Victoria government has just announced the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Subsidy. $3000 for EV with purchase price below $68,740 (exclude stamp duty, and other charges).
No income test for this subsidy (can't see it on the website). Only 4,000 spots for this wave of subsidy.
P.S. if you buy a Model 3 SR+ (any colour), you will be eligible for the subsidy.
*** Update: my bad, even with Red colour it should still be below $68,740. So any colour is fine! ***
Referee gets $350 off Model Y & 3 purchase.
Referrer gets $175 credit toward Supercharging, software upgrades, merchandise, service payments or a new vehicle. Limit of 10 referral benefits per calendar year.
its ok, can buy a lot of red stickers with the $3000 saved.
Any $3 cashback to stack?
Yes but red paint peels faster. No deal.
FTFY
You paid 10Bt ?!?
I only paid with 7 lmao
Elon thanks you both… He'd be very disappointed if you used cash…
why pay with bitcoin. pay with useless fiat and keep the bitcoin
I don't disagree on the payment method, but calling fiat useless is laughable.
I agree, but he has a point.
In terms of a store of value, Bitcoin isn't as valuable as actual Gold, and isn't as useless as Cash.
From my unbiased view, its undoubtedly a Pyramid Scheme, but it's gotten to the point, where it has a lot of wealthy supporters. "Too big to fail" is the cringe term, but seems to hold true. Whilst cash is also a pyramid scheme to a certain extent, it's backed by men with guns, so go figure.
@Kangal: Fiat is and will likely be the dominant currency now and likely for at least the next 10 years. So saying "fiat is useless" is a little bit premature.
Most people should have 10% of their investment in crypto, adjust up or down depending on risk appetite.
If I was young in my 20s or early 30s with a decent job, no commitments, I'd happily put 50% into crypto, and half of my future disposable income going forward.
useless fiat
Please send those fiat currency to me. I'll happily take them.
You imply these 4000 quotes will be exhausted very soon ?
I'd like to know why red is excluded haha
My bad, even for red color it should still be under the threshold! So any color would work :)
It's about time that the government subsidies electric vehicles! I hope NSW follows suit.
Vic is cooler than us sigh
ACT is cooler than you both - $0 stamp duty, first 2 years of rego for free..
But no 3k
@Gristy: $912 stamp duty on a 68k car in ACT (Carbon Emission Category - Rating B, 131-170)?
$1150 p/a rego?
@[Deactivated]: that definitely should be means tested.I can see the logic but it will only put more $ in the pockets of those who don't need it
@mauricem: Fair point but those are the buyers who can afford electric atm so means testing would be counter productive. Plenty of other things should be means tested - on before deduction income to make sure wealthy people with trusts etc aren't eligible. Unfortunately that's too hard for Labor and completely against conservative principle.
Politician incentives.
@tnarg: I’m seriously bloody sick of them rewarding themselves for no obvious reason, other than because they can - 15% super etc. Its just plain disgusting.
@WhyAmICommenting: Not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that the only voters in ACT are politicians? Most politicians only visit when they need to anyway.
@WhyAmICommenting: On top of the generous super and high paid jobs for the boys and girls, for life in some instances?
I'd double their salaries but make them arrange their own super and pay for ALL trips, accommodation etc out of their own pay.
It's a smokescreen. They give $3000 to the first 20,000 EV buyers, and then make it back plus a lot, lot more from their EV tax which applies to ALL EV and PHEV owners.
It's definitely NOT good to be an EV owner in Victoria.
EV tax is better than it coming out of all our tax receipts.
but the tax is just the same thing as is paid with other registration for use of / wear and tear on the road isn't it!?
Why should EV vehicles get a free ride when everyone else pays to use the road.
Fuel excise and GST already taxes the fuel, rego is different.
They call it zero emissions but many buyers will probably plug into their coal fired power to charge up at night when their solar is off rather than get the powerwall expense - so is it really!?
Then there are the ‘facts & reason’ that delve further that only those with greater cognitive energy appreciate.
Lol, logic & reason is demostrated, not claimed. Unlike what you did just there which is an example of simpleton logic (ie I said it was true, therefore it is)…
@1st-Amendment: Yep, the logic & reason grounded in the hypothetico-deductive model of scientific investigation, which leads to peer reviewed discoveries. Cognitive energy that is orders of magnitude beyond that from Wazza & Shano at the local watering hole
@1st-Amendment: Nah, I just look at the relative education levels. You know, an objective measurement, Trumpy
You know, an objective measurement
So argument from authority then? That is your winning logic? Lol…
@1st-Amendment: You obviously don’t know what objective means
And to take the stupidity of your point to its zenith, everything is ultimately an argument from authority, since there comes a point where one must rely on the claims of others, since one can never be the most expert on the potentially millions of subjects one can investigate. The argument from authority is usually thrown out to simplistically dismiss when a person refers to research, considering all research is probabilistic, not proofs like maths.
The fact remains fossil fuel vehicles cause cancer & global warming.
You obviously don’t know what objective means
One of use doesn't, that's for sure.
everything is ultimately an argument from authority, since there comes a point where one must rely on the claims of others,
Lol so you're right because you say so. We've got that loud and clear.
But thanks for playing, Trumpy
Indeed. Thanks for the demonstration…
@Boogerman: The ref should have applied the mercy rule after your earlier posts, nevertheless I've enjoyed the subsequent carnage. Common traits of many conservatives, particularly here and in the USA, is their adoption of opinionated ignorance in lieu of expert knowledge, which for reasons often best known to themselves, they fear, and their contempt for education - something which suits people like Trump perfectly. I'd add in acceptance of lies, but that's not even vaguely disputable.
@[Deactivated]: And don’t forget, belief in sky fairies (religion) is heavily correlated to conservative voting, which explains the poor logical processes of your garden variety conservative, often wilfully
@Boogerman: My problem is not with religious beliefs per se but the hypocrisy of many of its most vocal proponents, including church officials and a cabal of politicians currently in the current fed govt.
@1st-Amendment: Thanks for taking up an argument on this point 1st-Amendment…
What Boogerman doesn't know until I just informed him/her with a reply, is by making an baseless assumption about me being a 'simpleton' (given the original comment was mine that peterpaoliello called 'facts and reason'), and dragging in a lot of other somewhat irrelevant points into a taxation argument about the validity of climate science that I never disputed*, is that by drawing an argument around "relative education levels", he/she clearly has fallen into a trap that will demonstrate that you can't make assumptions and go off on tangents designed to show you are the smartest person in the room (or on the forum), without all the facts yourself… such as the fact my education level includes multiple university degrees including Masters level - "just look at the relative education levels" Boogerman! hahaha :) I was initially offended but then saw the opportunity to retort with this comment - can't back out of the 'objective measurement' now!
*(rather I realistically acknowledge there are so many more direct things governments can do to influence climate change policy than subsidise EV's registration with vastly different user-pays taxation rates then other road users (when they need the revenue for roads) - especially without forcing them to use green power sources). Like fuel excise and supporting renewable energy generation and importantly storage which is lagging relative to generation - hence my comment about charging overnight when our energy mix is still heavily coal dependent. It will set a dangerous taxation precedent and financial problem for the government for road maintenance as we transition heavily to EVs to not tax them to use the roads as it becomes the norm. It takes quite the opposite of a simpleton to see this is larger than a climate change argument.
@MrFrugalSpend: Replied to the wrong post. That was supposed to go to Boogerman. Apologies but I can't edit or delete…
@Boogerman: Yeah well, you are responding to 'facts and reason' comment made in relation to my comment, so I'm afraid I've got you there. I have multiple university degrees including post grad level with top 5% results…. so, I guess by your own admission my education level 'trumps' your argument !!! lol :)
I have multiple university degrees including post grad level
Yet your posts are littered with basic logical fallacies, argument from authority, reductio ad adsurdum, ad hominem etc.
I'd be going back to those universities and asking for a refund.
@1st-Amendment: Seems to me yours only differ in that they're littered with kindergarten argument and ideology typical of many Trump supporters. Little wonder you've had your @rse handed to you by many others on this site. Just fyi I looked up the latest psych analysis of your problem and it's prevalent enough to now have a name. So when you wonder why people react to your nescient opinion you can always blame rigidity-of-the-right. In the unlikely event you want to learn more the key words to search are "cognitive rigidity" and "political ideology".
Seems to me..
Well you are entitled to your opinion.
Also I don't wonder why people react the way they do, it is expected. When poorly thought-out beliefs are challenged the cognitive dissonance kicks in and the name calling starts. Just as you have demonstrated here, multiple times.
If you are interested in discussing actual ideas that differ from your own, I'll be here. If you just feel the need live in an echo chamber and rely on ad hominem as a defence mechanism then I can handle that too. The childish insults reflect more poorly on you than me.
If you just feel the need live in an echo chamber and rely on ad hominem as a defence mechanism then I can handle that too. The childish insults reflect more poorly on you than me.
Lol, your hypocrisy is noted and there for all to see, but it's unfortunately not in the least surprising.
You were challenged to defend your comments and given plenty of opportunity to actually provide evidence for your ideologically-tainted opinion (or "poorly thought out beliefs" as you know it) on fossil fuel subsidies, taxation and revenue, "open markets", the well-documented $100B gas tax concessions cost to taxpayers, why we should continue to squander fossil fuels and ignore their contribution to AGW etc, but you squibbed it every time. That you couldn't wasn't remarkable - it's a common trait of opinionated ignorance of the right in particular. There are plenty of critiques of the sort of behaviour your comments exemplify if you want to do some self-analysis at soime point.
the well-documented $100B gas tax concessions cost to taxpayers
I answered this already, it's not my fault that you can't read…
@1st-Amendment: No you didn't. See how easy that denial was.
Kindergarten stuff. No I take that back. Toddlers have an excuse, you don't, unless I missed the announcement that pathological ideological blindness is actually now an acquired disease of the mind. Might explain this latest gem:
It's not my fault that you can't read …
It certainly wouldn't be your fault if I couldn't, but the EVIDENCE - something you have a great propensity for ignoring - would seem to suggest your conclusion is wrong - not for the first or last time I'm tipping. Ironically your own reading problem - a refusal to read anything which doesn't fit your straitjacketed view of the world, typical of a particular demographic - is easily fixed. Hand in your honorary memberships of the NII and TSS
but the EVIDENCE - something you have a great propensity for ignoring - would seem to suggest your conclusion is wrong
It would seem that way because can't read.
And since you can't read, I can't really help, since reading is a requirement for any dialog.
The original explanation is still in this thread, when you work it out, get back to me.
@1st-Amendment: Is that your best shot at adult argument? I've seen it many times before from a particular demographic so I'm not even slightly surprised.
So let's break down your comment in simple terms you might understand.
The original explanation is still in this thread, when you work it out, get back to me.
Dela vu. You're presumably referring to your ludicrous general comment about tax credits (aka in your mind - "stealing"), which was not only ignorant nonsense generally speaking but also didn't address the PRRT $100B at all - something you'd know if you bothered doing some simple research. Too lazy to read read about that fiasco, or too scared it might rock your blinkered little conservative world?
@1st-Amendment: Given you can't get your head around Howard's $100B subsidy of Big Gas you might care to explain how the latest Kurri Kurri $600M handout for a fossil fuel power plant isn't a subsidy yet similar payments to develop renewable green energy are. Can't wait to read your explanation.
@MrFrugalSpend: Well, in statistics there are often outliers.
Was your education in science? If so, it’s sad that you ‘only cared for getting your piece of paper’ rather than understanding the logical purpose of the teachings that lead to said certificate.
As for your argument, I’ve heard it time & time again & is easily deconstructed. But it says plenty about millions of people that are impressed by it
@MrFrugalSpend: Of course we know it's not all coal:
https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-e…
And we expect that proportion of coal to go down, especially after yesterday's VIC announcement:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-02/victorian-government-…
But yes you are right… as of today a huge component comes from coal.
@rentonc: The airborne carcinogenic effects of burning coal are infinitesimally small compared to burning oil, since the former occurs away from heavily populated areas.
So it’s a false equivalence
The EV tax is only on KM so you could just sit in the Telsa and watch youtube/ netflix and avoid paying any EV tax ;-)
lol nerds
Yep, its a replay of the move they did on LPG.
Hey, we'll give you some cash upfront but cripple the long term feasibility by destroying the benefit with taxes.
If you can’t afford it why should I pay for you to have one?
Moar please, Sir.
Because externalities exist.
if those externalities are get a higher paying job or save more money then I'm with you. If you're saying the $3000 will improve urban air quality, thats good. but if its anything to do with a business not being able to sell products competitively then those companies deserve to go the way of Holden. Tesla, the Holden of electric cars.
Same reason, why I pay for your privilege to drive a ute.
Commercial and 4wd vehicles pay more in road tax and/or business rego costs. They are also some of the most dangerous vehicle on the road and pay more for insurance (CTP and TPP) because of it.
Why u paying centerlink customers their meals, rent etc.?
the lessen the crime effect on society, its called a safety net for a reason.
plus basic survival vs some evangelical savior of the environment wanting to virtue signal they are saving the planet through consumption.
If you can't afford petrol without $10 billion dollars from the government why should I pay for you to use it?
Fossil fuel subsidies cost Australians a staggering $10.3 billion in FY 2020-21 with one Commonwealth tax break alone ($7.84 billion)
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australian-fossil-fue….
Fossil fuel subsidies…
Only if you have no idea about the bad math that hippies use to calculate a 'fossil fuel subsidy'.
Only if you have no idea about the bad math that hippies use to calculate a 'fossil fuel subsidy'.
I doubt very much you've actually read any of the analyses (there are plenty available, including this simple summary which might help improve your understanding, if not your ideological blindness.
Here's the Au Institute's full report. Unlike many others it actually includes a component for the massive outlays for the airborne, terrestrial and marine surveys, data and information collected by federal and state geoscience agencies for half a century. As you'd know (lol) that data and knowledge has been used for decades by multinational petro companies to target oil, gas and coal deposits.
You'd also be aware no doubt of the cost to Australian common wealth, aka "taxpayers", of Howard and Costello's tax concessions to gas producers in the 90s? How does $100B sound? I'll leave you to find out the details of how the $100B figure was arrived at but a clue is that it compared Australian revenue to Qatar's. Here's something to whet your appetite: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-01/tax-credits-for-oil-a…
For a laugh how about you critique what the "hippies" said in the linked Australian Institute analysis.
Ignorance is obviously a highly valued commodity in politics and certain media companies but if it had direct commercial value you'd be sitting on a goldmine.
For a laugh how about you critique what the "hippies" said in the linked Australian Institute analysis.
Sure.. "The largest subsidy is the federal fuel tax credit scheme. This cost the Federal Government $7.8 billion in 2020-21"
Do you know what a tax credit is?
If I steal $10 from you and then give you back $5, It's not a real cost to me, it's you getting more of your own money back.
As I said, bad math…
As I said, bad math…
Hardly, it's a piss poor analogy though which if applied to taxation in general leaves you where precisely? Let me answer that for you. Up sh.. creek without an income paddle.
Maths (note the 's' there Trumpy) has nothing to do with policy or undeserved/unearned concessions but as a qualified cherry picker you should have no trouble picking up a (poorly paid) job come spring/summer.
https://theconversation.com/viewpoints-should-fuel-tax-credi…
Found that $100B gas industry subsidy yet? Would you like to have an uneducated guess at the cost to the common wealth of those airborne, terrestrial and marine surveys I mentioned?
Hardly, it's a piss poor analogy though which if applied to taxation in general
Firstly it's not an analogy, it is actual math, if you understand how tax credits work, which you clearly don't. Hint you have to pay tax in order to use a credit.
I know 'fossil fuel subsidies!!!' is the catch cry of the economically illiterate Greens, but you don't have to keep proving the point.
@1st-Amendment: That you don't understand the difference between an illogical analogy - based on your obvious prejudices - and mathematics is hardly surprising. The argument whether fuel excise should be returned to non-road users has nothing at all to do with maths and everything to do with politics, something you might understand and possibly even eventually admit if you permitted your grey matter to function with at least a modicum of freedom, and read more widely. Training yourself to be relatively impartial and skeptical would help but as they say, little steps for toddlers.
As you'd know if you read various analyses and researched Howard's PRRT changes, that's just one component of fossil fuel industry subsidisation - some of which is entirely reasonable, just as some subsidisation of renewable energies are. The nonsense you and your ilk rely on is the argument that fossil fuel isn't subsidised. That of course totally ignores the history of oil, gas and coal energy development AND refuses to accept the hidden costs which societies have paid for more than a century, and continue to pay. We won't speak about the cost to future generations of our unbridled exploitation of petro resources because iirc your befuddlement also includes anthropogenic climate change denial, but any thoughts as to why current generations shouldn't leave at least some oil, coal and gas for those to come, when technology - if not humanity judging by recent "politics" across the globe - has advanced ?
This is not an affordability program, it's an incentive. Subsides exist to increase the relative competitive pricing of newer beneficial technologies which early in their development may not be competitive compared to the status quo, at this point there should be no argument EV will be the primary vehicle type in most places of the world by 2030, I assume this makes part of a wider effort to increase the critical mass to get better charging facilities put in by private companies to prepare and will be one of many over the next decade. It's also worth noting this isn't a Tesla deal, it's available to all EVs under the threshold - OP decided to use something near the policy threshold to make the post. There are cheaper EVs on the market which would still receive this payment.
If you're asking why the government gets to choose this on your behalf, that's another question entirely on why one would decide to live in a community and the benefits of social policy.
at this point there should be no argument EV will be the primary vehicle type in most places of the world by 2030
Oh man the arrogance is next level. Let's pretend there are no such thing as planes, ships, trains, or billions of below average income people that can't afford a $70k car…
If EVs are a better product then let them compete in an open market equally.
@1st-Amendment: Obviously Australia centric comment seeing as this is an Australian website, Australian forum topic on an Australian deal. Do I really need to say four wheel passenger vehicles too if that was not already implied. And as I've already covered this is not Tesla specific deal, there are other EVs on the market, and more to the point I've also started this is to support a gradual decades long change, your comment is fixating and something which hasn't been said and making it the core of your argument.
So let's broaden things out so you're not specifically looking at examples which defeat the prediction (without references I might add). What do you make of these headlines?
https://www.caradvice.com.au/934683/audi-halts-development-o…
https://elbil.no/english/norwegian-ev-policy/#:~:text=The%20….
To think ICE engines will continued to be produced into the mid 20xx or that hydrogen, Porsche fuel replacement, bio fuel or anything else giving unnatural life to non-electric commuter vehicles you're off with the fairies.
As for your other point, taking the above as correct, if we can make the change a gradual one over decades, rather then playing catchup then it's a worthwhile investment. Being at cost parity is not the only factor when evaluating emerging and new technology adoption. It is well known economy of scale is the most important factor when it comes to manufacturing costs, to say new tech in its infancy requires to be immediately at a cost benifit is ridiculous, there is no precident for that which I'm aware of - I challenge you to find one.
in most places of the world
Obviously Australia centric comment seeing as this is an Australian website
So you said 'in the world' but you meant 'only in Australia'?
primary vehcile type
Do I really need to say four wheel passenger vehicles too
Yes. Yes you do since words mean things.
If you're getting on your green bandwagon then perhaps some perspective is in order.
All transport makes up only 20% of total CO2 emissions, and passenger cars make up less than half of that. And since lifecycle emissions of an EV are somewhere around 1/3rd to a 1/2 of an ICE car depending on who you trust, the best you can hope for by switching the entire global passenger car fleet to EVs, is about 4% CO2 saving. And that is without including the global charging infrastructure required to support that which will probably cancel most of that 4% out. You could just as easily not drive one day a week and save 10%.
And then you'd still need all the ICE infrastructure to support planes, trains, ships, industrial equipment etc anyway.
So sure if you want an EV, you go buy one, but don't expect others to have to pay for your dream based on shonky math.
@1st-Amendment: You're having a different conversation than everyone else here. We're talking about this deal, not global transport. I'm not disagreeing either that EVs are some God send for the environment.. The conversation is that ICEs will be phased out for regular mum and pops transport for better or worse eventually, and young technology requires time to develop hence the deal - that's it. That's the conversation.
We're talking about this deal, not global transport.
But you actually said "most places in the world" which I disagree with.
The richer places can afford the luxury of new technology, but for "most places in the world", Fossil fuels will be the only economically viable option for some time yet.
The conversation is that ICEs will be phased out for regular mum and pops transport for better or worse eventually, and young technology requires time to develop hence the deal - that's it
I somewhat agree, however 2030 seems like an ambitious target. And rather than force this on everyone through more taxes, I believe a better path is to let the market do its thing. We didn't get better computers or phones by government intervention, there is no reason to think that they will help here.
The Tesla S came out in 2012 and in 9 years is still a niche product. The NBN began in 2011 and I still don't have access to it.
There is no reason to believe most of the world or even Australia will switch to EVs within 9 years.
"Open markets"? Lol. Your naivety and ignorance knows no bounds.
Was that supposed to be an argument, or were you merely expressing your brain fart out loud for all to see?
@1st-Amendment: It was an invitation for you to display your profound knowledge of these mythical "open markets" you mentioned in the forlorn hope it added gravitas to your comment. Perhaps you could roll your explanation of how these "open markets" work into your next reply, along with your understanding of how governments obtain and use revenue - or as you believe, contrary to even the most basic economic tenets, "steal" from people/corporations.
While you're there perhaps you could take a shot at justifying that missing $100B tax concession - aka subsidy - to the gas industry I've mentioned twice already? I'd suggest you try to set aside your pathological ideology when compiling your response but based on your Ozb comments pigs will be airborne before that occurs.
While you're there perhaps you could take a shot at justifying that missing $100B tax concession - aka subsidy - to the gas industry I've mentioned twice already?
I answered that already.
Comprehension is clearly not your strong point, you're making that abundantly clear.
I answered that already.
Sorry I missed it, could you repeat it? Are your referring to your childish analogy about stealing and fuel excise - which is quaint but has no relevance at all to Howard's $100B tax concessions, something you'd know if you did even some basic research?
How are the treatises on "open markets" and government revenue sources coming along? I'm all ears and always up for a laugh with and at reactionary right wingers.
Sorry I missed it, could you repeat it?
As I said your comprehension skills are lacking. Thanks for yet another demonstration.
@1st-Amendment: When you learn to argue above kindy level get back to me.
I'm not up on the latest psychoanalyses of contemporary pathological ideologues but it seems to me that two common traits are that they fear knowledge and facts which don't fit their narrow perspectives and they love to peddle their opinionated ignorance.
Incentivise truck owners to update their fleets of dirty diesel trucks that trundle goods from ship yards through suburban streets and suburbs before someone using a vehicle with catalytic converters. Trucks (and Virtually Worthless cars) are a greater health threat to the urban population than my 1.8L hatchback.
![[VIC] Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus $65,094 Delivered after $3000 VIC ZEV Subsidy (Was $68,084) @ Tesla](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/44/620744.jpg?h=1af1aaf6)
Yes but red cars are faster. No deal.