4 ms·

I'd like to see vehicle tax based on some combination of weight and emissions. Say £1 or €1 for every kilo over the weight of a, hmm, Smart Car? :) Now add an e

I'd like to see vehicle tax based on some combination of weight and emissions. Say £1 or €1 for every kilo over the weight of a, hmm, Smart Car? :) Now add an emissions component, enough to make a 1 litre engine and lightweight EVs really appealing.

pjc50 7y ago
Road damage is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight! It would be amazing to see taxes for road repair done on that basis. Edit: the tax of the article is based on engine power and CO2 emissions. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21862516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21862516 for calculations.
- yread 7y ago
  That just means basically all damage is done by delivery trucks, garbage trucks, buses etc. that you can't really get rid off. Smart, Tesla or Dodge ram doesn't make a big difference there
  - kwhitefoot 7y ago
    > you can't really get rid off. Doesn't mean they shouldn't pay for the damage they do to the road. Why should the state subsidise them?
    - rubber_duck 7y ago
      Because those are public utilities and you presumably want to incentivise mass transport.
      - kwhitefoot 7y ago
        By 'you' do you mean me in particular? Or do you mean the world in general? If you mean me then the answer is no; I see no reason why we should not have transparency in transport costs. If you want subsidize certain kinds of mass transport then target the specific type. If the price of food (which is at a historical low in the western world) goes up as a result then that will simply show people where their money is being spent. If you want to subsidize it then subsidize the people who need it (low income customers). Other public utilities, such as electricity, do not give a free ride to freeloaders who cause extra expense to the rest of use they charge for the damage done. For instance a user of electricity that has a very bad power factor will be charged a very high rate and will therefore be encouraged to improve.
masklinn 7y ago
There are emission-based vignette schemes (eco-taxes). Orthogonally, going above 3.5t is a steep increase in inconvenience and costs: you need a different license (C or above) which is more expensive and has to be renewed regularly and there many streets are forbidden.
usrusr 7y ago
I'd also want to have width factored in. Wider than strictly necessary vehicles make life worse for all road users, space is not infinite. Occasionally they even make life shorter and it's never the life of those inside those vehicles.
MrFoof 7y ago
I believe Norway fundamentally does exactly this. From recollection, in Norway you are taxed on the following items at time of purchase: * A CO2 tax (banded by emissions) * An NOx tax (banded by emissions) * A weight tax * A scrappage fee (fixed, by vehicle type) * Then the usual 25% VAT I may be missing something here (in particular, annual taxes), so if there are any Norwegians willing to chime in, feel free.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  There is an additional progressive tax on the vehicle price which makes expensive cars seriously expensive. And the VAT comes last and is charged on top of the total of the other costs including the taxes. This is one of the reasons why Tesla was able to jump start the electric car business in Norway with the Model S and model X because EVs are exempt from all of that except VAT (I think, not sure). It's also effectively a regressive income tax because the more expensive cars are effectively subsidized by a larger amount of money per car than cheap cars. In my opinion we would have been able to have even more EVs if the subsidy had been the same amount of money for each car regardless of the value of the car. Then the Leaf and the Zoe would be really cheap cars. I love my Model S but I feel that I have been subsidized more than I should have been (no I'm not giving it back).
teekert 7y ago
Why not put all tax on the Fuel? Then you have everything in one tax, exactly the way you want it. Take the bike more often? Benefit immediately. Buy a lighter vehicle? Benefit immediately. Drive less wasteful? Benefit immediately. It seems like such a system would stimulate only good things.
- marsokod 7y ago
  I believe the main problem with the tax on fuel (it already exists) is that you cannot make it as progressive as you want. It will be the same percentage regardless of how much fuel you use and so far this proved not good enough to skew the market in favour of the low-emission solutions.
  - teekert 7y ago
    It's just not high enough. I find it pretty unfair that I pay the same amount of tax on my familiecar that I use for 10.000 km a year as someone who drives is 100 km per day. I had a citroen C1 once, because the government canceled road tax on such very efficient, small cars. Sadly his law lasted only a couple of years (and it messes a lot with the market value of these cars!). But is was nice that I only paid insurance as long as I didn't drive it. In Poland there is not even a tax on cars, so it is already only in the fuel. It can be pretty nice there to have multiple cars, a big one when you need it, a small one to use a lot. You could even circulate the big one among family, but as it is now in the Netherlands, nobody want to be the owner of the big car.
- jorvi 7y ago
  Loading all tax into fuel just drives (heh) more and more people into fueling over the border. Fuel already is really expensive in The Netherlands.. €1,77 per liter or €6,73 per gallon, and most of that cost is tax.
  - teekert 7y ago
    (Obviously) it should be done EU wide.

pjc50 7y ago

Road damage is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight! It would be amazing to see taxes for road repair done on that basis. Edit: the tax of the article is based on engine power and CO2 emissions. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21862516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21862516 for calculations.

yread 7y ago
That just means basically all damage is done by delivery trucks, garbage trucks, buses etc. that you can't really get rid off. Smart, Tesla or Dodge ram doesn't make a big difference there
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  > you can't really get rid off. Doesn't mean they shouldn't pay for the damage they do to the road. Why should the state subsidise them?
  - rubber_duck 7y ago
    Because those are public utilities and you presumably want to incentivise mass transport.
    - kwhitefoot 7y ago
      By 'you' do you mean me in particular? Or do you mean the world in general? If you mean me then the answer is no; I see no reason why we should not have transparency in transport costs. If you want subsidize certain kinds of mass transport then target the specific type. If the price of food (which is at a historical low in the western world) goes up as a result then that will simply show people where their money is being spent. If you want to subsidize it then subsidize the people who need it (low income customers). Other public utilities, such as electricity, do not give a free ride to freeloaders who cause extra expense to the rest of use they charge for the damage done. For instance a user of electricity that has a very bad power factor will be charged a very high rate and will therefore be encouraged to improve.

masklinn 7y ago

There are emission-based vignette schemes (eco-taxes). Orthogonally, going above 3.5t is a steep increase in inconvenience and costs: you need a different license (C or above) which is more expensive and has to be renewed regularly and there many streets are forbidden.

usrusr 7y ago

I'd also want to have width factored in. Wider than strictly necessary vehicles make life worse for all road users, space is not infinite. Occasionally they even make life shorter and it's never the life of those inside those vehicles.

MrFoof 7y ago

I believe Norway fundamentally does exactly this. From recollection, in Norway you are taxed on the following items at time of purchase: * A CO2 tax (banded by emissions) * An NOx tax (banded by emissions) * A weight tax * A scrappage fee (fixed, by vehicle type) * Then the usual 25% VAT I may be missing something here (in particular, annual taxes), so if there are any Norwegians willing to chime in, feel free.

kwhitefoot 7y ago
There is an additional progressive tax on the vehicle price which makes expensive cars seriously expensive. And the VAT comes last and is charged on top of the total of the other costs including the taxes. This is one of the reasons why Tesla was able to jump start the electric car business in Norway with the Model S and model X because EVs are exempt from all of that except VAT (I think, not sure). It's also effectively a regressive income tax because the more expensive cars are effectively subsidized by a larger amount of money per car than cheap cars. In my opinion we would have been able to have even more EVs if the subsidy had been the same amount of money for each car regardless of the value of the car. Then the Leaf and the Zoe would be really cheap cars. I love my Model S but I feel that I have been subsidized more than I should have been (no I'm not giving it back).

teekert 7y ago

Why not put all tax on the Fuel? Then you have everything in one tax, exactly the way you want it. Take the bike more often? Benefit immediately. Buy a lighter vehicle? Benefit immediately. Drive less wasteful? Benefit immediately. It seems like such a system would stimulate only good things.

marsokod 7y ago
I believe the main problem with the tax on fuel (it already exists) is that you cannot make it as progressive as you want. It will be the same percentage regardless of how much fuel you use and so far this proved not good enough to skew the market in favour of the low-emission solutions.
- teekert 7y ago
  It's just not high enough. I find it pretty unfair that I pay the same amount of tax on my familiecar that I use for 10.000 km a year as someone who drives is 100 km per day. I had a citroen C1 once, because the government canceled road tax on such very efficient, small cars. Sadly his law lasted only a couple of years (and it messes a lot with the market value of these cars!). But is was nice that I only paid insurance as long as I didn't drive it. In Poland there is not even a tax on cars, so it is already only in the fuel. It can be pretty nice there to have multiple cars, a big one when you need it, a small one to use a lot. You could even circulate the big one among family, but as it is now in the Netherlands, nobody want to be the owner of the big car.
jorvi 7y ago
Loading all tax into fuel just drives (heh) more and more people into fueling over the border. Fuel already is really expensive in The Netherlands.. €1,77 per liter or €6,73 per gallon, and most of that cost is tax.
- teekert 7y ago
  (Obviously) it should be done EU wide.