Electric vehicles. The problem no one wants to deal with.

[bob10]

Fuel excise tax.

The big problem with electric vehicles that no politician wants to deal with (https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2019/10/31/electric-vehicles-fuel-excise/)

[goingbush]

Fuel excise tax.

The big problem with electric vehicles that no politician wants to deal with (https://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2019/10/31/electric-vehicles-fuel-excise/)


They are not looking at the big picture. More money will be save on health care than is generated by fuel excise due to the zero emissions of EV's

Road tax is not difficult, NewZealand have system that works. There is no excise on Diesel . Vehicles over 3500kg have a GPS device or a hub odometer to calculate road tax, its called RUC , Road User Charge . EV's will use the same system from 2021.

Road user charges exemption for electric vehicles extended | Beehive.govt.nz (https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/road-user-charges-exemption-electric-vehicles-extended)

[roverrescue]

If you read the article
It is predicted to be a non factor till 2040
And that’s assuming 50% EV from 2030

Listening to the Climate Catastropharians
We will all be worm food by then

But even with our sensible shoes on this is alarmist media at its best
Our pollies won’t make a decision impacting 5 year time lines
20-40 year plans

That’s the purview of China !


S

[4bee]

This thread reminds me of the near clanger they pulled when the GST was introduced with the Wine Tax.

Idea was to drop it down to zero then add the GST of 10%. (well that was the idea for all items but it didn't work out like that, did it?) Problem was that the wine tax was then about 29% so someone woke up to the fact that they'd be out of pocket by aprox 19% so the govt exempted that. Thieves!:bat:

They then changed the name, to the Wine Equalisation Tax.

[JDNSW]

The big problem is that fuel excise is a federal tax, but every proposed alternative, as far as I can see, lies outside the powers of the federal government, being the purlieu of the states. And every such tax would be a lot more expensive to collect than is fuel excise, that only has to be collected from a few suppliers. (OK, there are a lot of people who can get exemptions - but these have to do the donkeywork themselves!)

In my view there is very little if any economic justification for a tax on transport - it adds into the cost of virtually everything. The fuel excise is a hangover from when motoring was a luxury, and little road transport of goods was used, introduced because, like alcohol and tobacco, it was easy and efficient to collect.

[clive22]

It is clear current fuel excise formula is at some point not going to work if ev are taken up. Hard to say when since there only spellings a few thousand a year, but momentum is building and this change.

Funds do need to be raised for the building and maintenance of the road network. The excise which is in a coarse and unrefined manner, returned from the federal to the state and local governments directly responsible does this.

If you don’t raise it from excise how do you raise it?

Road user charge, per km, has an element of progression about it in that the more you use it the more you pay for the end goods. The cost of local goods needs to be favoured by lower transport. costs which is reasonable.

Damage( and this is expensive) to road surfaces is such a strong function of axle weight that the damage caused by private cars is disregarded and essentially caused by heavy trucks. So vehicle weight should be a factor in any tax.

Then there is emissions, the health a environmental benefits are broadly accepted, so more cleaner efficient vehicles must be incentivised.

There is going to be a need draw up a road tax system that charges a progressive for km, weight, and rewards lower emissions.

That will be the easy bit some clever people can work out. A political party must convince the electorate. Skin will be lost doing this.

[JDNSW]

....

Funds do need to be raised for the building and maintenance of the road network. The excise which is in a coarse and unrefined manner, returned from the federal to the state and local governments directly responsible does this.

....

As pointed out above - there is no link between road expenditure and fuel excise, so most of your argument is irrelevant. There is little justification for a "user pays" system for road use when, for example, urban rail networks are heavily subsidised. Heavy transport vehicles pay high registration costs bsed on thier damage to roads - but I don't think that even there is there any direct link between this revenue and road funding.

[clive22]

The link is there: more fuel you use the more you pay in excise, the more vehicles that are on the road, the more the government is required to accomodate this increase or risk losing votes.


If this model is disrupted by evs not using fuel, revenue will be raised by other taxes.

If road use is not taxed by usage, and is raised by increasing others taxes consumption, income taxes on capital, etc. It will distort the cost of distribution companies using the roads. Light users will be subsidising heavy users.

Inner city public transport is subsided because it politically expedient to do so. Lots of votes in this.

[JDNSW]

The link is there: more fuel you use the more you pay in excise, the more vehicles that are on the road, the more the government is required to accomodate this increase or risk losing votes.
.......

You misunderstand my point. It is sixty years since road expenditure has depended on the amount of fuel excise collected. And there has never been a direct link between federal road funding on a particular road and fuel excise collected from vehicles using that road. It is quite possible that as much as 50% of all roads have no funding other than from local ratepayers.

Fuel excise certainly has in theory the advantage that it has some proportionality to your amount of road usage, but this is only a very rough proportionality. For example, heavy tranport creates road damage out of all proportion to their fuel usage, as damage is very roughly proportional to the square of the axle loading, where fuel usage is very roughly proportional to vehicle mass. While heavy transport vehicles use more fuel than passenger cars, the damage they do to roads is a lot more in proportion.

And with most excise being raised from passenger vehicles, the amount raised has been dropping as fuel economy has improved. The EV is only the extreme case.

And perhaps worth pointing out that the sales tax imposed on cars was, with the introduction of the GST, reduced substantially - and the Federal government seemed to manage that loss of revenue satisfactorily. So this sort of thing can be managed.

[clive22]

I agree with nearly everything you say. But remember the fuel excise trickles down through various pathways into roads, in a very real but political way. My point it is indirect.
There are federal grants to states each year and do specific projects. Local government only raises around 50% of rates through rates. Without federal grants to each local councils the roads would decline.

To complicate things further state governments let councils manage roads, with financial assistance. Some of this come from state registration fees. Local roads of state importance. Many urban collectors are in this category.

The flow of road money is political and essentially indecipherable, but there is real political capital to made in providing good roads.
Cars are getting more efficient, looking likely to electrify.
A new revenue model will be needed.
I can’t see any level of government reducing road funding,quite the opposite there will be demand to improve them.
The tiers will work out a way to do this, realpolitik style.
There some recognition I believe that users pays is acceptable to the public

[V8Ian]

The trouble with funding from excise is the pork-barreling on multiple levels.

[clive22]

As long as people respond with their vote it will continue. It’s democracy at work and arguably a flawed element of our electoral system.

[JDNSW]

As long as people respond with their vote it will continue. It’s democracy at work and arguably a flawed element of our electoral system.

As Churchill is reputed to have said "...it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried...".

Most of us have a tendency to assume that any time democracy turns up a policy that we think is wrong, then their must be a flawed element in our electoral system.

This is exactly the thinking that has led to popular support for totalitarian regimes throughout history - "surely it is better to make the right decisions rather than the popular ones?" Unfortunately, I have to agree with Churchill, and while I would agree that there are flaws in our electoral system, by and large, I do not think they have much influence on the results.

[clive22]

Absolutely Churchill was spot on.In no way am I suggesting totalitarian systems are better than democracy. Pork barrelling and gerimandering for that matter are recognised potential problems with our system.

Democracy in our electoral system favours marginal electorates, which can be favoured for expenditure on things like roads.

Take the electorate of congragamite. This tightly contested seat west of Geelong simply has money poured it by successive federal governments, both sides. One example of this is the western highway through there is a 4 lane highway with little justification given the traffic volume.

Arguably on a basis of needs there are electorates with real needs that are overlooked because they are notionally safe. This is a flaw because funds are not granted on needs.


My own electorate is now a marginal, previously was safe. We have had money poured in recently., so democracy does have a balancing mechanism.

[SpudHeadTed]

If you’re in the majority or in an area that is marginal, democracy is great. If you’re not democracy is unfair. When elections are decided with just over 50% of the vote I don’t believe this is a fair democracy.

A majority should be 75-80% IMO. We live in a diverse world. Parties should work together to form democratic government - just like all of humanity needs to work together regardless of difference. Diversity is a strength not a weakness.

[bob10]

Diificult to compare NZ to Aus.. NZ has 85% renewable energy , and the average urban driver travels 22 kms / day. [ from the NZ transport web site. ]this site is worth a look. NZ seems to have the EV situation well in hand. Australia, on the other hand....


Electric vehicles | Ministry of Transport (https://www.transport.govt.nz/multi-modal/climatechange/electric-vehicles/)

[JDNSW]

Getting a bit off topic for this thread, but the bigest improvement I can see that could be made to our democracy is multimember electorates. But that is not going to lead to larger majorities - quite the reverse. What is would lead to is that either nothing gets done or everyone is going to have to compromise to get a working government. Overeseas countries that have democracies that have this type of mechanism seem to come in both types - non-working government, or a system where everyone compromises.

[Tombie]

If you’re in the majority or in an area that is marginal, democracy is great. If you’re not democracy is unfair. When elections are decided with just over 50% of the vote I don’t believe this is a fair democracy.

A majority should be 75-80% IMO. We live in a diverse world. Parties should work together to form democratic government - just like all of humanity needs to work together regardless of difference. Diversity is a strength not a weakness.

Besides your political and environmental views...
Are you at ANY stage going to post anything to do with LRs?


In answer to your post above - Majority... key word... 50.1% makes something a majority...

It’s only “unfair” when viewed from the perspective of the “minority” - as they say “Some days you’re the dog; other days you’re the fire hydrant.”

[Eevo]

Besides your political and environmental views...
Are you at ANY stage going to post anything to do with LRs?


In answer to your post above - Majority... key word... 50.1% makes something a majority...

It’s only “unfair” when viewed from the perspective of the “minority” - as they say “Some days you’re the dog; other days you’re the fire hydrant.”


actualy its 50% plus one.

[bsperka]

Why the discussion regarding fuel excise tax and road infrastructure? They are only lossely related. "The fuel excuse tax collected is partly used to fund national road infrastructure projects and repair roads, but most of it (approximately 75%) goes into general revenue. "
Source: Raise highway spend from fuel tax: NRMA (https://www.smh.com.au/national/raise-highway-spend-from-fuel-tax-nrma-20100103-lmq2.html)

[4bee]

Besides your political and environmental views...
Are you at ANY stage going to post anything to do with LRs?


I doubt it, trolls usually don't, they just bang their own drum.

[sashadidi]

They are not looking at the big picture. More money will be save on health care than is generated by fuel excise due to the zero emissions of EV's

Road tax is not difficult, NewZealand have system that works. There is no excise on Diesel . Vehicles over 3500kg have a GPS device or a hub odometer to calculate road tax, its called RUC , Road User Charge . EV's will use the same system from 2021.

Road user charges exemption for electric vehicles extended | Beehive.govt.nz (https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/road-user-charges-exemption-electric-vehicles-extended) Within that system as such the government in NZ says it so much a tonne Road tax on an increasing weight scale as the weight of the actual car/truck is supposed to be causing "more" wear on the roads due to its weight but we still basically have a minimum RUC of 3 metric tonnes yet many lighter cars are below that.... I have a EV there and solar so its great at the moment but they are talking intrducing the SAME rate of RUC for electric cars which will really increase costs and actually act as a a disincetive to buy them as such, rumour is goverment may have to overhaul actual rate per tonne of RUC and maybe put in a lower rate for EVs to still keep the interest up in buying EVS , various proposals mooted to give $5000 off sale price etc but as we know the price on the car goes up from the dealer to match that or as much as they can get away with, other proposals re new taxes etc, its complicated!!!

[PhilipA]

Funny this thread encouraged me to look at the USA experience where there are lots of charging stations. There is a video about the difficulties in charging caused by numerous different standards and apps that are required and different adaptors to charge say a TeslaX.

This then prompted me to look at how many Supoerchargers there are on the Central Coast.
There is one station with 6 chargers.
However the directions are that it is down the road Bunnings is on at Tuggerah and you drive next to Spotlight then up ramps to the top floor of a parking station . This would be very interesting with a caravan.
Also in the USA Tesla apparently is the only vehicle with the charge port at the rear in the taillight and the cords were not long enough on several stations to reach nosed in. This would seem to preclude a Tesla with a van or trailer being able to be charged and at Superchargers in general the car has to be reversed in..
Regards PhilipA

[SpudHeadTed]

Besides your political and environmental views...
Are you at ANY stage going to post anything to do with LRs?

In answer to your post above - Majority... key word... 50.1% makes something a majority...

It’s only “unfair” when viewed from the perspective of the “minority” - as they say “Some days you’re the dog; other days you’re the fire hydrant.”

Firstly what I post is up to me. Since when does someone have the right to tell someone else what to post?!

But I’ll take your bait because you’re obviously interested, or is that annoyed? by what I post.

This whole thread is relevant to Land Rovers and all fossil fuel powered vehicles.

As you know I’ve contributed many posts in the Defender 663 thread, but got tired of the circuitous discussion about a vehicle no one’s driven yet. The majority of other threads, while very interesting are also very repetitive, so not much need to post there so far.

This thread is more balanced and very interesting IMO.

Hope your having a great day Tombie.

PS: your political and environmental views are abundantly clear too.

[jonesfam]

Getting back to the matter at hand? :)
A road usage fee/tax would be unfair to someone like me.
I live in a remote place, just for SWMBO to do the X-mas shopping is a 6-7 hour, 400km drive.
We drive to Mt Isa or Normanton for all sorts of reasons all of the time - do the banking, medical reasons, meetings, get urgently required equipment & so on.
So, for the majority to go to the computer shop it's what? Maybe 20k? For us its 400k + a motel room!
I don't see how a Km tax or road usage tax can be fair & equitible?
Please enlighten me if you can.
BTW I ain't moving to no City!!
Jonesfam

[Bigbjorn]

Getting back to the matter at hand? :)
A road usage fee/tax would be unfair to someone like me.
I live in a remote place, just for SWMBO to do the X-mas shopping is a 6-7 hour, 400km drive.
We drive to Mt Isa or Normanton for all sorts of reasons all of the time - do the banking, medical reasons, meetings, get urgently required equipment & so on.
So, for the majority to go to the computer shop it's what? Maybe 20k? For us its 400k + a motel room!
I don't see how a Km tax or road usage tax can be fair & equitible?
Please enlighten me if you can.
BTW I ain't moving to no City!!
Jonesfam

You are paying a form of road usage tax now in fuel excise. Don't forget it is a free country and it was your choice to live where you do. No fences, guns, guard towers keeping you there. If the various levels of government have to provide a 400 km road to the shops then someone has to pay for it. User pays would be a fairer method than the present one.

[V8Ian]

You are paying a form of road usage tax now in fuel excise. Don't forget it is a free country and it was your choice to live where you do. No fences, guns, guard towers keeping you there. If the various levels of government have to provide a 400 km road to the shops then someone has to pay for it. User pays would be a fairer method than the present one.
So all the cockies and sod busters come into town and join the dole queue, what do we eat, Brian?

[Bigbjorn]

So all the cockies and sod busters come into town and join the dole queue, what do we eat, Brian?

I remember taking and rejecting a pension claim from a cockie in my DSS days by reason of their assets. This guy was a rude arrogant pos and said "What do we eat. We can't eat red dirt." I had the proper ****s with him by this and replied "Well, you have $3,000,000 worth of it. That should feed you for a good while."

There has to be a taxation system devised to pay for running the country that fairly taxes all. Fuel excise and grog excise tax only those who use the stuff. Income tax only taxes wage and salary earners. Council rates only tax land owners.

Do you remember Road Maintenance Contributions? An impost only on a segment of the transport industry. Resented by all and many including myself never paid it until a pair of coppers arrived with an arrest warrant and then only paid what was asked for. Many owner operators went to gaol as this negated the debt. This was called "eating it out." In the end it was revoked as it was costing more to collect than what was collected. It would have been an acceptable tax if it applied to ALL road users. Car, bikes, trucks, buses.

[V8Ian]

I thought road tax was primarily to protect and subsidise the various state owned railways.
The blockades of '79 set the ball rolling for its abolition, Queensland being the first state to repeal the laws, in a populist decision.
At the time I was still learning my craft, punting other people's body trucks around town.

Totally agree that we need a fairer method of tax collection.

[Saitch]

It's always made me feel good paying road tax when fueling my boat![bighmmm]

[V8Ian]

It's always made me feel good paying road tax when fueling my boat![bighmmm]
That wouldn't road tax Steve. Road tax was a ton/mile charge imposed separately from excise. Brian could tell you how it was paid/calculated/avoided.

[Bigbjorn]

I thought road tax was primarily to protect and subsidise the various state owned railways.
The blockades of '79 set the ball rolling for its abolition, Queensland being the first state to repeal the laws, in a populist decision.
At the time I was still learning my craft, punting other people's body trucks around town.

Totally agree that we need a fairer method of tax collection.

Ian, RMC's came about because of the Hughes and Vale, and Antill Ranger decisions which determined that permit fees could not be charged on interstate freight. Section 92 0f the constitution. Governments still wanted to collect a tax so came up with RMC's. A couple of cunning lawyers worked out a way to subvert the tax which proved its death knell. Form a $2 company, get owner-drivers to "lease" and register their vehicles in the company name and address. When a large amount was owing then liquidate the $2 company which had no assets, start another and put the "leased" trucks into that company. Repeat as necessary. The governments gave up attempts to collect from bankrupt $2 companies.

One smart operator formed a company xxxxx Nominees S.A. in Vaduz, Leichtenstein which name was signwritten on the vehicles. The head office in an Australian state capital was then referred to as a management contractor. Any official chasing payments was referred to the Vaduz office which was a lawyer's office. Leichtensteinian law only applies to offences committed in the country and the lawyers are forbidden to discuss client's affairs outside Leich.

A Brisbane operator with between 15-20 six axle line haul rigs engaged in interstate haulage had them registered in the name of the 80+ y.o. patriarch. Inevitably when a couple of coppers came along with an arrest warrant he would ask someone to 'phone the TV channels as there are couple of big bun faced coppers here to arrest an 83 y.o. grandfather. He would then tell them to wait whilst he changed into decent clothes and got his suitcase. Once they contacted their Inspector who told the arrestee they really didn't want him, just the money. He replied that by now they should know they were never going to get the money, They were told by the Inspector to leave before the news cameras arrived.

[V8Ian]

I once read about a solicitor who had over 100 $2, interstate transport companies' head offices registered to his small, single room office in Bordertown. [biggrin]

[4bee]

Do you remember Road Maintenance Contributions?

Amazing, they can call it all the different titles they like (Contribution, reeks of Al Capone & his Stand over mobsters) Levy we were told, was supposed to be a once only payment such as SA's Emergency Services Levy ESL. but no, it goes on year after year after year even after the EMs have got all their new uptodate Vehicles, Equipment & Safety gear.

Call it any other name it is still a TAX.

It apparently rakes in Millions & I bet it now goes into General Revenue for Political Junkets etc.

Just Sayin'

[JDNSW]

The last few posts on the history of attempting to tax road users shows how the fuel excise is a relatively easy and simple tax. A review of this history suggest some of the complications likely to arise with any proposals to replace it with something else.

The problem is not as simple as it sounds!

And worth remembering that there is no such thing as a "fair" tax - what is "fair" depends on who is looking at it!

There are only two factors a tax expert will consider:-

1. How efficient is it - that is, how cheap is it to collect, and how difficult is it to avoid?

2. Is it politically possible?

All an economist is interested in is:-

Will it distort economic activity?

Note that none of these have anything mention of how fair or equitable it is.

[V8Ian]

Getting back to the matter at hand? :)
A road usage fee/tax would be unfair to someone like me.
I live in a remote place, just for SWMBO to do the X-mas shopping is a 6-7 hour, 400km drive.
We drive to Mt Isa or Normanton for all sorts of reasons all of the time - do the banking, medical reasons, meetings, get urgently required equipment & so on.
So, for the majority to go to the computer shop it's what? Maybe 20k? For us its 400k + a motel room!
I don't see how a Km tax or road usage tax can be fair & equitible?
Please enlighten me if you can.
BTW I ain't moving to no City!!
Jonesfam
Surely you're compensating by the lower remote area tax rebate? [bigwhistle]

[Bigbjorn]

I once read about a solicitor who had over 100 $2, interstate transport companies' head offices registered to his small, single room office in Bordertown. [biggrin]

The biggest operation I can recall was in Dobson Drive, Pooraka.

[Tombie]

Firstly what I post is up to me. Since when does someone have the right to tell someone else what to post?!

But I’ll take your bait because you’re obviously interested, or is that annoyed? by what I post.

This whole thread is relevant to Land Rovers and all fossil fuel powered vehicles.

As you know I’ve contributed many posts in the Defender 663 thread, but got tired of the circuitous discussion about a vehicle no one’s driven yet. The majority of other threads, while very interesting are also very repetitive, so not much need to post there so far.

This thread is more balanced and very interesting IMO.

Hope your having a great day Tombie.

PS: your political and environmental views are abundantly clear too.

Righto.... line cast...

I didn’t tell you WHAT you could post, I asked a question as to when you were likely to post a LR related one. That would be a question.

Let’s consider L663. If you’re committed to an environmentally better world you can save emissions by keeping your current vehicle - and not removing the CAT as you posted you plan to! By not purchasing another vehicle all the emissions involved in its creation are avoided and would offset what your Defender makes.

And if you can accurately ascertain my political and environmental views from my posts you’re some kind of miracle worker. I have what can be left/right and middle of the road views on political topics - you complained of the unfair nature of Democracy- well 50%+1 as pointed out is a majority. Not some 70% figure you’re proposing. Don’t like how your area landed in a Democracy- you can always vote with your feet.

My environmental views are more wary skepticism. Not denial. I’m certainly not a hypocrite though. My home is Solar and Water self sustained, highly insulated, minimal energy consumption (we use less than the average single person by about 20%). I work in the Mining Industry and part of my scope is Environmental, I am accountable for my Ticket and it’s environmental impact and compliance.

What we need to do is reduce emissions and then balance the remaining emissions with ecosystems that can absorb them. How is the big question.

I’ve had a ****ing brilliant day! Thanks.
Went for a walk along the foreshore.
Spent a few hours working on my old Motorcycle.
Upgraded the Campers Solar array.
And prepared some more of our yard ready for planting.

I hope your day was equally enjoyable in whatever way you chose to spend it. And may you find the tranquility you seek.

[RANDLOVER]

Getting back to the matter at hand? :)
A road usage fee/tax would be unfair to someone like me.
I live in a remote place, just for SWMBO to do the X-mas shopping is a 6-7 hour, 400km drive.
We drive to Mt Isa or Normanton for all sorts of reasons all of the time - do the banking, medical reasons, meetings, get urgently required equipment & so on.
So, for the majority to go to the computer shop it's what? Maybe 20k? For us its 400k + a motel room!
I don't see how a Km tax or road usage tax can be fair & equitible?
Please enlighten me if you can.
BTW I ain't moving to no City!!
Jonesfam

Yes, it always amazes me, that pollies think people get in and drive their cars around just to be annoying!

[Tombie]

Yes, it always amazes me, that pollies think people get in and drive their cars around just to be annoying!

Teenagers? [emoji48]. I know back then I would drive for the sake of it.

[JDNSW]

I have definitely known people who drive their cars round just to be annoying - although some of them have been in someone else's car. This includes whoever it was doing donuts in the middle of the intersection of the Mogriguy and Mendooran roads leaving a fair bit of their tyres on the road, that I noted on my way to town last week.

[Saitch]

That wouldn't road tax Steve. Road tax was a ton/mile charge imposed separately from excise. Brian could tell you how it was paid/calculated/avoided.

Your correct, Ian. I was keeping it short.
What I was getting at was the fact that, when you fuel a boat, even at a dedicated marine fuelling dock/marina, you are still paying the excise that is supposedly used for infrastructure and road maintenance.

[V8Ian]

Your correct, Ian. I was keeping it short.
What I was getting at was the fact that, when you fuel a boat, even at a dedicated marine fuelling dock/marina, you are still paying the excise that is supposedly used for infrastructure and road maintenance.
That excice can be claimed back, as can the excise on any non-road use fuel such as mower, generator, earthmoving equipment or even ice pack etc. It's not easy and most people find the hoops to be jumped through, too many and difficult to be viable. I'm sure that wasn't the taxman's intent. [bigwhistle]

[prelude]

interesting topic!

I know I compare .au to my neck of the woods fairly often I guess when replying to topics, can't help it sorry ;)

Anyway, it is funny to see how a huge country on the other end of the world goes through somewhat similar taxation development as we do.

Down here taxation in fuel has been discussed/proposed throughout the years but the harsh truth is; 85% of our fuel price is already a taxation in one way or another. Just think about that figure for a second... On the other hand we have a system where both weight and fuel type determine the amount of tax you pay. THe heavier the car, the more tax you pay. That seems only logical since heavier vehicles wear the road faster.

Now, on to EV's. Those things are bloody heavy! The energy density of a battery is and probably will remain for the unforeseen future considerably lower then fuel. The tesla most seen around here weighs in at 2300kg IIRC which is heavier then my P38! They are exempt at this time because climate policy crap but when they have to start paying full taxes I wonder if people will keep on buying them. I also wonder what will happen with the 85% over millions of litres of fuel of income that the government will loose.

Personally I would like to see taxation on actual environmental impact, both on production as well as use. Probably not going to happen :)

Cheers,
-P

[3toes]

There will be a mobility tax of some sort put on electric vehicles in the near future as the tax stream from fuel will need to be replaced. U.K. government has already increased purchase tax and registration fees on electric vehicles by tightening definition and charging those who do not meet this more. Has caused a hit on the value of cars that do not meet the new standards.They are also investigating ways of putting a tax on the electricity used when plugged in and charging.

[JDNSW]

That excice can be claimed back, as can the excise on any non-road use fuel such as mower, generator, earthmoving equipment or even ice pack etc. It's not easy and most people find the hoops to be jumped through, too many and difficult to be viable. I'm sure that wasn't the taxman's intent. [bigwhistle]

I'm pretty certain that it became impossible to claim back excise on petrol decades ago. Also, it is not any offroad use that can be claimed back, although I don't know the details. But you are right, it is not easy, and you have to be registered, and I think you need an ABN number.

[4bee]

I also wonder what will happen with the 85% over millions of litres of fuel of income that the government will loose.


Oh, they will drop the price per/l down to 20c just to get shot of it like a clearance sale. Won't they?[biggrin]

[4bee]

Your correct, Ian. I was keeping it short.
What I was getting at was the fact that, when you fuel a boat, even at a dedicated marine fuelling dock/marina, you are still paying the excise that is supposedly used for infrastructure and road maintenance.


SH, unless you are paying extra for Navigation charges wouldn't that then apply to Marina, wharf, buoyage & all the gear & services that goes with operating a boat? It'd be the olde User Pays thingo, shirley?

[JDNSW]

The government supplied boat facilities are state not federal, and are used to justify the registration charges made on the boats. The marina facilities are either charged direct to users as mooring fees, and/or recovered through rental charges to retailers such as the owner of the fuelling facility and the associated shops.

None of the excise ever finds its way from federal consolidated revenue back into boating.

Perhaps some of it does find its way back into used such as my firefighting pump, but definitely not into my lawn mower usage or my backup generator.

[V8Ian]

SH, unless you are paying extra for Navigation charges wouldn't that then apply to Marina, wharf, buoyage & all the gear & services that goes with operating a boat? It'd be the olde User Pays thingo, shirley?
Buoyage, what a wonderful word Boyo. [biggrin]

[4bee]

[bigsmile1] You'd never know I subscribe to Trinity House UK would you?

[Bigbjorn]

The government supplied boat facilities are state not federal, and are used to justify the registration charges made on the boats. The marina facilities are either charged direct to users as mooring fees, and/or recovered through rental charges to retailers such as the owner of the fuelling facility and the associated shops.

None of the excise ever finds its way from federal consolidated revenue back into boating.

Perhaps some of it does find its way back into used such as my firefighting pump, but definitely not into my lawn mower usage or my backup generator.

The big marina at Manly Qld. is private sector and the bays have strata titles. Many were bought by investors as rental propositions. Many original investors or their descendants still own and rent them. Very high rental returns depending on when the owner bought in. If you have a big expensive boat and need somewhere accessible and secure to keep it, your options are buy a waterfront home with moorings or pay (through the nose) for a marina berth.

[Bigbjorn]

I'm pretty certain that it became impossible to claim back excise on petrol decades ago. Also, it is not any offroad use that can be claimed back, although I don't know the details. But you are right, it is not easy, and you have to be registered, and I think you need an ABN number.

I know nothing about claiming excise back on motor spirit. I do know that when my family business delivered to stations and when we subbied to a commercial carrier (not a mail contractor) we delivered drums of fuel to farms and stations. Some had overhead tanks for petrol. Mostly this was used in their road vehicles which then were Holden-Falcon-Valiant, and the occasional big Humber or Jaguar. This was regarded by the cockies as cheap farm fuel and was their right to use it on the road. I hope this rort has been stopped. I suppose nowadays they use diesel 4WD's as road vehicles and still avoid excise.

[PhilipA]

Many years ago farm fuel used to be diesel and dyed a different colour, as is still the case in UK.
Many Cockies used to drive 300D Mercedes .

Regards PhilipA

[Tote]

You can claim excise back on fuel used for agriculture, mining and other off road activities. It is done through the tax system with the submission of a BAS Statement

Fuel tax credits - business | Australian Taxation Office (https://www.ato.gov.au/business/fuel-schemes/fuel-tax-credits---business/)

Regards,
Tote

[JDNSW]

Philip - I thought that was power kerosine?

Tote - drilling down into that shows that you can actually get a return on petrol used off road, although it needs to be used in a business.

[Bigbjorn]

Many years ago farm fuel used to be diesel and dyed a different colour, as is still the case in UK.
Many Cockies used to drive 300D Mercedes .

Regards PhilipA

Brisbane City Council bulk fuel was died green. Green stains instead of red around the fuel system could mean dismissal.

[Tote]

Philip - I thought that was power kerosine?

Tote - drilling down into that shows that you can actually get a return on petrol used off road, although it needs to be used in a business.

Yep, we claim the petrol used by the quad bikes and petrol driven pumps on the farm (although its usually less than a couple of jerry cans a quarter) It's not much more work if you are already submitting a BAS anyway.


Regards,
Tote