Importing cleaner cars discounts to New Zealand in December 2021.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Importing cleaner cars discounts to New Zealand in December 2021.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

8873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9557

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2290870 6-Aug-2019 12:30

wellygary:

Bridges has 2 PHEVS, so he's not a raving EV hater....

Pfffff.... *Hybrids*.

Seriously though, when he was a minister I always thought he was pretty reasonable even if I didn't agree with everything. I reckon the ratio of Judith Collins(TM) to Judy-at-home is probably a lot higher though.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 429
Inactive user

#2290876 6-Aug-2019 12:41

kingdragonfly:

Transferring money from gas-guzzlers to more efficient vehicle is at worst zero-sum.

In case you forgot, we live on an island and import most of of gasoline.

You may want to drive a hummer without government interference, and to hell with global change, but the rest of us care.

I merely quoted some material from FB for discussion here. That doesn't actually mean that I personally, or the National Party, has said "to hell with global change", or that we are "climate deniers"!!!!

Obraik

2167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1347

#2290879 6-Aug-2019 12:44

frednz:

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/08/05/who-the-national-party-are-really-defending-in-their-war-against-electric-cars/

From the above:

The Government have put forward a clever policy of subsidising electric cars by hitting up gas guzzlers with higher prices.

To date, the National Party, (who are climate deniers and who represent climate denier voters as well as the polluters), have attempted to sell their war on electric cars as defending the poor working class tradies of NZ.

That’s bull****.

Well, I guess it's just "click bait", but I can't help wondering why there are so many attacks on the National Party, just because they don't favour the feebate scheme, under which the Government proposes that some petrol vehicles are going to be taxed to help pay for the discounts on so-called low emitting vehicles.

The National Party makes a valid point, some people would pay more to buy petrol vehicles, and this is definitely yet another new tax.

This comment on the article is of interest:

Sad to see Labour’s energy policy being steered by the scientifically illiterate Greens. Bear with me for a second and I’ll explain:

In NZ electricity generation is about 82% renewable (depending on the year) thanks to our big hydro schemes, geothermal and a bit of wind power. The remainder has to be topped up by burning coal at Huntly.

So if I buy a new imported electric car, where is that additional power coming from to charge it?
Yes folks! That additional electrical demand I have created has to be provided by burning a bit more coal at Huntly. All those Grey Lynn hippies with their Nissan Leafs and who vote Green are do more harm to the environment than the ‘rich pricks’ with their diesel 4x4s.

The problem with the National parties opposition of the tax is that they then expect ALL tax payers to fund the EV subsidy. What seems fairer - those who are creating the emissions pay for those emissions OR everyone pays towards an EV subsidy? To me it seems only fair that those who are creating emissions pay for it.

As for the last part, there's a limit on how much power we can generate from coal - 5% of the total grid capacity. Of course, this is assuming the renewable grid doesn't grow to keep up with the demand as the EV numbers gradually grow. Of course, even if the grid was 100% non-renewable powered it an EV would still create less emissions than a ICE vehicle so that last statement in the quote is BS too.

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

kingdragonfly

11993 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12887

Subscriber

#2290888 6-Aug-2019 12:57

Just to be clear, New Zealand is a net importer to oil.

Every taxpayer and insurance owner pays for climate change, through infrastructure changes, higher insurance premiums, and clean up after extreme weather events.

With the exception of Canada, the top oil exporters are a "who's who" of evil and oppressive regimes.

From MPI

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/oil-statistics/

"While there are several producing oil fields in New Zealand, we are a net importer of oil. New Zealand’s locally-produced oil is generally exported because of its high quality and therefore high value on the international market. Australia buys most of this oil.

The Middle East tends to be our largest source of crude oil — over half generally comes from there. Russia and China are also significant trade sources.
...
There are around 15-20 tanker movements per month importing crude oil, feedstocks and petroleum products to New Zealand."

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2290893 6-Aug-2019 13:07

Obraik:

What seems fairer - those who are creating the emissions pay for those emissions OR everyone pays towards an EV subsidy?

What seems fairer is not assuming everyone has the same access to the funds or lifestyle to move from an emitter to a non-emitter and being taxed as a result?

Like if you want to bring fairness into it, then we should probably talk about the fairness of the entire underlying principal, not just pick and choose the bits that give certain groups the high ground over others.

SaltyNZ

8873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9557

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2290905 6-Aug-2019 13:21

GV27:

Obraik:

What seems fairer - those who are creating the emissions pay for those emissions OR everyone pays towards an EV subsidy?

What seems fairer is not assuming everyone has the same access to the funds or lifestyle to move from an emitter to a non-emitter and being taxed as a result?

Like if you want to bring fairness into it, then we should probably talk about the fairness of the entire underlying principal, not just pick and choose the bits that give certain groups the high ground over others.

The fairness of the entire underlying principle is that everyone has to breathe the same air, drink the same water, and live on the same land. When the coast lines become practically useless because of storm damage, it will be me with the literal high ground ~100m above current sea level. But I'll still struggle with drought in summer.

You're looking at the EV subsidy completely backwards. We are not pushing people into EVs to save money, we are saving money to push people into EVs. If you insist on resisting the change even though it will cost you then so be it but claiming that kiwi battlers are all going to have to start walking is rubbish. If you already have a car, it isn't going to suddenly cost you another $8000. And if you are buying a new car, if it looks like it's going to cost you an extra $8000, then that's a massive hint that it's also going to cost you a lot to run so maybe you should reconsider and buy one that doesn't have an $8000 fee attached. Your average Toyota Corolla looks like it will actually get cheaper under this scheme.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

tripper1000

1648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1176

#2290944 6-Aug-2019 14:10

Greeny's: "This is good".

Socialists: "This disadvantages the poor".

Reality: This doesn't affect poor people.

The proposal only prices-up near-new, gas-guzzling vehicle imports and if your example poor person is buying lots of sub 3 y.o. freshly imported gas guzzlers, I think we've figured out why they're poor - and it ain't because of a one-off tax!

The budget conscience buy cheaper hand me downs that someone else has already copped the depreciation on. Presently this is gas cars, but in the not so distance future (and thanks in part to this rule change) the poor people will have affordable hand-me-down EV's and hybrids that "rich pricks" were earlier encouraged to buy through a free-bate scheme, and who have already paid the depreciation on, so the salt of the earth poor can finally afford to make environmental responsible choices.

Economist: "This ensures environmentally sensitive choices will be affordable to the poor in future".

Truth: People who are bleating "it will make cars expensive for poor people" actually mean "My choice of future car will be more expensive because I don't want to change my comfortably entrenched buying habits".

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2290956 6-Aug-2019 14:20

SaltyNZ:

If you insist on resisting the change even though it will cost you then so be it but claiming that kiwi battlers are all going to have to start walking is rubbish. If you already have a car, it isn't going to suddenly cost you another $8000. And if you are buying a new car, if it looks like it's going to cost you an extra $8000, then that's a massive hint that it's also going to cost you a lot to run so maybe you should reconsider and buy one that doesn't have an $8000 fee attached. Your average Toyota Corolla looks like it will actually get cheaper under this scheme.

I didn't say anyone was going to 'start walking'. Try actually rebutting the points I am making.

If your crappy car that has hit a depreciation rock-bottom has died, which you're probably driving because you have more pressing concerns that upgrading your car for some sort of loftier greater good, then it's going to cost you more to replace it. And if the only option for replacing your current car is far more $$$ than you can afford to throw at a new car, you're just going to keep driving your car even longer.

Kiwis living paycheque to paycheque aren't throwing $20K at a Toyota Corolla, and their ability to reconsider things is limited by keeping food on the table or a roof over their head. This is going to have the effect of keeping people in out-dated, dangerous cars for longer by making the incremental updates they could afford even more expensive (or banned from the outset).

I'm all for upping EV adoption rates but I refuse to accept that someone buying a Tesla Model 3 needs a full blown subsidy more than someone buying a $15K Nissan Leaf that can only do 100km, even if that is something that they can make work for them.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2290960 6-Aug-2019 14:26

tripper1000:

Truth: People who are bleating "it will make cars expensive for poor people" actually mean "My choice of future car will be more expensive because I don't want to change my comfortably entrenched buying habits".

My "choice of car" is about as fuel efficient as it gets while still being interesting, I just haven't forgotten what it was like to be so financially stretched that I had to keep driving my $1.5K car every day even after it caught fire on the way to work.

SaltyNZ

8873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9557

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2290969 6-Aug-2019 14:34

GV27:

Kiwis living paycheque to paycheque aren't throwing $20K at a Toyota Corolla,

Nor would they have to, given that the vast majority of Toyota Corollas on sale are less than $10K right now, and are proposed to get about $800 cheaper once this scheme comes in. If for some reason they want a Ford Ranger, though, they will have to suck it up.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2291000 6-Aug-2019 15:43

SaltyNZ:

Nor would they have to, given that the vast majority of Toyota Corollas on sale are less than $10K right now, and are proposed to get about $800 cheaper once this scheme comes in. If for some reason they want a Ford Ranger, though, they will have to suck it up.

Are these the Corollas with crash ratings comparable with vehicles that the Govt wants to ban from entering the fleet on safety grounds?

The reason a 10 year old Corolla is so cheap is because there is pressure from imports. If imports are going to cost more, what's going to happen to the price of Corollas already here?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

SaltyNZ

8873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9557

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2291017 6-Aug-2019 15:58

GV27:

SaltyNZ:

Nor would they have to, given that the vast majority of Toyota Corollas on sale are less than $10K right now, and are proposed to get about $800 cheaper once this scheme comes in. If for some reason they want a Ford Ranger, though, they will have to suck it up.

Are these the Corollas with crash ratings comparable with vehicles that the Govt wants to ban from entering the fleet on safety grounds?

The reason a 10 year old Corolla is so cheap is because there is pressure from imports. If imports are going to cost more, what's going to happen to the price of Corollas already here?

New imported Corollas will not get more expensive. They will get cheaper. Have you even read the proposal at all? And if new imported Corollas get cheaper, then the ones already here will get cheaper still. New imported Ford Rangers or Nissan Patrols will get more expensive.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2291047 6-Aug-2019 16:39

SaltyNZ:

New imported Corollas will not get more expensive. They will get cheaper. Have you even read the proposal at all? And if new imported Corollas get cheaper, then the ones already here will get cheaper still. New imported Ford Rangers or Nissan Patrols will get more expensive.

Yes, I have read the proposal. There seems to be some confusion here. I haven't mentioned Rangers or Nissan Patrols at all. If used Corollas can't come in on safety grounds, which looks to be the case, then there'll be less downward pressure on Corolla prices locally.

Currently the low end of the market provides huge downwards pressure on everyday vehicles. This is more likely to be effected more by the safety rules than the emissions proposal, but the 'just buy a more fuel efficient car' argument only works when you 1) have the money to do so and 2) can actually get a more fuel efficient car.

Now, ask me this question but about an EV subsidy that maxes out under $20K and drops off between there and $75K on a pro-rata basis, and then I'm on board. But low/middle NZ doesn't have infinite capacity to absorb cost of living increases in every direction for the greater good just so white collar contractors can get a subsidy for Model 3s.

Obraik

2167 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1347

#2291067 6-Aug-2019 17:05

GV27:

Obraik:

What seems fairer - those who are creating the emissions pay for those emissions OR everyone pays towards an EV subsidy?

What seems fairer is not assuming everyone has the same access to the funds or lifestyle to move from an emitter to a non-emitter and being taxed as a result?

Like if you want to bring fairness into it, then we should probably talk about the fairness of the entire underlying principal, not just pick and choose the bits that give certain groups the high ground over others.

One doesn't have to buy an EV to avoid the extra tax on a vehicle. There are plenty of cheap, non-EV vehicles that either won't have any tax applied to them or will even have a subsidy applied to them.

Looking to buy a Tesla? Use my referral link and we both get credits

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2291118 6-Aug-2019 18:31

Obraik:

GV27:

Obraik:

What seems fairer - those who are creating the emissions pay for those emissions OR everyone pays towards an EV subsidy?

What seems fairer is not assuming everyone has the same access to the funds or lifestyle to move from an emitter to a non-emitter and being taxed as a result?

Like if you want to bring fairness into it, then we should probably talk about the fairness of the entire underlying principal, not just pick and choose the bits that give certain groups the high ground over others.

One doesn't have to buy an EV to avoid the extra tax on a vehicle. There are plenty of cheap, non-EV vehicles that either won't have any tax applied to them or will even have a subsidy applied to them.

But that has been criticised here. As was any use of FF.Now recent posts tell us the electricity generation by FF is actually very cool? WE all want green but some of you guys are a moving target.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7