Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58
3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 698

Trusted

  # 2274481 11-Jul-2019 10:46
3 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

The irony of this daft scheme is it relies for it's funding on people buying ICE vehicles. Then to add insult to injury, I'd say nearly 100% of those people buying an ICE vehicle would happily buy an EV if there was one available that either they could afford or fitted their needs. This scheme is an unfair tax on those that cannot afford an EV or have needs that cannot be met by an EV. This scheme isn't going to reduce EV prices to a level those that cannot afford them now will be able to afford them once the daft scheme is introduced.

 

So far as vehicle pricing goes that will take care of itself. As EV's become mainstream they will become cheaper and ICE will become relatively dearer. The ICE will become dearer for two reasons, ever increasing emission standards will increase development costs and as production numbers reduce the normal production costs will amortised over fewer vehicles. There is no need for the government to interfere when natural progression will achieve the same result.

 

I find it incredible that EV evangelists that think just because an EV suits their needs, an EV will suit the needs of everyone, therefore it's OK for the government to penalise those naughty people with an ICE for not buying an EV.

 

Personally I think the RUC free ride EV owners are getting is more than enough recompense.





Sony Xperia X running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


324 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 116


  # 2274522 11-Jul-2019 10:57
Send private message quote this post

Technofreak:

 

The irony of this daft scheme is it relies for it's funding on people buying ICE vehicles. Then to add insult to injury, I'd say nearly 100% of those people buying an ICE vehicle would happily buy an EV if there was one available that either they could afford or fitted their needs. This scheme is an unfair tax on those that cannot afford an EV or have needs that cannot be met by an EV. This scheme isn't going to reduce EV prices to a level those that cannot afford them now will be able to afford them once the daft scheme is introduced.

 

So far as vehicle pricing goes that will take care of itself. As EV's become mainstream they will become cheaper and ICE will become relatively dearer. The ICE will become dearer for two reasons, ever increasing emission standards will increase development costs and as production numbers reduce the normal production costs will amortised over fewer vehicles. There is no need for the government to interfere when natural progression will achieve the same result.

 

I find it incredible that EV evangelists that think just because an EV suits their needs, an EV will suit the needs of everyone, therefore it's OK for the government to penalise those naughty people with an ICE for not buying an EV.

 

Personally I think the RUC free ride EV owners are getting is more than enough recompense.

 

 

It's not free to halt climate change, someone has to pay for it. Don't you think it's fairer that those actively choosing to contribute to climate change by buying cars that excessively pollute should be paying rather than all tax payers?  

 

The whole idea of the scheme is that more people start buying EVs over ICE vehicles and the scheme acknowledges that as more people start buying EVs over ICE vehicles that there will be less funding for EVs - which is why the subsidies reduce each year.

 

RUC hasn't been working to get people to buy an EV over an ICE vehicle.  We're less than two years out from the previous governments goal of having 2% of the fleet being EVs and we're not even at 1% yet.  Other hand, other countries around the world have successfully combated a stagnant uptake with the introduction of similar incentives to what is now being proposed here.


 
 
 
 


17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2274524 11-Jul-2019 11:05
Send private message quote this post

Technofreak:

 

The irony of this daft scheme is it relies for it's funding on people buying ICE vehicles. Then to add insult to injury, I'd say nearly 100% of those people buying an ICE vehicle would happily buy an EV if there was one available that either they could afford or fitted their needs. This scheme is an unfair tax on those that cannot afford an EV or have needs that cannot be met by an EV. This scheme isn't going to reduce EV prices to a level those that cannot afford them now will be able to afford them once the daft scheme is introduced.

 

So far as vehicle pricing goes that will take care of itself. As EV's become mainstream they will become cheaper and ICE will become relatively dearer. The ICE will become dearer for two reasons, ever increasing emission standards will increase development costs and as production numbers reduce the normal production costs will amortised over fewer vehicles. There is no need for the government to interfere when natural progression will achieve the same result.

 

I find it incredible that EV evangelists that think just because an EV suits their needs, an EV will suit the needs of everyone, therefore it's OK for the government to penalise those naughty people with an ICE for not buying an EV.

 

Personally I think the RUC free ride EV owners are getting is more than enough recompense.

 

 

Exactly right, but I see the usual response above.  If there was an EV for all of us, and they aren't double the price, they are say 10% more then I am ok with penalties to encourage change. But they arent there for all of us nor at a non artificially inflated price. Blame others for the prohibitive pricing. 


17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2274526 11-Jul-2019 11:10
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Obraik:

 

 

 

It's not free to halt climate change, someone has to pay for it. Don't you think it's fairer that those actively choosing to contribute to climate change by buying cars that excessively pollute should be paying rather than all tax payers?  

 

The whole idea of the scheme is that more people start buying EVs over ICE vehicles and the scheme acknowledges that as more people start buying EVs over ICE vehicles that there will be less funding for EVs - which is why the subsidies reduce each year.

 

RUC hasn't been working to get people to buy an EV over an ICE vehicle.  We're less than two years out from the previous governments goal of having 2% of the fleet being EVs and we're not even at 1% yet.  Other hand, other countries around the world have successfully combated a stagnant uptake with the introduction of similar incentives to what is now being proposed here.

 

 

We can all buy Swifts as they have a discount as well. Remember, this move is about emissions, its not about EV, its about all cars. To reduce emissions


231 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 45


  # 2274530 11-Jul-2019 11:13
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

Car buyers will buy the best car they can afford. Electric powered vehicles have a fuel cost advantage over internal combustion vehicles.

 

The draw back to EV's is their higher initial cost and concerns about battery life range and replacement costs. There is a substantial effort going on worldwide to come up with solutions and improvements are being made all the time.

 

When the point arrives where car buyers get greater benefits from EV's they will make the change and manipulations by "we know better" politicians will not be necessary.

 

The whole thing brings to mind a quotation by Marx, the comedian not the economist;

 

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”





Obsequious hypocrite

17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2274540 11-Jul-2019 11:21
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

ObidiahSlope:

 

Car buyers will buy the best car they can afford. Electric powered vehicles have a fuel cost advantage over internal combustion vehicles.

 

The draw back to EV's is their higher initial cost and concerns about battery life range and replacement costs. There is a substantial effort going on worldwide to come up with solutions and improvements are being made all the time.

 

When the point arrives where car buyers get greater benefits from EV's they will make the change and manipulations by "we know better" politicians will not be necessary.

 

The whole thing brings to mind a quotation by Marx, the comedian not the economist;

 

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

 

 

Financially, the artificial price premium for new EV's is like solar PV for most people. It is cheaper not to have it or drive it. The time it takes to recover that premium is excessive. The up to 8k makes little difference to that equation. Its in the hands of the car makers. When they are able to produce volume, all this will be resolved


3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 698

Trusted

  # 2274541 11-Jul-2019 11:22
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

Obraik:

 

It's not free to halt climate change, someone has to pay for it. Don't you think it's fairer that those actively choosing to contribute to climate change by buying cars that excessively pollute should be paying rather than all tax payers?  

 

The whole idea of the scheme is that more people start buying EVs over ICE vehicles and the scheme acknowledges that as more people start buying EVs over ICE vehicles that there will be less funding for EVs - which is why the subsidies reduce each year.

 

RUC hasn't been working to get people to buy an EV over an ICE vehicle.  We're less than two years out from the previous governments goal of having 2% of the fleet being EVs and we're not even at 1% yet.  Other hand, other countries around the world have successfully combated a stagnant uptake with the introduction of similar incentives to what is now being proposed here.

 

 

There are quicker and simpler ways ways we could be combating climate change. For example I don't suppose you've noticed the dramatic decrease in vehicles on the road during the school holidays. How many children walk or cycle to school any more?

 

Generally one function of a good tax system is to redistribute wealth. In other words those that earn more pay more. The crazy scheme is a tax on those that earn less or don't have a choice. What's fair about that?

 

Just because something is appropriate overseas doesn't mean it is appropriate to use in New Zealand or will even work here. Compared to most countries our country is sparsely populated and has geographical challenges. Government subsidies rarely ever achieve the stated aim but still cost the taxpayer.

 

 





Sony Xperia X running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


 
 
 
 


3911 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1218


  # 2274542 11-Jul-2019 11:26
Send private message quote this post

Technofreak:

 

The irony of this daft scheme is it relies for it's funding on people buying ICE vehicles.

 

 

I think people are going to find the "ramp downs" quite annoying, + the Fee/rebate level changes every year,

 

 

 

in 2021 you get 8K for a New EV,  and $800 for a Corolla, While a Prado pays 3K

 

in year 3, you only get 6.3K for the EV, nothing for the Corolla, while the Prado still pays 3K

 

in Year 7 ( if it ever gets that far) EVs only get 4.2Km you will pay 1K for the Corolla, and the Prado is still +3K

 

 

 

There is a huge incentive to buy your car in Year 1, its gonna be a booming year for car sales,  ( although 2020 might be a bit of a drought )


324 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 116


  # 2274546 11-Jul-2019 11:30
Send private message quote this post

Technofreak:

 

There are quicker and simpler ways ways we could be combating climate change. For example I don't suppose you've noticed the dramatic decrease in vehicles on the road during the school holidays. How many children walk or cycle to school any more?

 

Generally one function of a good tax system is to redistribute wealth. In other words those that earn more pay more. The crazy scheme is a tax on those that earn less or don't have a choice. What's fair about that?

 

Just because something is appropriate overseas doesn't mean it is appropriate to use in New Zealand or will even work here. Compared to most countries our country is sparsely populated and has geographical challenges. Government subsidies rarely ever achieve the stated aim but still cost the taxpayer.

 

 

Which is easier and quicker to do...tell people to completely change their ways and use public transport OR tell people they can continue their current routine but change the tool from X to Y which has no impact on how they do their routine?  Getting more people to use public transport is something we definitely need to be doing but that's going to take a long time to do and needs to happen in parallel.

 

Is it a crazy tax on those that earn less?  How many low earners are actually buying a brand new car?  How many are actually buying a vehicle that will be receiving the maximum penalty? There are also plenty of vehicles across all type that will receive no penalty (and no subsidy either) that are not EVs.

 

What geographical challenges could NZ possibly have that make EVs inappropriate? As you said, NZ has a relatively low population - the current vehicles we're getting are not custom made for our country to suit our "geographical challenges"


845 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 89

Trusted

  # 2274558 11-Jul-2019 11:39
Send private message quote this post

Obraik:

 

Technofreak:

 

There are quicker and simpler ways ways we could be combating climate change. For example I don't suppose you've noticed the dramatic decrease in vehicles on the road during the school holidays. How many children walk or cycle to school any more?

 

 

Which is easier and quicker to do...tell people to completely change their ways and use public transport OR tell people they can continue their current routine but change the tool from X to Y which has no impact on how they do their routine?  Getting more people to use public transport is something we definitely need to be doing but that's going to take a long time to do and needs to happen in parallel.

 

 

Increase registration for each additional vehicle that people don't need to buy, forcing public transport engagement. Apply tiered registration levels to vehicles based on their emissions. Then perhaps use that fund to pay for the RUCs/Purchase discounts that people want for pure EVs. As we start trying to become cities we shouldn't be encouraging more personal motor vehicles, we should be doing the opposite, regardless of emissions.


17000 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3389

Trusted

  # 2274565 11-Jul-2019 11:45
Send private message quote this post

Obraik:

 

How many low earners are actually buying a brand new car?  How many are actually buying a vehicle that will be receiving the maximum penalty? There are also plenty of vehicles across all type that will receive no penalty (and no subsidy either) that are not EVs.

 

 

 

 

Correct. There will be a vast majority of people unaffected, no emissions savings there. 3.8M vehicles. New registrations are about 160,000 annually? Or .16M So 3.64M of 3.8M are unaffected. No $ effect and emissions continue. Public transport changes now would make a difference now.

 

All those that have an ICE that is near new or old and there are no immediate plans to change it


324 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 116


  # 2274568 11-Jul-2019 11:47
Send private message quote this post

NzBeagle:

 

Increase registration for each additional vehicle that people don't need to buy, forcing public transport engagement. Apply tiered registration levels to vehicles based on their emissions. Then perhaps use that fund to pay for the RUCs/Purchase discounts that people want for pure EVs. As we start trying to become cities we shouldn't be encouraging more personal motor vehicles, we should be doing the opposite, regardless of emissions.

 

 

How many people actually have more than one vehicle registered in their name?  Or should I say, how many could work around that by having the second vehicle registered in their partners name?  Applying emissions fees on registration is a good idea but that will impact on low income earners too and comes across as "robbing the poor to feed the wealthy"


3181 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 698

Trusted

  # 2274584 11-Jul-2019 12:22
Send private message quote this post

Obraik:

 

Which is easier and quicker to do...tell people to completely change their ways and use public transport OR tell people they can continue their current routine but change the tool from X to Y which has no impact on how they do their routine?  Getting more people to use public transport is something we definitely need to be doing but that's going to take a long time to do and needs to happen in parallel.

 

Is it a crazy tax on those that earn less?  How many low earners are actually buying a brand new car?  How many are actually buying a vehicle that will be receiving the maximum penalty? There are also plenty of vehicles across all type that will receive no penalty (and no subsidy either) that are not EVs.

 

What geographical challenges could NZ possibly have that make EVs inappropriate? As you said, NZ has a relatively low population - the current vehicles we're getting are not custom made for our country to suit our "geographical challenges"

 

 

The geographical challenges I was thinking about were not just the use of the vehicle but things like for example the cost of electricity in some areas. No doubt you read about the couple in the King Country who cannot afford to run their heat pump due to the price of electric power. You mention public transport, our geography and population distribution makes public transport absolutely useless in many parts of New Zealand. To suggest public transport as a solution suggests to me the person suggesting that is a city slicker with no real understanding of what life is like outside of the main centres.

 

How many electric off road 4WD vehicles are available for use in the back country areas?





Sony Xperia X running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS 
Samsung Galaxy Tab S3
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


324 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 116


  # 2274588 11-Jul-2019 12:40
Send private message quote this post

Technofreak:

 

The geographical challenges I was thinking about were not just the use of the vehicle but things like for example the cost of electricity in some areas. No doubt you read about the couple in the King Country who cannot afford to run their heat pump due to the price of electric power. You mention public transport, our geography and population distribution makes public transport absolutely useless in many parts of New Zealand. To suggest public transport as a solution suggests to me the person suggesting that is a city slicker with no real understanding of what life is like outside of the main centres.

 

How many electric off road 4WD vehicles are available for use in the back country areas?

 

 

The couple who can't afford to run their heat pump are very unlikely to be buying a brand new vehicle.  Going along with your example though, I'm assuming they have a vehicle they're buying petrol/diesel for, so rather than that cost going towards fuel it's now going to power - I haven't looked it up but I'm doubtful there's a location in NZ where the cost of power per KM is more expensive than fuel per KM.  I only brought up public transport as that's where I figured you were going when talking about less vehicles on the road during school holidays.  I agree, public transport doesn't work for people living out of the city and currently is a hindrance even in the cities - hence why I said that it's something that needs to be done in parallel.

 

There aren't any EV offroad 4WDs yet but there is at least one due (from Rivian) around the time that the subsidy goes in.  Again though, there are non-EV off road 4WDs that will either have no levy or a minor levy


357 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 54


  # 2274590 11-Jul-2019 12:42
Send private message quote this post

Linuxluver:

 

I agree: polluters pay. Funny how National is all about responsibility and accountability until it's their voters who need to be responsible and accountable. But we've seen this before.

 

2008 to 2017 made it pretty clear National is happy to spend the money but won't raise the revenue to fund the spending. They just borrow more overseas. That's how the NZ govt's debt went from $10 billion in 2008 to over $93 billion in 2017....and the two tax cuts (despite the GFC and the Chch quakes) helped hugely.

It's fair to say National is the "Don't Tax But Spend Anyway" party......because that is *exactly* what they did for 9 years.

In that context, Bennett's comments make perfect sense.

 

 

 

 

When in 2017 was government net debt over $93 B?


1 | ... | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Huawei's scholarship programme showcases international business to Kiwi undergrads
Posted 22-Jul-2019 17:53


Spark Sport launches across a range of new devices
Posted 22-Jul-2019 13:19


Dunedin selects Telensa to deliver smart street lighting for 15,000 LEDs
Posted 18-Jul-2019 10:21


Sprint announces a connected wallet card with built-in IoT support
Posted 18-Jul-2019 08:36


Educational tool developed at Otago makes international launch
Posted 17-Jul-2019 21:57


Symantec introduces cloud access security solution
Posted 17-Jul-2019 21:48


New Zealand government unveils new digital service to make business easier
Posted 16-Jul-2019 17:35


Scientists unveil image of quantum entanglement
Posted 13-Jul-2019 06:00


Hackers to be challenged at University of Waikato
Posted 12-Jul-2019 21:34


OPPO Reno Z now available in New Zealand
Posted 12-Jul-2019 21:28


Sony introduces WF-1000XM3 wireless headphones with noise cancellation
Posted 8-Jul-2019 16:56


Xero announces new smarter tools, push into the North American market
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:20


New report by Unisys shows New Zealanders want action by social platform companies and police to monitor social media sites
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:09


ASB adds Google Pay option to contactless payments
Posted 19-Jun-2019 17:05


New Zealand PC Market declines on the back of high channel inventory, IDC reports
Posted 18-Jun-2019 17:35



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.