4 ms·

> where you are actively fined for driving an EV. Hyperbolic statements like this are unhelpful; The government has implemented a distance based tax on EVs (ro

by stirlo 5y ago

> where you are actively fined for driving an EV. Hyperbolic statements like this are unhelpful; The government has implemented a distance based tax on EVs (road pricing) to offset losses from the existing fuel excise taxes. It's certainly not progressive but it is not and never has been a "fine"

grecy 5y ago
Taxes on undesirable behaviour are for all intents and purposes the same as fines. i.e. carbon taxes.
- rswail 5y ago
  Yes, that is one form of taxation. But taxes for road use are to pay for the roads, ie consider them a "network usage" fee. Having it be distance based is because there is currently a petrol tax that is also distance based, because it is per litre of fuel. What should happen is that all vehicles should have the same distance based fee applied, with the additional cost of the CO2 output as a multiple. Make EVs the base fee.
  - reitzensteinm 5y ago
    Exactly. Or EVs could be taxed for road use, but a subsidy put in place to not discourage adoption during the transition. Oh, wait, that's exactly what Victoria has done: https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/zero-emissions-vehicle-subsidy https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/zero-emissions-vehicle-subsidy Personally, I'd keep the EV tax as is, remove the subsidy, and significantly increase the ICE tax. Cars are awful, and their negative externalities don't stop at CO2 emissions.
    - stephen_g 5y ago
      No, a per-km charge is really regressive and poorly designed. People in regional areas need to drive much further but have worse maintained roads and don’t cause anything like the congestion metro drivers do, and don’t cause anything like the road wear the big trucks do. A state like Victoria shouldn’t be charging somebody driving in, say, South Australia either. To do it properly, you’d need different zones (higher charge in congested areas for example), but that would require creepy GPS tracking, or creepy ANPR everywhere. Really not a road we want to be going down as a society I think. They could just double the cost of rego for everyone if they’re so concerned about not getting a tax they don’t get already (Fed Govt does).
      - belorn 5y ago
        I have yet to decide if I consider ANPR more creepy than parking when ANPR is used for taxation or road tolls. Both require some form of payment system when a car is located at some specific place and when computers are involved they store records of license plates and locations. Both would benefit from tight data regulation to prevent abuse and data retention. The only major difference is that sometimes you can not avoid going pass a road toll. However the same can also be said about finding a parking space, and parking data is likely much more detailed information than passing the edge of a traffic zone. Many parking spaces in the city where I live have also moved over to use ANPR, which kind of mean the two concepts has already merged to a degree.
      - reitzensteinm 5y ago
        Sure, increased rego works great. The per km thing is a bit creepy even if it's just reading the odometer, and as you say a bad deal for regional residents. It's also very viable to not own a car in the city. I don't have one. But in the country, what behavior are you trying to encourage? So that complicates things. It should probably be means tested too. I just object to the idea that EVs should be subsidized rather than ICEs punished. It puts the finger on the scale away from even better solutions like riding, walking or public transport.
  - stephen_g 5y ago
    The fuel excise and these road usage charges are not equivalent, because the former is charged by the states and the latter by the Federal Government just into general revenue. We already pay registration fees which are supposed to be a road usage tax. While they have cried poor about the loss of a tax they don’t even collect, at the end of the day this is literally just a cash grab by some States. (Luckily mine isn’t even talking about doing it, but I just think anything to discourage EVs is so idiotic policy and I really hate it being justified by half-truths and misleading info about the fuel excise).
stephen_g 5y ago
That’s what they say, but it’s actually misleading and inaccurate. The fuel excise is a Federal tax that just goes into general revenue (same as, say, income tax, alcohol excises, the tobacco excise, etc.). It’s the states that are implementing the EV taxes. They don’t automatically or directly get any money from the fuel excise. The EV tax is a new, different, and not equivalent tax. They’ve hastily brought it in now before enough people have EVs to realise - which explains why it’s so badly designed (take, for instance, rural drivers that need to drive much further distances than city folk but have worse maintained roads and don’t really cause significant road wear or congestion. They’ll pay far more than the city dwellers! Or if you drive half the time in a different state, like people in regional areas who live on the border, you’ll pay a state tax for driving on another state’s roads!).
- ludston 5y ago
  To be fair, people in regional areas that travel long distances already pay far more fuel related taxes than those in cities on account of using more fuel per capita.
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
Your statement, whilst true in direct translation is false in spirit. It's a fine in a tax's clothing. It is a tax wielded as weapon intended to inhibit uptake of EV's. Australia should be subsidising EV purchases, not hastily implementing a new tax that further suppresses progress in a country falling ever further behind the rest of the world.

by stirlo 5y ago

grecy 5y ago

Taxes on undesirable behaviour are for all intents and purposes the same as fines. i.e. carbon taxes.

rswail 5y ago
Yes, that is one form of taxation. But taxes for road use are to pay for the roads, ie consider them a "network usage" fee. Having it be distance based is because there is currently a petrol tax that is also distance based, because it is per litre of fuel. What should happen is that all vehicles should have the same distance based fee applied, with the additional cost of the CO2 output as a multiple. Make EVs the base fee.
- reitzensteinm 5y ago
  Exactly. Or EVs could be taxed for road use, but a subsidy put in place to not discourage adoption during the transition. Oh, wait, that's exactly what Victoria has done: https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/zero-emissions-vehicle-subsidy https://www.solar.vic.gov.au/zero-emissions-vehicle-subsidy Personally, I'd keep the EV tax as is, remove the subsidy, and significantly increase the ICE tax. Cars are awful, and their negative externalities don't stop at CO2 emissions.
  - stephen_g 5y ago
    No, a per-km charge is really regressive and poorly designed. People in regional areas need to drive much further but have worse maintained roads and don’t cause anything like the congestion metro drivers do, and don’t cause anything like the road wear the big trucks do. A state like Victoria shouldn’t be charging somebody driving in, say, South Australia either. To do it properly, you’d need different zones (higher charge in congested areas for example), but that would require creepy GPS tracking, or creepy ANPR everywhere. Really not a road we want to be going down as a society I think. They could just double the cost of rego for everyone if they’re so concerned about not getting a tax they don’t get already (Fed Govt does).
    - belorn 5y ago
      I have yet to decide if I consider ANPR more creepy than parking when ANPR is used for taxation or road tolls. Both require some form of payment system when a car is located at some specific place and when computers are involved they store records of license plates and locations. Both would benefit from tight data regulation to prevent abuse and data retention. The only major difference is that sometimes you can not avoid going pass a road toll. However the same can also be said about finding a parking space, and parking data is likely much more detailed information than passing the edge of a traffic zone. Many parking spaces in the city where I live have also moved over to use ANPR, which kind of mean the two concepts has already merged to a degree.
    - reitzensteinm 5y ago
      Sure, increased rego works great. The per km thing is a bit creepy even if it's just reading the odometer, and as you say a bad deal for regional residents. It's also very viable to not own a car in the city. I don't have one. But in the country, what behavior are you trying to encourage? So that complicates things. It should probably be means tested too. I just object to the idea that EVs should be subsidized rather than ICEs punished. It puts the finger on the scale away from even better solutions like riding, walking or public transport.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  The fuel excise and these road usage charges are not equivalent, because the former is charged by the states and the latter by the Federal Government just into general revenue. We already pay registration fees which are supposed to be a road usage tax. While they have cried poor about the loss of a tax they don’t even collect, at the end of the day this is literally just a cash grab by some States. (Luckily mine isn’t even talking about doing it, but I just think anything to discourage EVs is so idiotic policy and I really hate it being justified by half-truths and misleading info about the fuel excise).

stephen_g 5y ago

That’s what they say, but it’s actually misleading and inaccurate. The fuel excise is a Federal tax that just goes into general revenue (same as, say, income tax, alcohol excises, the tobacco excise, etc.). It’s the states that are implementing the EV taxes. They don’t automatically or directly get any money from the fuel excise. The EV tax is a new, different, and not equivalent tax. They’ve hastily brought it in now before enough people have EVs to realise - which explains why it’s so badly designed (take, for instance, rural drivers that need to drive much further distances than city folk but have worse maintained roads and don’t really cause significant road wear or congestion. They’ll pay far more than the city dwellers! Or if you drive half the time in a different state, like people in regional areas who live on the border, you’ll pay a state tax for driving on another state’s roads!).

ludston 5y ago
To be fair, people in regional areas that travel long distances already pay far more fuel related taxes than those in cities on account of using more fuel per capita.

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

Your statement, whilst true in direct translation is false in spirit. It's a fine in a tax's clothing. It is a tax wielded as weapon intended to inhibit uptake of EV's. Australia should be subsidising EV purchases, not hastily implementing a new tax that further suppresses progress in a country falling ever further behind the rest of the world.