GV27:

 

Does someone who can afford a Tesla need a government subsidy?

 

The simple fact is that we want more motorists in NZ to buy electric vehicles. If people who can afford a Tesla decide that a Tesla is simply not worth the asking price, then they are not going to buy one. This applies to Government decision-making as well. If the high price of new EVs cannot be justified, then Government will not by EVs either!

For example, if you go into a café and order a coffee and a muffin and they say that will be $100, you might well be able to afford $100, but who in their right mind would pay that much?

Another example, a new Hyundai Kona petrol vehicle costs around $40,000, but you will have to pay between $70,000 and $80,000 to buy a new Kona 64 kWh EV. So, is the additional $30,000 - $40,000 you have to pay to get this EV really worth it?

If the price of the new Kona EV was around $50,000 to $60,000, then a lot more would be sold, but for this sort of price to be achieved, it certainly looks like a Government subsidy would be necessary, as has been implemented in many overseas markets.

frednz:

 

GV27:

 

Does someone who can afford a Tesla need a government subsidy?

 

 

The simple fact is that we want more motorists in NZ to buy electric vehicles. If people who can afford a Tesla decide that a Tesla is simply not worth the asking price, then they are not going to buy one. This applies to Government decision-making as well. If the high price of new EVs cannot be justified, then Government will not by EVs either!

 

For example, if you go into a café and order a coffee and a muffin and they say that will be $100, you might well be able to afford $100, but who in their right mind would pay that much?

 

Another example, a new Hyundai Kona petrol vehicle costs around $40,000, but you will have to pay between $70,000 and $80,000 to buy a new Kona 64 kWh EV. So, is the additional $30,000 - $40,000 you have to pay to get this EV really worth it?

 

If the price of the new Kona EV was around $50,000 to $60,000, then a lot more would be sold, but for this sort of price to be achieved, it certainly looks like a Government subsidy would be necessary, as has been implemented in many overseas markets.

 

Let me rephrase this: Are there people who need assistance from the limited government funds available more than people who can afford to buy new cars? Given that EVs are nowhere near a mature technology, would we be spending lots of money to drive market forces that technological change is going to end up driving anyway?

Following on, you're also working from the premise that an EV rebate has to cost the government money, thus taking government assistance money away from poor people. But that's not true. Currently, EVs make up something like 2% of new vehicle registrations. Put a $500 smoke tax on imports of all ICE vehicles, and you can give a $10,000 rebate on the EVs, and still be a bit ahead, revenue-wise. Adjust annually. EVs now make up 10% of registrations? Great, the smoke tax is now $1000. EVs have dropped 10% in price? Great, now the rebate is $9000.

Unless people are going through a dozen cheap sh***y people movers a year, it will have zero impact on them. And if it does, well, to a certain extent that is the point. We objectively do not want sh***y polluting vehicles on the road so the less attractive they are, the better.

Eventually, EV prices will drop to a level that a rebate isn't necessary. At that point the smoke tax becomes prohibitive. You want to import a 7L V10 Chevy truck? No problem. Registration is a mere $10,000. Buy as many as you like.

SaltyNZ: This is a specious argument. Think of just about anything, and you can find people that “need” that assistance more. For example, are there people who need government assistance more than most people need free fibre internet connections? Absolutely. And yet, we have UFB, which is uncontroversial.

But you argue against government assistance to encourage behaviour that will help save the same planet your hypothetical people who need assistance more also live on. The faster they become mainstream the faster the strugglers who want cheap sh***y people movers can get cheap sh***y electric people movers.

UFB isn't a 'free fibre connection', it's the physical network. Last time I checked, you still need to provide and pay for your own service plan.

And it's not really a specious argument; it's one grounded in a reality; that funds for Govts are scarce and I'd rather they use the money they take from me in tax for more constructive things before giving it to people who want to buy $200K Playstation Cars. 

But you want to talk about 'specious'? Let's talk about 'save the planet'. Let's talk about how saving the planet is a wonderful notion for Green voters in inner-city Auckland who have company cars and who don't face the same costs as people living on a very thin margin. I can see it now; no more money for Tomorrow's School, Grey Lynn execs need their Teslas underwritten by Johnny Forkliftdriver. 

We benefit from other nation's as they're driving down the price of second-hand imports here, and we're not a big enough market to drive supplier behaviour with buyer incentives. Hell, VW can't build enough E-Golfs to satisfy world demand.

You want to make a compelling case? Argue for GST to be zero-rated on second-hand EVs under a certain value being imported into the country. But don't tell me I'm being  specious because a Govt won't fund your personal crusades and then use over-wrought phrases like 'save the planet'. 

E: Having thought about this, the above makes me come across like a dick. I'll leave it there for posterity's sake. But consider what's coming between now and 2020:

An electric Volvo XC60, the iPace, the electric Mini, the uprated i3, the new Leaf with local dealer support and a 60kwh version early next year, the RHD Model 3, the VW iD, plus a rumoured Ford CUV and supposedly a Nissan SUV. 

These are still premium vehicles and will take a couple of years to filter through the import process on the second-hand market. So do we blow a heap of cash when there are literally only about ten BEV RHD vehicles you can buy on the market, or do we go in at the low end, make maximum use of other country's subsidies and piggy back off them to get the same result, only a year or two later, while a wider range of new BEVs organically flow through local model line-ups over time? 

GV27:

 

UFB isn't a 'free fibre connection', it's the physical network. Last time I checked, you still need to provide and pay for your own service plan.

 

But you don't have to pay the thousands of dollars it would take to have a fibre connection brought to your house. Without the government stumping up the cash, you'd still have copper. Possibly even just ADSL, like in the bad old days. The government got the project going, but all of that money could've been spent on feeding poor kids. Did we make the right choice? Is it possible that a government can do more than one thing at a time?

GV27:

Let me rephrase this: Are there people who need assistance from the limited government funds available more than people who can afford to buy new cars? Given that EVs are nowhere near a mature technology, would we be spending lots of money to drive market forces that technological change is going to end up driving anyway?

SaltyNZ:

 

GV27:

 

UFB isn't a 'free fibre connection', it's the physical network. Last time I checked, you still need to provide and pay for your own service plan.

 

 

But you don't have to pay the thousands of dollars it would take to have a fibre connection brought to your house. Without the government stumping up the cash, you'd still have copper. Possibly even just ADSL, like in the bad old days. The government got the project going, but all of that money could've been spent on feeding poor kids. Did we make the right choice? Is it possible that a government can do more than one thing at a time?

 

I take your point. But within that same vein, is it better to underwrite EVs for environmental reasons, or further increase PT subsidies? Which is going to achieve the goal in the most widespread, equitable manner?

I say this as someone who wants to make the switch to electric as soon as I am able, and am excited about the potential applications for EVs for vehicles used recreationally as well.

GV27:

 

I take your point. But within that same vein, is it better to underwrite EVs for environmental reasons, or further increase PT subsidies? Which is going to achieve the goal in the most widespread, equitable manner?

SaltyNZ:

 

Following on, you're also working from the premise that an EV rebate has to cost the government money, thus taking government assistance money away from poor people. But that's not true. Currently, EVs make up something like 2% of new vehicle registrations. Put a $500 smoke tax on imports of all ICE vehicles, and you can give a $10,000 rebate on the EVs, and still be a bit ahead, revenue-wise. Adjust annually. EVs now make up 10% of registrations? Great, the smoke tax is now $1000. EVs have dropped 10% in price? Great, now the rebate is $9000.

 

Unless people are going through a dozen cheap sh***y people movers a year, it will have zero impact on them. And if it does, well, to a certain extent that is the point. We objectively do not want sh***y polluting vehicles on the road so the less attractive they are, the better.

 

Eventually, EV prices will drop to a level that a rebate isn't necessary. At that point the smoke tax becomes prohibitive. You want to import a 7L V10 Chevy truck? No problem. Registration is a mere $10,000. Buy as many as you like.

 

You are assuming that people will still buy new ICE vehicles, despite them now costing more. Sure, some people might instead buy an EV. But for most people (those who can't afford brand new cars) They will have to keep their current car for longer. It will also breed resentment against EVs. As if you currently drive a people mover, The only EV option available is a Tesla Model X. Even if subsidies reduced the price of a Model X by $20,000. It will still be completely unaffordable for the people who can only afford to buy sh***y people movers.

As for the 7L V10 Chevy truck? Again, where is the EV version? And yes, there are use cases where such a vehicle is the best vehicle for the job. (mainly towing 3.5 ton trailers).

If you want to start restricting what people can buy. How about tiny little petrol hatchbacks. Such as the Toyota Vitz, Nissan Note, Mazda Demino etc. Especially as the people who tend to buy them, often use them for short around town trips. These people could buy an EV today, and not face any restrictions in how they drive. Guessing most of them are bought by the same kind of people who insist on keeping a landline phone connected. And are generally afraid of new technologies.