Fuel type for new car

[facthunter]

Your phone shows a date and time. Just image the odometer and keep a record. In Lieu of that an agreed figure would be negotiated like when your electric meter goes berserk. Pays to have the record for simplicity. In NZ they had a meter on a wheel when I was there last but I don't think that's necessary. People use these figures for tax claim purposes now.Nothing new . Nev

[spacesailor]

More money for the government!  .

At this very moment,  THEY ( Bureaucrats  ) are discussing the driving license's for 4X4s,to get more revenue,  It will Certainly Not improve the skill of the ' school-pickup ' brigade .

Who never go ' off road ' .

spacesailor

 

[onetrack]

If the authorities taxed EV's on weight, same as ICE vehicles, they'd be on a winner. The EV's are so heavy, they need special tyres, and their weight-carrying ability is more limited than an ICE vehicle.

[facthunter]

Whatever a "fair" formula  needs. . It's the really HEAVY stuff that does the most damage.  Specially when there's been a lot of rain and a poor BASE.  Nev

[octave]

I think weight would be a reasonable way to charge for road usage.   It is often stated that EVs are enormously heavy. They are heavier compared to similar vehicles i.e.  EV sedan compared to ICE sedan.  A tesla model 3 is similar in weight to a many SUVs and lighter than a HighLux

[facthunter]

I think the average weight of a battery is about 300 Kgs . Is that right?  Nev.

[octave]

Model 3 Long Range Battery is 498KG   total weight of this vehicle is 1844kg

[facthunter]

That weight is more than the AUW of a Caterham. Look it up and see what they fetch.  Nev

[red750]

This is why lithium batteries are prohibited on airplanes and firemen will not use water to extinguish a fire related to an EV.

 

 

 

[octave]

14 minutes ago, red750 said:

This is why lithium batteries are prohibited on airplanes and firemen will not use water to extinguish a fire related to an EV.

 Prohibited in checked luggage but not in the cabin otherwise you could not take your phone. 

 

 

Qantas Battery powered devices and equipment

Edited March 12, 2023 by octave

[spacesailor]

YES BUT  !,

salt batteries in ' hearing aids ' are exempt , you don't have to switch the world off, or you could miss that '' safety '' demonstration .

Silly me I had to ask ! .

spacesailor

[Old Koreelah]

18 hours ago, octave said:

Model 3 Long Range Battery is 498KG   total weight of this vehicle is 1844kg

That’s almost identical to the GVM of my wife’s diesel i30.

[red750]

Victoria's EV tax has been ruled unconstitutional. The High Court has deemed it an "excise" and only the Federal Government can levy an excise. State Treasurer Tim Pallas says they will not refund the tax/excise already collected. There are also implications for the Air B&B tax and vacant land tax. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Pallas may have no choice in the matter. If the tax is unconstitutional and they keep it, does it not equate to theft?

 

Since it's inception, the tax has raised a whole  $3.2m. Personally, I think it shows the whole funding model in Australia to be somewhat broken, as it is claimed (I have not verified yet) that under the Libs, the Labor governed states tended to fare worse in the federal cash distributions, and Vic fard disproportionately worse, presumably because of the Libs disdain for Andrews and the desire to ruin him.

 

However, the tax was absurd. Virtually everywhere in the word, they are providing reduced registration and road taxes for zero-emission vehicles (not just EVs, but Hydrogen as well), to get poisoning vehicles off the road (they are not necessarily less polluting when taking into account whole of life cycle - though recent advances are tipping the balance in the zero emissions vehicles favour).

 

London have expanded the ULEZ (Ultra-low emissions zone) where cars with over a certain # grammes/kilometre emmissions are charged £12.50 a day if they move. This has been met with a lot of criticism of the London mayor, but in reality, and the conservatives are now fighting it while in reality it was a conservative national government that legislated to ensure it happens to help move the transition to zero emmissions (under Boris Johnson, I think). Other cities such as Bristol and Mancheester have had ti implement them as well.

 

I have to admit, at first, I was against it, but that is because my old XC90 gets caught by it.. But at the end of the day, I am for it because a) it will mean I am contributing for the damage I am doing, or b) it will encourage people to me more emissions conscious in their purchase (you can still have ICE engines, they basically have to meet EURO emmissions standard and most cars built after 2015 do).

 

The UK is having discussion about plugging the budget hole that will be left  as ICE engined cars on the road diminish, but they are saying it is more important to get people off them than it is to slug adopters for the gap.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[onetrack]

Someone has to pay for road maintenance and road rebuilding - and the income from the Federal fuel excise is simply enormous. But the big factor is - the fuel excise was originally initiated to pay for roads upkeep and replacement, and nothing else.

But over the decades, the fuel excise income has simply soared to levels the pollies could only dream about, in their original plans and calculations - and now, a BIG percentage of the fuel excise goes into Consolidated Revenue - which pays for a whole lot more, than just road maintenance and road rebuilding projects. 

So, the bottom line is, the overall tax take is going to take a major hit when fuel sales slow to a trickle.

I trust a lot of pollies are currently working on a solution to this problem - because the alternative of cutting welfare, pensions, education grants, and the myriad of other monies that people rely on, will only cause a massive revolt amongst the population, if introduced in response to a major reduction in fuel excise income.

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

Someone has to pay for road maintenance and road rebuilding - and the income from the Federal fuel excise is simply enormous. But the big factor is - the fuel excise was originally initiated to pay for roads upkeep and replacement, and nothing else.

But over the decades, the fuel excise income has simply soared to levels the pollies could only dream about, in their original plans and calculations - and now, a BIG percentage of the fuel excise goes into Consolidated Revenue - which pays for a whole lot more, than just road maintenance and road rebuilding projects. 

So, the bottom line is, the overall tax take is going to take a major hit when fuel sales slow to a trickle.

I trust a lot of pollies are currently working on a solution to this problem - because the alternative of cutting welfare, pensions, education grants, and the myriad of other monies that people rely on, will only cause a massive revolt amongst the population, if introduced in response to a major reduction in fuel excise income.

I heard from one of the people who brought the lawsuit that the fuel excise hasn't been used for roads since 1959.

Yes they need to restructure the tax system and they had the Ken Henry review which they subsequently ignored.

They may lose the fuel excise money but the costs from climate change are going to make that look like a drop in the bucket. 

[facthunter]

No one can expect to use the roads without contributing to the cost. The issue was of states being able to apply this COST. It's not a tax if you don't use a car powered by electricity where there's currently No provision to recover cost Federally but it was being considered by just about every one  so will eventually happen and should be related to DISTANCE travelled and Vehicle MASS. SUBSIDISING Electric vehicles is a separate issue and there are numerous ways to do that if it's wanted/ needed. .  Nev

[facthunter]

I have NO idea how I'm going to cope with this change. IF you are on the pension you don't live very high on the Hog.   Nev

[nomadpete]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I have NO idea how I'm going to cope with this change. IF you are on the pension you don't live very high on the Hog.   Nev

Then sell the Harley

[old man emu]

My Harley is my only financially appreciating possession, But I didn't buy it for financial gain. To me it is akin to having an artwork by a noted artist, or even simply an art work that expresses the statement , "I don't know Art, but I know what I like".

[facthunter]

What Harley? it's OME with the Harley. I sold my 1916 ( which I built ) in 97.  Nev

[nomadpete]

I thought a hog had to be a Harley. You mentioned "high on the hog"

[facthunter]

You credit me with more talent than I have. A little Pig was their racing mascot at one time but you sit low on a Harley.. High on the Hog equates to living in a purple Patch.  How would any "imports " understand a word we say?  It's a hard ask  for them.  Nev

[Old Koreelah]

20 hours ago, facthunter said:

No one can expect to use the roads without contributing to the cost. The issue was of states being able to apply this COST…

Perhaps a more equitable method of paying for roads would be to phase out fuel excise and replace it with a national tax on the thing every vehicle uses: tyre rubber.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

national tax on the thing every vehicle uses: tyre rubber.

A possibility, but how do you determine an equitable tax on that? My first thought was on average mileage a tyre is expected to be useful for, but then you have to factor in things like wear rates. A tyre for a small passenger car is likely to last for more kms than the tyre for a truck, and a motorcycle tyre wears fastest. (I think)