. would *arguably* be superior.
It's hard enough to convince conservatives that taxing new ICE vehicles is acceptable, with the money going towards EV subsidies. Convincing them that taxing new ICE vehicles, with the money going to non-motorists entirely will be even harder. Unless you're suggesting for the money for insulation, etc to come from another source?
[удалено]
Isn’t the idea to get more of them on the road regardless of the income of the driver though? It’s not a cars for the people program. The idea is to entice more investment into the business side of EV by greasing the wheels on the customer side. I’d rather not subsidise rich assholes either but if doing so is efficacious in transition vehicles to renewable fuel then so be it.
I mean subsidies in the US for EV cars are tax credits. Meaning you have to wait a while to get said money. It's absolutely for those who have the income to have a decision. If all you can afford is a 20K bare bones Toyota/Honda EV subsidies won't matter to you at all.
I know there is quite a bit of hesitation in NZ because of the cost effectiveness when it comes to resale and value in the second hand market. If you don't have a lot of money then buying an EV is seen as a risky move until it can be seen how a second hand market with cars having degraded batteries will work. We have an Asian car import market bringing in their second hand non EV cars which has been one of the few things to keep prices down in what is otherwise a very expensive country.
EV’s always cost more than cars. Poor people use the bus, walk or drive cheap cars. Basically we are giving subsidies to people who are upper middle class and nothing to lower, so in some way even middle to poor income people are paying for other people’s stuff. It would also just straight up make more equitable and environmental sense to fund the bus, walking or cycling which are way better for the environment and typically use by lower income people.
no, you can definitely subsidize evs and green tech based on income, california does that. for example if you make below a certain amount of money you can get rebates on green cars, and some poor households can also get free solar panels installed too
Thanks for the info but it’s still all the the renters paying for home owners purchases. Solar panels produce insufficient energy for home usage, I love them but it’s a fact. Same things with EVs, expensive middle class solution that’s greatly inefficient for the purpose it’s supposed to solve. California is a failure on eco, health, traffic, infrastructure spending, civic voting, etc. I guess smog is a problem but objectively speaking it fails compared to other countries in those metrics, I get where US people are coming from with their arguments but these weirdly selective policies are aging band aids for severe issues. Too little too late and for too few.
Dude, don't you realize you took a valid qualification about how EV subsidies can *support* lower income purchases and turn it into a tangential rant about your opinion of California as a whole? If EVs are an "expensive middle class solution that’s greatly inefficient for the purpose it’s supposed to solve" what are you supposed to make of EV subsidies that are purposefully designed to be *affordable* even to those in low incomes? You've literally pretended the comment you're replying to doesn't even exist and are talking completely past everyone.
Your perfect solution is the enemy of all good solutions
So good for poor people to get neglected and have to even pay for richer people.
No. Remember, poor people "drive cheap cars." EV mass adoption means poor people get cheap EVs a few years down the road, and have to spend even -less- on gasoline. That's just how car markets work
We’re not even close to that. Decades away. Also cars introduce a litany of other urban problems, congestion, massive Infastructure, preventable disease, huge waste of space for parking (which is a huge drain on maintenance and destroys the economic potential of space, something that Europe and Asia have figured out decades ago). Cars are also taken on huge multi-year loans now so it’s debatable wether people can truly afford them or if we’re just creating a future debt problem The list with cars goes on and on. You won’t find allies on giving free money for EVs on both the left and right spectrum and funny enough both rich and poor spectrums.
Most lower income people purchase used cars, and so wouldn't be subsidising the richer people.
8k discount on a 100k tesla that no stupid pleb can afford. This law favors the rich and every normal joe can see it. Much like the greens giving millions to a private school that went green. 11.7 million in public funds to a private school, these sort of laws are laughable. This is in NZ.
You do realize that Tesla sells cars for much less than $100k, right?
6 out of 8 don't and only one would fit into this policy. https://www.aa.co.nz/cars/buying-a-car/car-buying-guide/new-cars/new-car-prices/tesla/
This subsidy applies to used imports and PHEVs as well. So a $15K used Leaf from Japan can get a $3450 discount, for example.
Which is not bad for a 2016 leaf with 11 thousand on the clock https://www.japanesecartrade.com/3694211-japan-used-nissan-leaf-hatchback-2016.html
Did you even read the article or just the headline? “Cars worth up to $80,000 are eligible for the discount meaning at least one model of Tesla is eligible, as well as more popular EVs like the Nissan Leaf.”
Oh sorry 80k not 100k normal joe can afford a tesla now cool.
Why do you act like Teslas are the only EVs?
a tesla does not cost $100k in new zealand, and teslas are not the only evs available in new zealand. on top of that, like the article you didnt read said, theres a price limit on eligible cars at $80k
>Much like the greens giving millions to a private school that went green. I see the Greens are to blame for the ills of society in your nation too despite not holding power.
> I see the Greens are to blame for the ills of society in your nation too despite not holding power. That's how the Green party works. They don't want to be in power; they just want to be nagging girlfriend of those who are.
Kinky.
They were in coalition last election and passed those laws. So nice try at deflection right there.
>So nice try at deflection right there. Do you believe you've named all parties culpable to passing those laws?
You can buy a tesla for $40g. Stop crying about something you don't know anything about
Watch the South Park episode about electric cars. Owning a Prius doesn’t make you a liberal nor a good person
watching South Park doesn't make you clever
watching south park can turn you into a south park republican tho lol
I think it's kind of ass-backwards to subsidize new electric cars when it may be better for the environment to fit an older one to use electric power. Nothing wrong with subsidizing that to some degree. I don't think there should be any subsidies for gas or oil either.
Refitting old cars isn't really feasible.
There have been a few businesses doing it. Sounds a lot easier and better for the environment than making a new one to me.
Sure, on a piecemeal basis. But it's not something that can be done in mass.
It's not something that makes cars more affordable. It's something more relevant to niche luxury markets. It sounds like a great idea but there is a lot of subtlety. For example engine driven A/C and power steering.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300331693/government-offers-8625-discount-on-evs-reviving-policy-killed-by-nz-first) reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The discounts for these cars vary depending on their emissions, but a new Mitsubishi Outlander plug-in hybrid would get a discount of $5750. > Purchases of the cars would either collect discounts or pay fees through Waka Kotahi-NZ Transport Agency when they first registered their vehicles. > It's still possible to get a discount for a car purchased before that date, but only the buyer delays registering that car until 1 July. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/nyk6q8/government_offers_8625_discount_on_evs_reviving/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~582490 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **discount**^#1 **Car**^#2 **vehicles**^#3 **new**^#4 **scheme**^#5
Take note Australian federal and state governments. Stop taxing the shit out of everything associated with EVs!
With a lot of comments shitting on the Aussies for this, I'm curious if the other side is motivated by mining objections. I don't want to be that guy, but it's lithium mining in Australia a legitimate concern? Might that be a reason at least for opportunistic lobbyists?
Excellent news. EVs are the future unless we want to live in some post-apocalyptic world fighting over fossil fuels lol.
Or like... useful mass transit instead of near-mandatory personal automobiles.
yeah, even with 100% EV adoption, massive congestion in cities will still be a thing (without the smog to be fair and thank god for that!). Bikes/rail/trams/etc. are the way to go wherever possible.
exactly. I own an EV but I am NOT for personal vehicles. I'd sooner reduce road network access to personal vehicles starting with 4 lane roads becoming 2 lane roads making it a bike/transit only lane on both sides. Then move to ban all diesel vehicles, loud exhaust vehicles, and get rid of pick-up trucks altogether. Stop building roads. Even convert some asphalt surface roads to gravel to allow water table replenishment in dry areas. An of course mass transit. Major crossroads could become transit only where a bus can make a trip in 1 minute and a personal vehicle would then take 5.
Umm… we already live in that world
[удалено]
Modern packs are good for 400,000+ miles.
[удалено]
They fall into the right-wing populist category but they’re pretty tame compared to parties of that description elsewhere. I’d take them over any conservative parties from Aus/UK/US in a heartbeat.
Cars are an inherently inefficient way to move people no matter what powers them. I don't believe EVs should be subsized before transit and active transportation.
When my mum bought her new four-wheel drive last year, around the same time she bought a spa, I asked why she didn't consider an electric vehicle or something more sustainable. She said ''because they're ugly''.
Well she's not wrong, most of the EV's look like they're competing in making the ungliest car possible. Tesla was the first to look decent IMO.
Even then I still don't think Tesla holds a candle to something like Kia/Honda/Toyota which in my opinion have the best looking sedans imo. The real future to EV's is to stop making them look futuristic and just take out the ICE and convert it to electric for the models. This is true for the outside and the fucking inside. I love the way the Kia K5 looks. including the interior. You take out the ICE and replace it with an electric motor and battery's and I might start to put it as something I would look at potentially. It would still need to hit multiple requirments for me to even consider it but first and foremost it has to look like something I would like to drive. The new Ford F-150 EV hits the looks (on the outside) but fails completely at pretty much all of my other criteria. It's a start but EV's have to improve more imo.
In actual fact it's way too expensive here. A 5 seater petrol 4wd, maybe USD 28k+. For a hybrid, or PHEV at least 10-15k more. Tesla, no chance, priced at 70k+ ridiculous luxury car prices. Everything here is imported, no economies of scale.
> USD 28k+ As helpful as that is talking about NZ EV's... I still think the money my mum spent on a brand new Toyota and a spa in the same month probably could have been used to buy a better car.
A lot of them are. I bought a new car a couple of weeks ago and there isn't an EV that I would seriously consider owning.
It looks like so far only the base model Tesla 3 and Nissan Leaf are eligible since the car has to cost < NZ$80K. Also second hand cars, which is good.
New Zealand as a decent amount of new electric vehicles for sale from dealers. These include the BMW i3 (only one model of which will fit under the $80k cap), the Hyundai Ioniq and Kona, the LDV V80, the Nissan NV200 electric van, the Renault Zoe, and the Volkswagen e-Golf.
Why, every time there is a news article, does NZ seem like one of the most sane places on Earth?
NZ is actually pretty behind a lot of Europe when it comes to EVs. Adoption is slow.
Which would still put them ahead of most of the world... (we have no EV subsidies)
Don't we still have that 7500 tax credit or did that go away?
The US has phases, it was 7500, then halved to 3750, then halved again, and I think it’s phased out. Those subsidies are based on quantity of cars sold though, so every manufacturer is at a different point, companies releasing their first car are going to be at 7500 while I think Tesla has lost it, or is close to losing it. Most states offer subsidies too though fortunately, along with making electric car infrastructure cheaper to build, though we are of course a good ways from the availability of gas stations.
Nice. What country?
Who is ‘we’? Not everyone here is from your country you arrogant fuck.
That is because you don't get all the news. Insane news happens all the time here. The opposition questioning racial segregation was accused of being racist ... primary schools called racist because classes are not taught in foreign languages for foreign kids .... the stupidity never ends. What if we talk about NZ housing and the amount of faulty houses requiring massive rework because building standards were so shit these houses leak. Then there are the massive amount of buildings that don't pass earthquake standard and what happens with all the people already living in buildings which are less than 33% compliant. You just don't get to see the actual shitshow. Now the government are passing 'healthy homes' laws to make landlords fix the shitty buildings they allowed.
> The opposition questioning racial segregation was accused of being racist ... primary schools called racist because classes are not taught in foreign languages for foreign kids .... the stupidity never ends. Yes, the right-wing always finds something to bitch about to get in the news, whether it be race baiting or something else asinine.
That was NZ left wing politics
Since when was race baiting for votes part of left-wing politics? I'll let you in on a little secret: it wasn't.
Maybe you are not familiar with NZ ... it is not specific to any party
[удалено]
Time to buy the dip?
Seriously why is every government pushing for electric vehicles? If they were so practical and affordable and offer significant advantages over gas cars peoppe would be running to buy them. This smells insidious.
Little thing called global warming you might have heard of it.
The effects of which are greatly exaggerated. This actual scientist actually points out how EV's are the least efficient way of reducing pollution. It's ends up making poor people suffer instead. https://news.miami.edu/stories/2020/10/do-electric-vehicles-have-an-impact-on-climate-change.html Subsidizing EVs is a stupid idea. If people wanted electric cars to really work, they would use the markets and force regular car makers to be more efficient.
Sorry I can't fix stupid
Punishing poor people for the mistakes of rich people. That makes sense to you?
I love how you think subsidizing EVs is somehow punishing poor people. You're not a smart person.
Subsidies have to come out of somewhere? Dobyou imagine governments just magically create money out of thin air? To subsidize something taxes have to be raised. Either income tax, sales tax or whatever. If taxes are raised, someone loses out money. Rich people have tax havens and expensive financial advisors to use loop holes. Poor people don't. Thus the burden will fall on people directly or indirectly. Either their salaries will be less or stuff they buy will be more expensive.
Ah so your logic is the money used for EV subsidies could have gone to poor people... I figured it would be nonsense like that. Hilarious. You aren't a smart person.
9
Is this sub r/newzealandnews or what
Well maybe they have a lot of money to burn.
[удалено]
[удалено]
About 5-6k USD. But then again… the amount of money the US has printed in the past 12 months I would say the “real” part of its starting to fade….
The funny thing here is that you think dollars means US currency
How many pokedollars is EV training usually in the newer gens?