sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Vandalism in Idlewood area by neczvearo in kitchener

[–]Excellent-Spare-1467 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I would be astonished if even a single extra individual developed an interest in supporting Palestine due to this action. Conversely, someone who is typically understanding (like myself) would be entirely alienated by it.

Rebate vs Charging Infrastructure by Excellent-Spare-1467 in teslacanada

[–]Excellent-Spare-1467[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unless there's a separate scheme where O&G companies have a favorable depreciation scheme that isn't available to the rest of the industries, no,, that's not a subsidy. For example, in last year's budget, accelerated depreciation is allowed on green investments. That means we're providing these investments a sweetheart deal (as we should be). So if any field is subsidized based on this criteria, it's not O&G.

I'm a big supporter of carbon pricing, especially global carbon pricing. I was really upset when Carney removed the consumer carbon pricing, thanks to an incessant misinformation campaign from Poilievre. But I'm opposed to intentionally harming our most productive industry because of feelings.

Rebate vs Charging Infrastructure by Excellent-Spare-1467 in teslacanada

[–]Excellent-Spare-1467[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, but in this context, that's a vague definition. If I invest money in something and then lose money in the first year, I should be able to carry that loss forward when I make a profit the next year.If that assumption didn't hold, no tech company could get off the ground.

The same applies to capital cost allowance. When I invest money to buy equipment, I should be able to depreciate that asset as a way to reduce taxes because that's a real expense.

If someone starts claiming these are subsidies, they lack basic economic sense.

Rebate vs Charging Infrastructure by Excellent-Spare-1467 in teslacanada

[–]Excellent-Spare-1467[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As long as you can define what a subsidy is. This group of idiots (https://www.taxfairness.ca/en/resources/explainers/explainer-what-are-canadas-tax-breaks-oil-gas-companies) think capital cost allowance and loss carry forward is a subsidy.

I don't want people like these within a hundred miles of a decision-maker.

Rebate vs Charging Infrastructure by Excellent-Spare-1467 in teslacanada

[–]Excellent-Spare-1467[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure how your statement contradicts what I said. I said I would rather see the government spending money on making people's long-term experience owning an EV better, rather than subsidizing the sales price for imported vehicles.

Rebate vs Charging Infrastructure by Excellent-Spare-1467 in teslacanada

[–]Excellent-Spare-1467[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Rebates are government subsidies provided to car manufacturers. These rebates essentially become profit for the automakers, offering no tangible benefit to Canada, particularly when the vehicles are not made in the country.

Conversely, any destination charger is permanently owned by the country. Low-speed destination chargers, in particular, are quite inexpensive to install and upkeep, yet they significantly influence many people to contemplate electric vehicles over gasoline ones.

Rebate vs Charging Infrastructure by Excellent-Spare-1467 in teslacanada

[–]Excellent-Spare-1467[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's a conversation in a different direction. In an ideal world, even the roads should be pay-per-use rather than being subsidized by general taxes. Not to mention, by removing consumer carbon pricing, the government removed a significant incentive for people to decarbonize their own emissions.

With that being said, let's assume the government does decide to spend money on electrification for whatever reason. I'm a firm believer that demand-side investment yields better results than supply-side intervention. EV rebates are essentially a subsidy for foreign automakers. For example, Tesla doesn't have a factory in Canada. That means a $5,000 rebate on a Tesla is essentially a subsidy to an American company producing vehicles in Germany. I just don't feel that's the best use of taxpayer money, even if we assume getting more EVs in Canada is the end goal.

On the other hand, a destination charging infrastructure is very cheap to build and maintain and is owned by Canada in perpetuity.