Obsidian3K

Ah, you're confused about marginal and effective tax rates; I wondered if that might have been the case.

Your PEIslander with a $92k income is actually only going to pay $28,409 in combined federal and provincial income taxes, EI, and CPP premiums; an effective rate of just under 31%. And that's if he has absolutely no deductions. If, for example, he's contributing the oft-recommended 20% of gross income to an RRSP, that tax burden drops to $21,554; an effective rate of under 24%, and just over half of the amount in your estimate. And things like children, medical expenses, post-secondary education expenses/credits, etc. would reduce that further.

Yes, in a no-deductions world, if your PEIslander gets a $5K raise, as VM points out, 42.7% of that extra money is going to various governments; all the more reason to take advantage of the available deductions!

roger_1

Well, I understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates, but the example I gave was incorrect because I applied the marginal rate of 43% to all the income, not just that in excess of $92K where the marginal rate is 43%.

When I'm looking at income over $92k, and assuming I've maxed out any available deductions (standard personal deduction and RSP), I will indeed be paying 43% to the fed and provincial governments.

Dan in St. Louis had said he wished he were in my tax bracket. Regrettably, to be in a marginal tax bracket of 43% in part of Canada, one need only earn more than $92k, and yes, that's the marginal rate, not the effective rate which is lower.

My original point was, and is, simply, that to the extent possible, income exceeding $92k might be better spent on Multi Security Deposits (if a person is leasing an Audi), than investing that income, as the income tax on those top dollars of income may, indeed, be 43%. If the MSD generates a tax-free return of 10%, that's a very good return, as VM indicated in his informative and helpful post.

Obsidian3K

You're right that the situation wasn't nearly as fun when the loonie was closer to par, but I'm going to get what enjoyment I can out of the low dollar :P

You might be right that Canada won't ever get the RoW-spec car, but if so it's more due to market efficiencies than the regulatory environment. Yes, our regulations (CMVSS) largely ape their American equivalent (FMVSS), instead of us being signatories to the UN-driven global standard (WP.29) like literally the entire rest of the developed world. But CMVSS does allow the import of vehicles that meet the headlight and bumper standards of WP.29. From a regulatory standpoint, Audi could offer its matrix headlights here (under WP.29), as well as Euro-spec taillights and outboard rear seat headrests (both compliant with CMVSS) if they so chose, to name just a few items that irk me personally.

I'm hopeful that CETA will result in Canada becoming a signatory to WP.29, at which point Audi could start shipping us fully-RoW-spec vehicles. I'm sure that domestic manufacturers would want CMVSS to stay in effect as well so that they could continue to build US- and Canada-bound cars on the same lines, because--here's a fun fact--FMVSS and WP.29 conflict enough that it is (currently) impossible for a single vehicle to meet both standards simultaneously. Thankfully, the accelerating drive towards software-defined vehicle configuration will probably close that gap within a decade, even assuming that the US DoT continues to pretend that automotive technology hasn't advanced since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Also on the topic of CETA, you're right that it includes the removal of the 6% duty on EU-made cars. Rather than being removed all at once, it's being phased out over 7 years (starting in 2018, I think), so there's no immediate impact for those of us on the market today.

JDA_yeg

I was under the impression that Canada also endorsed to unilaterally accept some of the rules based on United Nations international technical regulations.

Edit: Text of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ? Annex 4


However if you scroll down to "Annex 4-A-2 – List referred to in Article 4.3 of Annex 4-A", it shows a list of technical regulations that still needs to be discussed. The one in particular is the adpative headlights which would fall under "No. 123 Uniform provisions concerning the approval of adaptive front-lighting systems (AFS) for motor vehicles"

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-conte...24(01)&from=EN

But this may not even go through because Article 4 paragraph 3 states that "These technical regulations should be incorporated, unless doing so would provide for a lower level of safety than the Canadian regulations or would compromise North American integration." The problem with the latter, "North American integration" because we can't integrate adaptive headlights because of USA to begin with >

roger_1

I can't speak to 'integration', but if adaptive headlights are your concern, they are legal in Canada.

VM

Okay - this begs the question, what are "adaptive headlights"? In North America, a number of automakers use the phrase "adaptive headlights" or the acronym AFLS to describe headlights that swivel left and right based on steering wheel movement. Those are clearly legal under FMVSS/CMVSS. So the banned adaptive headlights must be something else...?

VM

Okay, I googled this some more - it seems like the issues with the fancy headlights is that the FMVSS regulations (and, I suspect, lots of other things, including, say, provincial safety inspection standards) require a headlight system to have a distinct 'low beam' and 'high beam'.

Obsidian3K

If I recall correctly, FMVSS requires not just distinct low beam/high beam settings, but that the driver be able to manually toggle between them. Audi's high-beam assistant is compliant because it can be operated manually, while Matrix lights aren't because they're fully computer-controlled.

AFLS/"adaptive headlights", in every instance I've seen the term (except for Matrix-style systems), refers to headlamps that turn to illuminate a curve. As someone who drives on dark country roads with some regularity, I love AFLS and wish Audi offered it outside of its Matrix system. From a global perspective, I understand why they don't, as AFLS tends to be one of the differentiating factors of the flagship lighting option.

EDIT: My best guess for why Canada doesn't get the Matrix option is that Audi essentially makes vehicles in two specs; American and RoW. Although bundling differs between US and Canadian cars, I'm not aware of any features offered in Canada that aren't also offered in the US, so giving us the Matrix option would force the creation of a third spec, and we're just too small of a market to justify that. Maybe if it was a port/dealer-installed option, but from wdimagineer's explanations, Matrix is the polar opposite of that.

VM

But surely it should be possible to put two manually-controllable settings on the matrix system. Might not work as great as the fully automatic, but...

Oddly enough, they used to. Or at least, I think they did. There used to be an "adaptive headlights" option on the B8's secret option list in MY2009 or so. (Now, I am assuming that "adaptive headlights" mean what we think it means, but perhaps in Audi speak it means something else. This is a company that refuses to use the phrase 'rain-sensing wipers' after all...)

I agree with that. I think there are LOTS of things, including some that aren't visible, that are either 'US' or 'RoW'.

One might wonder how much additional engineering is required to integrate the matrix LED system with the 'US' systems everywhere else in the car. Unlikely to be worth the effort if it's an expensive option that can only be sold in a small country.

Obsidian3K

A system that allowed the user to toggle between fixed low-beam mode and automated matrix would at least seem to be FMVSS-compliant. If it would be, I suspect the main reason we haven't seen this is because it's extra engineering effort for a single market, and some accountant has determined the cost outweighs the expected return. The US DoT made some noises last year about updating FMVSS for new lighting technologies, but their priorities have probably changed slightly since January 20th, and there's been no news on this topic since.

Yes, Audi used to offer adaptive headlights when HIDs were their top-of-range lighting. Pretty much everybody in the luxury and premium segments did; my ~$35K Mazda has them. They still offer AFS on their top-trim model, just LED-fired rather than HID. Mercedes does as well; BMW appears to have dropped the option (at least in the 3-series), and I doubt it's coincidence that they offer a Matrix-esque system in RoW too.

I've followed wdimagineer's efforts in this regard with keen interest. From his (intentionally vague) posts, the answer is "Several thousand dollars, access to factory equipment, additional supporting hardware, and significant software reconfiguration."

Or be in the UK and pony up an extra £650 when you buy the car.