It's the economy, stupid!

 
  nswtrains Chief Commissioner

VG! Heard this morning the executives bonuses are likely to be slashed, should be removed all together.
The audit will review as far back as 2010. Systemic?

Issues are around middle management, not higher up or Smeg kickers either.
As a direct shareholder, am appalled by this behaviour and afraid to look at current share price.
CEO Banducci should go.
Former Senator David Leyonhjelm penned an article today in the Financial Review arguing that all awards should be abolished:

This is not about paying workers starvation wages, or even paying them below the national minimum wage (at $18.93 per hour for adult workers, almost the highest in the world). There is a minimum rate for every job covered by an award, as well as for things like additional skills, overtime, penalties, superannuation, allowances and holidays.

An employer can be labelled a wage thief for getting any of them wrong. It makes no difference if the affected employees are quite happy with what they are paid, don’t feel at all exploited and believe nothing has been stolen from them. They and their employer are not allowed to agree on anything less than the prescribed minimums. It also makes no difference if it was totally unintentional, not unusual given that navigating awards and agreements can require at least two degrees, very strong coffee and an executive assistant.

I think he's right but for a different reason: Awards in some industries have become completely unenforceable and the problem is that the minority of employers trying to do the right thing are at a distinct economic disadvantage - therefore why bother having a law at all. Complete deregulation with minimum standards like sick leave; and no compulsory superannuation because when you're that poor you have a completely hand-to-mouth existence anyway and need every cent. Compulsory super costs the government $21 billion p/a in tax concessions but only saves $9 billion in pensions paid so why bother penalising employers and employees with the burden of compulsory super any longer.
don_dunstan
Who is remotely interested what a former senator has to say? Particularly a nut job like Leyonhjelm. This extreme right wing federal government chooses not to enforce awards unlike a decent government that would. A decent penalty applying to each offence such as a large fine and gaol time would see things turn around very quickly.

However, ScoMo is far too busy praying to fairies in the sky and listing to nut jobs from Qanon to do anything useful. If he keeps on track with his obsession about budget surplus there soon wont be any jobs to worry about. That's if he is not replaced by Dutton sooner than later. Don't laugh, its on the cards.

Sponsored advertisement

  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
ScoMo loves being Prime Minister. Keeping that job is his primary aim, and his efforts are directed that way. The best method is to keep the rich end of town happy. What could be easier?

Dutton?  After his last convincing effort at proving that he can't even count, he may have competition.

Wouldn't you love a good pair of major parties fighting it out?  If the one in power doesn't keep the collective finger out - proceed to the Opposition benches after the next election.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Who is remotely interested what a former senator has to say? Particularly a nut job like Leyonhjelm. This extreme right wing federal government chooses not to enforce awards unlike a decent government that would. A decent penalty applying to each offence such as a large fine and gaol time would see things turn around very quickly.
nswtrains
This rot clearly started a long time before the current government; Julia Gillard allowed Hungry Jacks and KFC to bring in wage-crushing 'skilled migrants'. Even the Labor Party is all for it, only last week they signed another 'free-trade agreement'
However, ScoMo is far too busy praying to fairies in the sky and listing to nut jobs from Qanon to do anything useful. If he keeps on track with his obsession about budget surplus there soon wont be any jobs to worry about. That's if he is not replaced by Dutton sooner than later. Don't laugh, its on the cards.
nswtrains
ScoMo just won the un-winnable election, I really doubt that he's going anywhere any time soon.
  rxclass Junior Train Controller

Location: On the manual turntable at Marino turning an exquisite Rx class steam locomotive.
Why didn't superannuation deliver a shrinking aged pension burden for taxpayers as promised nearly thirty years ago?
don_dunstan
G'day all,

The smart people taking the financial advisers advice and knowing that they have, since 1946, paid a 7.5% income tax levy and have therefore contributed to their pension all their working lives (in my case 51 years), use the age pension as the primary income source and top it up with a modest to medium amount in super.

All you big super savers are doing the government a big favour with no reward for your contributions to the ATO.

Regards,
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
This rot clearly started a long time before the current government; Julia Gillard allowed Hungry Jacks and KFC to bring in wage-crushing 'skilled migrants'.
ScoMo just won the un-winnable election, I really doubt that he's going anywhere any time soon.
don_dunstan
The LNP have been in government for 6 years and you and SpinMo still roll on with "it's all Labor's fault" Razz  The (supposed) enemy of your enemy will never put as much effort into preventing dubious business practices as they do attacking trade unions and winding back workers rights.

I smiled when Frydenberg came out and blamed global stagnation for the state of the economy. They were always quick to take all the credit whenever global growth drove our economy forward. These superior economic managers have no answer for domestic economic issues.

Looking forward, will the country's leadership ever get over its cargo cult mentality?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-02/australia-rich-and-dumb-or-an-innovation-nation/11657984?section=business
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
This rot clearly started a long time before the current government; Julia Gillard allowed Hungry Jacks and KFC to bring in wage-crushing 'skilled migrants'.
ScoMo just won the un-winnable election, I really doubt that he's going anywhere any time soon.
The LNP have been in government for 6 years and you and SpinMo still roll on with "it's all Labor's fault" Razz  The (supposed) enemy of your enemy will never put as much effort into preventing dubious business practices as they do attacking trade unions and winding back workers rights.

I smiled when Frydenberg came out and blamed global stagnation for the state of the economy. They were always quick to take all the credit whenever global growth drove our economy forward. These superior economic managers have no answer for domestic economic issues.

Looking forward, will the country's leadership ever get over its cargo cult mentality?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-02/australia-rich-and-dumb-or-an-innovation-nation/11657984?section=business
Groundrelay
If you actually read what I said it's obvious that it started a long time before the present situation - you really need to go to a reading and comprehension program of some sort, you extract things out of what's written that simply aren't there.

I for one expect the LNP to shaft the poorest Australians with planeloads of cheap immigrants prepared to work for less than minimum wage; but I'm astonished when the Labor Party - supposedly representative of those people - does exactly the same thing.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Why didn't superannuation deliver a shrinking aged pension burden for taxpayers as promised nearly thirty years ago?
G'day all,

The smart people taking the financial advisers advice and knowing that they have, since 1946, paid a 7.5% income tax levy and have therefore contributed to their pension all their working lives (in my case 51 years), use the age pension as the primary income source and top it up with a modest to medium amount in super.

All you big super savers are doing the government a big favour with no reward for your contributions to the ATO.

Regards,
rxclass

If I had worked for 40+ years in Australia and was able to jiggled my savings such that I was still entitled to get the OAP as a primary source of income, then I would be greatly disappointed with my level of savings. I know this is not an option for many people, but its not something I personally aspire for.

The so called income levy died years ago. It was an excuse way back then to increase income tax and got the usual results. ie the govt used the money for other things.
  rxclass Junior Train Controller

Location: On the manual turntable at Marino turning an exquisite Rx class steam locomotive.
Why didn't superannuation deliver a shrinking aged pension burden for taxpayers as promised nearly thirty years ago?
G'day all,

The smart people taking the financial advisers advice and knowing that they have, since 1946, paid a 7.5% income tax levy and have therefore contributed to their pension all their working lives (in my case 51 years), use the age pension as the primary income source and top it up with a modest to medium amount in super.

All you big super savers are doing the government a big favour with no reward for your contributions to the ATO.

Regards,

If I had worked for 40+ years in Australia and was able to jiggled my savings such that I was still entitled to get the OAP as a primary source of income, then I would be greatly disappointed with my level of savings. I know this is not an option for many people, but its not something I personally aspire for.

The so called income levy died years ago. It was an excuse way back then to increase income tax and got the usual results. ie the govt used the money for other things.
RTT_Rules


G'day all,

Paul Keating repealed the Social Security Acts of 1946 in 1984/1985, but he NEVER repealed the 7.5% income tax levy on PAYE/PAYG wage earners. To this day these workers are still paying the levy.

I personally know of many people who are retired/approaching retirement who have been advised by their advisers to structure their affairs to get the full pension and then use super to top it up. People are sick and tired of overpaid politicians playing around with super.

My brother-in-law retired early (age 62) with approx. $900,000 in super. Prior to pension age, under advise from his adviser, he transferred approx. 2/3 to his wife super account. As she is 8 years younger then him, this amount is not counted  as an asset for pension purposes. Consequently he collects the full age pension. They may have problem in 10 years time when she reaches pension age.

You, RTT_Rules are taking deliberate advantage of the globalisation of the labour market, we are taking deliberate advantage of the current financial situation in Australia to benefit us in retirement. As the Labor Party found at the last election, woe betide any politician who messes with us retirees.

Regards,
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
You, RTT_Rules are taking deliberate advantage of the globalisation of the labour market, we are taking deliberate advantage of the current financial situation in Australia to benefit us in retirement. As the Labor Party found at the last election, woe betide any politician who messes with us retirees.

Regards,
rxclass
The situation you describe with your brother-in-law is indicative of what's going on out there in reality; I've got an elderly relative doing exactly the same thing, collecting the pension while sitting on close to a million dollars cleverly stashed away by accountants. The taxpayer is losing badly from the retirement system: 77% of all people aged 65 and over are getting some form of actual income support from Centrelink.

The second point is that it's not sustainable: We have five workers for every aged pensioner at present but in the next thirty years this is due to shrink to about 3 workers for every pensioner. The nation simply won't be able to afford to pay out pensions to so many people who aren't working - that's why I think its inevitable that rules around primary place of residence, mandating the use of lump sums into personal annuities etc etc are inevitable.

Superannuation was supposed to relieve the taxpayer of this burden - it's clearly broken and needs to be fixed.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

OK, anyone who does not legally minimise their tax liability, has rocks in their head. If you disagree, love to hear.
Conversely, anyone who does not take advantage of payments from Centrelink is the same.
The only objection I have personally is hiding funds OS.

As for persons who wish to chase the bucks elsewhere by relocating globally, good luck to them.

Should the family home be means tested? My view is no. But it will become an eventuality. The problem lies in whatever the determination is, it will vary with time.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
OK, anyone who does not legally minimise their tax liability, has rocks in their head. If you disagree, love to hear.
Conversely, anyone who does not take advantage of payments from Centrelink is the same.
The only objection I have personally is hiding funds OS.

As for persons who wish to chase the bucks elsewhere by relocating globally, good luck to them.

Should the family home be means tested? My view is no. But it will become an eventuality. The problem lies in whatever the determination is, it will vary with time.
michaelgm
There's an article in The Australian today suggesting that there's quarter of a million aged pension recipients living in primary places of residence valued at more than a million dollars. They suggest that there's $6.3 billion in payments going to those people that could be saved immediately by excluding those people from the pension.

Its only natural that people will minimise their tax liability and structure their affairs to get as much money as possible but the issue is that in the longer term the nation won't be able to afford to support everyone into retirement simply because there won't be enough workers paying tax.
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

Don, I get your point.
But a million bucks, doesn't exactly purchase a flash property in Melb/Syd.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Don, I get your point.
But a million bucks, doesn't exactly purchase a flash property in Melb/Syd.
michaelgm
Its an absolutely horrible dilemma Michael, agreed. I knew lots of my elderly neighbours in inner-eastern Melbourne (when I was living there) were accidental millionaires and yet not cash rich; entirely not their fault. On the other hand I was shocked to see the 77% Centrelink income support figure for people over 65 - totally obscene given we were sold the promise as a nation that you would have longer-term costs reduced to the taxpayer. In respect of where the taxpayers of the future are going the raw cost gets much worse - Keating's compulsory superannuation probably needs to be scrapped because it isn't fit for purpose.

I think if we were going to have a go at moving jobs back to this country then compulsory superannuation is a major obstacle - 9.5% on top of every dollar, soon to go up to 12%. And it does nothing to lower long term dependency on Centrelink anyway; all I can see is hundreds of billions in management fees being soaked up by bankers just like Keating/Costello et al. seems to have intended it.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE


G'day all,

Paul Keating repealed the Social Security Acts of 1946 in 1984/1985, but he NEVER repealed the 7.5% income tax levy on PAYE/PAYG wage earners. To this day these workers are still paying the levy.

I personally know of many people who are retired/approaching retirement who have been advised by their advisers to structure their affairs to get the full pension and then use super to top it up. People are sick and tired of overpaid politicians playing around with super.

My brother-in-law retired early (age 62) with approx. $900,000 in super. Prior to pension age, under advise from his adviser, he transferred approx. 2/3 to his wife super account. As she is 8 years younger then him, this amount is not counted  as an asset for pension purposes. Consequently he collects the full age pension. They may have problem in 10 years time when she reaches pension age.

You, RTT_Rules are taking deliberate advantage of the globalisation of the labour market, we are taking deliberate advantage of the current financial situation in Australia to benefit us in retirement. As the Labor Party found at the last election, woe betide any politician who messes with us retirees.

Regards,
rxclass
Hi
They must have left the "levy" as part of the tax pool to enable the process to flow easier.

Totally agree, you are within you legal right to minimize your tax and/or increase your social security payments provided you play within the rules and you would be a fool to do otherwise.

Agree on politicians changing SUPER rules, one of the reasons I play the globalisation market. I have better control of my own destiny and my savings from being expat is fully in my control.

Yes, retirees and soon to be retirees have a large pull on the election outcome and its growing, some other people here need to acknowledge that rather than blaming the voters for getting it wrong which is what happened a few months back.

Regards
Shane
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Superannuation was supposed to relieve the taxpayer of this burden - it's clearly broken and needs to be fixed.
don_dunstan
Could you imagine what it would be like if SUPER still didn't exist?

Its not perfect and needs to be improved and as SUPER nest eggs rise it will become increasingly harder to find ways to get the OAP.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Don, I get your point.
But a million bucks, doesn't exactly purchase a flash property in Melb/Syd.
Its an absolutely horrible dilemma Michael, agreed. I knew lots of my elderly neighbours in inner-eastern Melbourne (when I was living there) were accidental millionaires and yet not cash rich; entirely not their fault. On the other hand I was shocked to see the 77% Centrelink income support figure for people over 65 - totally obscene given we were sold the promise as a nation that you would have longer-term costs reduced to the taxpayer. In respect of where the taxpayers of the future are going the raw cost gets much worse - Keating's compulsory superannuation probably needs to be scrapped because it isn't fit for purpose.

I think if we were going to have a go at moving jobs back to this country then compulsory superannuation is a major obstacle - 9.5% on top of every dollar, soon to go up to 12%. And it does nothing to lower long term dependency on Centrelink anyway; all I can see is hundreds of billions in management fees being soaked up by bankers just like Keating/Costello et al. seems to have intended it.
don_dunstan
Other country's have larger amounts and you are dreaming if it doesn't reduce the dependency on the OAP and we have discussed this before on why the impacts are yet to be seriously seen, ie the people earning SUPER for their full working career are not even 50 years old.

The average 65 year old is retiring with less than $500k SUPER, hardly enough to get them off OAP, potentially a smaller payment but still on OAP. https://qsuper.qld.gov.au/news-hub/articles/2019/08/07/06/10/what-is-an-average-super-balance

When it comes to retirement, ASFA has calculated that a single person wishing to have a “comfortable” retirement would need, at age 65, a nest egg of about $545,000, or $640,000 for a couple. The incomes needed to be generated from these amounts would be approximately $43,000 and $61,000 respectively.

The amount required for a comfortable retirement is still less than those retiring today.
  rxclass Junior Train Controller

Location: On the manual turntable at Marino turning an exquisite Rx class steam locomotive.
There's an article in The Australian today suggesting that there's quarter of a million aged pension recipients living in primary places of residence valued at more than a million dollars. They suggest that there's $6.3 billion in payments going to those people that could be saved immediately by excluding those people from the pension.

Its only natural that people will minimise their tax liability and structure their affairs to get as much money as possible but the issue is that in the longer term the nation won't be able to afford to support everyone into retirement simply because there won't be enough workers paying tax.
don_dunstan
G'day all,

In 2000, insurance acuraries estimated that if the politicians had left the 1946 Social Security pension scheme alone to do it's job, the scheme would have been able to pay everyone ages 65 and over approx. $500 per week irrespective of their financial holdings.

And all this without taking a single cent from consolidated revenue. See my moniker/quote at the end of my posts for the reason.

Regards,
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
There's an article in The Australian today suggesting that there's quarter of a million aged pension recipients living in primary places of residence valued at more than a million dollars. They suggest that there's $6.3 billion in payments going to those people that could be saved immediately by excluding those people from the pension.

Its only natural that people will minimise their tax liability and structure their affairs to get as much money as possible but the issue is that in the longer term the nation won't be able to afford to support everyone into retirement simply because there won't be enough workers paying tax.
G'day all,

In 2000, insurance acuraries estimated that if the politicians had left the 1946 Social Security pension scheme alone to do it's job, the scheme would have been able to pay everyone ages 65 and over approx. $500 per week irrespective of their financial holdings.

And all this without taking a single cent from consolidated revenue. See my moniker/quote at the end of my posts for the reason.

Regards,
rxclass
Whether this is true or not is almost irrelevant as problem number one is you are paying money into a scheme and building a pool of  money that the govt controls. This is a well known and documented path to failure and you just have to look at the state and federal public service former SUPER schemes were only Qld had a fully funded SUPER scheme, the rest with various states of something and in case of Tas, nothing.

The current SUPER scheme while it still has some issues is by far the best approach and similar is used by various country's world wide. ie employees and their employer put money into regulated schemes that is kept at arms length of the govt. The money must be deposited at least Qrty and is re-portable to the regulator (ATO I believe).

The 2nd best thing about SUPER and why its rated NO.2 or 3 in the world behind the Netherlands is the SUPER is proportional to your contributions. ie you are paying directly to a pension scheme that ONLY funds YOU. The more you pay, the better your retirement unless you are disciplined to fund other on your own. (what I have to do being an expat). Unfortunately history has shown few Australians apart from upper income and even some of them fail to fully fund their own retirements.

BAck to the Netherlands, I need to confirm this but I believe the Netherlands welfare system is linked to your income such that should you need unemployment, your payments for a period a time are a % of your former income for last X many years. Likewise their equivalent of SUPER. For me this is fairest of the lot.

Overall I think the SUPER scheme approach is superior to the old OAP, the transition is the biggest pain and yes over time the contributions need to increase as well as the rules to ensure the average income earner who has worked for 45 years is NOT entitled or in need of the OAP.  For lower income earners or people who work on/off through their lives such as mothers there still needs to be a safety net. I've said before I believe males SUPER should be split when the wife is not working due to child raising reasons.

Going forward retirement age will be lifted to 70, so its not unreasonable to expect most of us to contribute towards SUPER for 45 years. That money and its interest earned then has to fund the next 20 years of your life, ie 70 - 90 as a minimum standard. Removing interest, your payments alone will fund around 8 years on 2/3 of your working income. If you pass away before then, remainder to inheritance if you surpass 90 and run out of SUPER then I believe you should automatically fall onto a Govt safety net. Of my grandparents, lost them at 71, 88, 92 and last still alive at 102. Ironically the first two were fully self funded. The last two were post WW2 migrants but worked for 35 years after arrival.

Don focused on management fees, yes there are fees to fund money and yes SUPER has generated large numbers of jobs in the wealth industry. However if you save your money privately, guess what management fees in almost everything. But consider that Australian managed funds have some of the lowest fees and I know because as an expat I've obviously looked into Tax havens such as the channel islands and it simply doesn't stack up. They pay lower rates of return, often zero and fees are 3-4 x that of Australian funds we have. So no, our savings from the ME go back to Aust as they actually make money. Tax haven investments play on "tax free" status in their marketing.
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!

Superannuation was supposed to relieve the taxpayer of this burden - it's clearly broken and needs to be fixed.Could you imagine what it would be like if SUPER still didn't exist?

Its not perfect and needs to be improved and as SUPER nest eggs rise it will become increasingly harder to find ways to get the OAP.
RTT_Rules
Thanks to Super I'm unlikely to get a full pension unless I live past the average age. Meanwhile my super earnings are being taxed at 15%.

Yes it has been bastardised into a tax minimisation vehicle but even the LNP have recognised they went too far and are winding back some concessions.
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
I for one expect the LNP to shaft the poorest Australians with planeloads of cheap immigrants prepared to work for less than minimum wage; but I'm astonished when the Labor Party - supposedly representative of those people - does exactly the same thing.
don_dunstan
They're not the same. It's just your cop out when challenged and why I always suggest you compare each sides legislative record since 1972, not just what they opposed but what they supported or implemented. It comes back to each sides political DNA, why they exist and who consistently backs them. As for your great white hopes Rolling Eyes , with very few exceptions they will always vote with one side or the other.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
They're not the same. It's just your cop out when challenged and why I always suggest you compare each sides legislative record since 1972, not just what they opposed but what they supported or implemented. It comes back to each sides political DNA, why they exist and who consistently backs them. As for your great white hopes Rolling Eyes , with very few exceptions they will always vote with one side or the other.
Groundrelay
They might have been difference once upon a time but the Hawke/Keating era pretty much stole the entire LNP policy base leaving the Liberals without a platform. Can you name any significant policies from the Hawke/Keating era that helped the working class? Medicare - yes, but the Accord I & II definitely cut wages. Off-shoring all the traditional working class jobs - well that pretty much saved the Liberals from having to do that didn't it.

Fast-forward to today and there's no actual difference between the LNP and Labor parties on any issue apart from the stupidity of carbon dioxide and establishing a 'National Gender Centre' in Tasmania if ever you needed evidence of how weak and captive to minorities the Labor Party has become.

Your Labor Party recently waved through yet another wage-crushing job-stealing so-called "Free Trade Agreement" with Indonesia and Chile so that those workers from the developing world can come here and work for less than award wages and steal even more jobs from Aussies. Totally indicative of where the so-called Labor Party is at in 2019 - stands for nothing, sucking up to minority groups, hopelessly out-of-touch with their constituency and in fact signing off on things that make working people worse off.

Can you defend that rubbish - I bet you can't. Go on, try.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

Latest car sales figures are out for last month.  A YTD drop of 8%.

And guess who saw a sales increase (10/2018 cw 10/2019): Suzuki (26.5%)
And a huge decrease - Holden (-41.3%)


Tesla don't publish their sales, but apparently over a 1000 Model 3 Tesla's are being sold per month....
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

Superannuation was supposed to relieve the taxpayer of this burden - it's clearly broken and needs to be fixed.Could you imagine what it would be like if SUPER still didn't exist?

Its not perfect and needs to be improved and as SUPER nest eggs rise it will become increasingly harder to find ways to get the OAP. Thanks to Super I'm unlikely to get a full pension unless I live past the average age. Meanwhile my super earnings are being taxed at 15%.

Yes it has been bastardised into a tax minimisation vehicle but even the LNP have recognised they went too far and are winding back some concessions.
Groundrelay
So you want and expect the taxpayer to provide a full pension despite that fact you have an reasonable 2ndry income???

The intent of SUPER is to REDUCE the burden on the taxpayer.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Latest car sales figures are out for last month.  A YTD drop of 8%.

And guess who saw a sales increase (10/2018 cw 10/2019): Suzuki (26.5%)
And a huge decrease - Holden (-41.3%)


Tesla don't publish their sales, but apparently over a 1000 Model 3 Tesla's are being sold per month....
Carnot
Tesla sales are available and its sourced from VIN registrations, but yes the indicative data would suggest Model 3 sales are 1200 - 1500 for Sept and expected to continue. Not surprising as RHD models took some time to get here so the there was alot of potential buyers watching the 100's of YouTube video's of Model 3 owners OS.

The Model 3 is the first model EV that is starting to target the mass Australian car market and its sales volumes should be secure.

However the big seller is expected to be the Model Y as this car is closer to both US, Canada, NZ and Australian average mum's and dad's typical soft SUV and with battery development a usable range likely to be around 400-500km for the longer range models.

Price is still high, but consider that the average Australian SUV has a fuel economy of say 9L/100km, 18000kmpa @ $1.40/L = $2,300 pa in fuel and MTCE costs you still need to pay for vs $1000 pa for electricity for medium power prices, but potentially up to 1/3 less plus alot lower MTCE costs. So annual ownership costs around $1500 - 2500pa less than petrol. Own the car for 10 years and the capital outlay difference compared to a ICE is more than wiped out.

OPEC announced over night they expect 50% of cars on roads in OECD countries by 2040 to be EV, 25% in China.  I think the China number is very low considering its hard to even find a motor bike in China that nots EV now and China has a way of dictating industry changes very quickly if they want to and also factor in China is a large oil importer and if they can make the electrons themselves they will over importing oil. With Tesla opening its new Gigga factory in China recently, expect Tesla's to flood the Chinese market quickly along with domestic EV brands which are growing rapidly. I therefor put China at the same if not better than OCED by 2040 in EV take up.

Holden is I feel basically dead as a brand. Expect it to fall from grace quite rapidly and eventually just rebadged GM. GM's market in the US is all big Ute's, not cars or SUV's for which they are pulling out from and I very much doubt their venture into EV will yield huge results.

Listening this week to a few discussions by industry "experts", they believe a number of existing car brands will continue to merge as they lack EV expertise and will not be able to get on board in time. PSA CEO (Peugeot) basically said the future for car industry is Mobility and this is defined into two categories, EV's and Level 5 automation (no steering wheel required) and that the industry does not have the resources to support every player doing this and hence some will close or merge as has happened with Fiat-Crysler to PSA.
  Carnot Chief Commissioner

I still have serious doubts about autonomous cars.  Level 5 automated vehicles are likely to be limited to certain areas IMO (I could be wrong) and thus defeating one of the main reasons people buy a car - flexibility.

With the higher capital outlay for EVs, I think we might see lease arrangements increase in popularity.

At the end of the day EVs aren't really the solution.  In some ways a distraction from investment in Public Transport and better urban planning.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: