Australian electric cars to pay fair share of federal road excise

[hackney]

Originally Posted by leesa

Oh my bad. I mistook your multiple head-slapping emoticons, capitalisation, description of my post as "bull**** / so much crap in my life" and exclamation marks at both statements as you getting worked up. My mistake.
You are quite entitled to your opinion... as I am to mine. Feel free to disagree, dispute or deny all you like but please at least keep it semi-respectful.

If you live rural because you love the lifestyle, that's great, I'd love the lifestyle too. What happens to those people who have to buy on the outskirts because they can't afford to live closer, but there's no public transport so they have to drive to the last station of the train line and park while they train it in to work? Do you think it's fair that they should pay more tax seeing as they drive more? Even though they have to drive more because they couldn't afford to live closer and drive less?

Unfortunately that is way of the world regarding people having to travel,with trains etc etc...(we have all done,well a lot have,very common in the UK & Europe.)If I want to be a bit more “callous” @ least they have employment to go to.Don’t you think that is a plus?Think this conversation should be terminated for the good of all! Cheers🍷🍷👍

[hackney]

Originally Posted by leesa

sorry, i'll give it a red hot go now.

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by leesa

Oh my bad. I mistook your multiple head-slapping emoticons, capitalisation, description of my post as "bull**** / so much crap in my life" and exclamation marks at both statements as you getting worked up. My mistake.
You are quite entitled to your opinion... as I am to mine. Feel free to disagree, dispute or deny all you like but please at least keep it semi-respectful.

If you live rural because you love the lifestyle, that's great, I'd love the lifestyle too. What happens to those people who have to buy on the outskirts because they can't afford to live closer, but there's no public transport so they have to drive to the last station of the train line and park while they train it in to work? Do you think it's fair that they should pay more tax seeing as they drive more? Even though they have to drive more because they couldn't afford to live closer and drive less?

I'm failing to see the point in this.

Why should EV's pay no tax? Last i checked, teslas were very expensive and the rich are getting a free pass.

PS. The title should be changed. Fuel excise is a federal tax.

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

I'm failing to see the point in this.

Why should EV's pay no tax?

There was no point that was relevant to the title, hackney and I got a bit off-topic.

[Junkyard-Dog]

More taxes? Sounds pretty Australian to me mate.

[Maka]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

I'm failing to see the point in this.

Why should EV's pay no tax? Last i checked, teslas were very expensive and the rich are getting a free pass.

PS. The title should be changed. Fuel excise is a federal tax.

Went to change it MB but too late dohh, if a nice mod would like to correct it, please do sirs lol!

cheers, Maka

[hackney]

Originally Posted by Junkyard-Dog

More taxes? Sounds pretty Australian to me mate.

You should try the UK then! You don’t know how good you have it here.Best place in the world.(& that’s coming from a “Pom”!)Cheers

[Cruzycuzz]

Originally Posted by Dr Terry

If you include Hybrids, it's a lot higher than that.

Dr Terry

I mean full electric

[Junkyard-Dog]

Originally Posted by hackney

You should try the UK then! You don’t know how good you have it here.Best place in the world.(& that’s coming from a “Pom”!)Cheers

Yeah, a licence just to watch tv is a bit rich mate. I can't stand the BBC.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by Junkyard-Dog

Yeah, a licence just to watch tv is a bit rich mate. I can't stand the BBC.

You should watch the rest of the channels! Think we have got it bad.Almost forgot I did get hooked on “Movies for Men”!Mmmmm. Cheers

[Cruzycuzz]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

EV should pay more as a percentage, they are heavier, accelerate differently and will cause more damage to roads.

As we start to see more on the roads I predict we will start seeing bitumen roads corrugate.

Just curious, where's the evidence to say EV's will cause more road damage than their petrol counterparts?

[Junkyard-Dog]

Originally Posted by hackney

Almost forgot I did get hooked on “Movies for Men”!Mmmmm. Cheers

I don't know what that is. I don't want to know what that is.

I'm leaving now.

[hackney]

Originally Posted by Junkyard-Dog

I don't know what that is. I don't want to know what that is.

I'm leaving now.

Westerns,War movies etc.....Cheers

[Junkyard-Dog]

Originally Posted by hackney

Westerns,War movies etc.....Cheers

Oh good, I thought things were getting weird in here.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

EV should pay more as a percentage, they are heavier, accelerate differently and will cause more damage to roads.

If its about road damage, then surely the trucking industry should be paying way more than it does now?

[commodorenutt]

Originally Posted by leesa

The people who drive the most are those who live well out of town because they already couldn't afford to buy property near the city. Taxing them more... because they already weren't rich enough to buy a property that would permit them to drive less... seems like such a bull**** idea. It's like people can't win in this ****hole of a country.

100% agree.

And they are already paying far more tax at the moment than those closer to the city - with ~40% of the cost of fuel being excise, and having to spend more on fuel to travel the extra distance.

And for those on the outskirts on lower incomes, who can't afford the latest & greatest fuel efficient cars, it's a double whammy.

And you may as well add tolls into it too. Inner Sydney has 2 (maybe more) tolls that are only paid one-way, whilst the motorways that serve the outer suburbs (M2, M4, M5 & M7) are all tolled both ways.

And if you're fortunate enough to live close to the M5 east, you get a free ride - yes, those getting on the M5 east from King Georges Rd have no toll at all to pay, yet those who have to travel further out, get slugged.

So you make a very, very valid point about the urban fringe being unfairly taxed more heavily.

The only way a distance tax would work, is if the excise was dropped. They did a study on this in the USA, and it was something like 1.5c/mile road user tax, was enough to offset the reduced excises on fuel. In Australia it would likely need to be something like 4c/km as we have about 4 times more excise on our fuel.

But the result of the study showed that cars like a Prius or Tesla would pay more road tax than fuel excise, whilst a truck or SUV would see a significant gain in savings, yet road funding would stay at the same level.

Our government would never go for it in the way it's intended because:
A. They won't get additional tax for no reason (cough** carbon dioxide tax **cough).
B. The greens would block any move to lower excise on fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by b0son

If its about road damage, then surely the trucking industry should be paying way more than it does now?

Definitely. But also include busses that are tearing up neighbourhood roundabouts, and paying very little compared to the trucking industry.

[Brodes]

But if inner city folks use the road less (by distance) then why should they be taxed at a higher rate than those in the outer suburbs who cover more distance? The inner city folks pay much more for their properties, rates, income tax (assuming a higher tax bracket), etc. than those who live on the outskirts; clearly paying their fair share already.

The reason I say this is to show the argument can go both ways, I think it's fair and just that if you drive further on average then you pay a higher rate of tax for road maintenance which is scaled by the volume fuel you burn. For whatever reason you live a great distance from work, you pay more, unless of course you choose other methods of transport (public, motor bike, push bike, etc.)

I also totally agree that the tax system needs to change so that EVs pay their fair portion of road maintenance tax which needs to at least equal the tax rate what IC vehicles pay, EVs are already saving money on the cost of fuel and helping keep emissions down, and yes the power does come from the grid which is mostly supplied by green house gas emitting sources, however as this is slowly changing to renewables makes the EVs even more viable going forward, and the greater portion of EVs means the tax needs to come from somewhere. My only concern is the potential use of GPS tracking on cars for distance tax purposes, my thoughts are this could lead to full time speed tracking with instant fines, no more need for "safety" cameras for government revenue.

*this opinion was given by an outer suburb dwelling bogan V8 driver.

[danzvtil]

A city dweller may pay less for roads because they cover less distance, but that is offset by a higher population density, more people paying a smaller amount to use the same road. I have no problem with higher kay travellers paying more thru excise, name one thing that isn't user pays.
This debate isn't about slapping another tax on the poor tesla drivers, it's about our taxation system catching up with new technology and making sure all road users contribute appropriately.

[commodorenutt]

We're already seeing out electricity grids tapping out beyond capacity (SA even more so), and the influx of EVs is only going to make it worse.

How about, rather than a road tax on EVs, they pay a "grid tax" to help cover the cost of upgrading the networks and generation sources to cope.

At the moment, everyone paying a power bill (at exhorbitant rates for both the power usage, and the "daily charge") is subsidising those with EVs who are creating a significant household load, on an already borderline network.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by b0son

If its about road damage, then surely the trucking industry should be paying way more than it does now?

In NSW it costs $14,776pa for a B-Double and $13,063pa for a single trailer unit.

If they brought in pay by distance would city folk still have to pay tolls (probably would, as the Macquarie Bank wouldn't want to miss out on a nice little earner )

[b0son]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

In NSW it costs $14,776pa for a B-Double and $13,063pa for a single trailer unit.

... while doing around 10,000 times (when fully loaded) more damage to the road than a family car. They arent paying that sort of multiple relative to car rego.

Yes, we'd all end up paying more for all our interstate goods, but arguably, if the industry bore the full cost, there'd be far greater motivation to maintain local supply or invest in more efficient transport.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by Cruzycuzz

Just curious, where's the evidence to say EV's will cause more road damage than their petrol counterparts?

An experiment was done on a farm where it went all diesel.
That farm never got corrugations on it's tracks, they pretty much stayed in perfect condition over years.

The reason is acceleration, a petrol engine accelerates much more sharply than a diesel.
An electric car accelerates far more quickly than a petrol engine.

Each micro acceleration digs in and over time you end up with a mess.

I did say I predict it will happen, not that it definitely will.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by b0son

... while doing around 10,000 times (when fully loaded) more damage to the road than a family car. They arent paying that sort of multiple relative to car rego.

Yes, we'd all end up paying more for all our interstate goods, but arguably, if the industry bore the full cost, there'd be far greater motivation to maintain local supply or invest in more efficient transport.

Go for a drive up the great northern highway out where the cars stop and tell me the condition of the road. The biggest trucks in the world run this road.

It's as smooth as a racetrack unless you drive a kenworth.

Where does the road turn to crap? 200km from the city where all the cars get onto it.

Trucks do most of their damage when turning, governments are too stupid to use concrete pads in these areas.

IF you think trucks don't pay enough rego, think about a bogie dolly, it has no engine, no steering wheel yet it costs more than twice the price of a car to register. Triple dolly and raise the price again. That is one small part of a road train.

Originally Posted by Brodes

But if inner city folks use the road less (by distance) then why should they be taxed at a higher rate than those in the outer suburbs who cover more distance?

They shouldn't. That's not the point I was making. One shouldn't be taxed higher than the other, the scheme should not be based on how many Ks travelled, everyone should have to pay the same price despite Ks travelled.

People in the city (who want to try claim they use the roads less) will still bike on the roads, walk on the sidewalks, take public transport that uses the road and buy goods that are shipped in trucks that use the roads. We all use the roads directly and indirectly, we should all pay equally for being able to use the roads. Taxing people who have to drive further into work just punishes those who are already punished for not earning enough.

[olfella]

Well it looks like our Gov is thinking of a milage tax to get the lost revenue from our back pockets. But, as always while they dither we as a country are failing to keep up with 'innovation' being introduced OS. I see this as another failure for our manufacturing to have got in on the ground floor be-it in batteries, electric motors or even building the cars themselves. And as mention in the articles will our electricity grid handle the new demand and who is going to upgrade it?
http://reneweconomy.com.au/three-yea...-on-evs-45999/
http://www.joshfrydenberg.com.au/gue...ls.aspx?id=262

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by leesa

They shouldn't. That's not the point I was making. One shouldn't be taxed higher than the other, the scheme should not be based on how many Ks travelled, everyone should have to pay the same price despite Ks travelled.

Over half the Federal excise we are discussing comes from a user pays system i.e. fuel excise. The more fuel you use the more you pay. How do you replace that system with a flat rate? People who only drive to Church on Sundays will be subsidising Lindsay Fox!

Originally Posted by leesa

People in the city (who want to try claim they use the roads less) will still bike on the roads, walk on the sidewalks, take public transport that uses the road and buy goods that are shipped in trucks that use the roads. We all use the roads directly and indirectly, we should all pay equally for being able to use the roads. Taxing people who have to drive further into work just punishes those who are already punished for not earning enough.

Those people are already taxed more in fuel excise, so you swap that tax amount for a usage charge. They are not worse off.

There is no such thing as a popular tax....

[Brodes]

Originally Posted by leesa

...Taxing people who have to drive further into work just punishes those who are already punished for not earning enough.

And you're assuming that all people who drive long distances to work earn a lower wage? A formal, legal and ethical tax system can't make rules on such assumptions.

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

It's as smooth as a racetrack unless you drive a kenworth.

Torsion bars, torsion bars.....

[jpd80]

What ever happens, I'm sure no one will win, GOVCO to the rescue with raising tax revenue.

Soon they will tax you for using the sun to power your solar cells.