Printable View
Sounds like pointless scaremongering for more readers, or to sneak in legislation in the hope that it sounds preferable to this. It happens the world over. If it does eventually arrive, then I will be ruing the day I made this post, but until then, I think not.
This is just another stupid idea. The setup and admin costs would be astronomic. Plus gps coverage is pretty hit and miss, everyone would start driving on cloudy days. Who thinks up this rubbish?
Government probably looking into a future of fewer vehicles running on fossil fuels. You can't place an excise on sunlight.
I don't doubt the technology exists to do it, but it will only happen if the outcome can be guaranteed to be revenue positive for the government.
I remember in the seventies there was talk about moving vehicle registration to a tax on fuel. It was quickly dropped when it was found that revenue would be reduced. You can only drive one car at a time.
Can't have citizens deciding for themselves how much tax they will pay....
Terry
Why can't they? They tax farmers for harvesting rain.Quote:
Originally Posted by rover-56
Hmm... yes that's true. Come to think of it, there is a fortune to harvested from all those little suburban tanks:DQuote:
Originally Posted by d2dave
Terry
Shhh. Not to loud. You don't want to give them any ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by rover-56
Known in the business as clickbait... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco_Mike
I think a variation of this proposal in which fuel excise is increased in exchange for a decrease in the annual registration fee would be an excellent idea. Moreover it would benefit a large number of AULROvians who own multiple landrovers that probably do few kilometers per year.
The average vehicle in Australia travels 14,000km/y according to the ABS. If petrol excise was increased sufficiently to just cover the rego cost of an average car and you own either a very efficient car or travel relatively few km, you would be better off - and we would be encouraging careful use of a scarce resource.
If we assume that the average fuel consumption of a car in Australia is 10km/L this corresponds to 1400L of fuel per year. Assume that rego costs 700 per year. To make the removal of excise revenue neutral fuel excise would have to go up by 50c/L - possibly a little more as fuel consumption would drop once the price of fuel went up. Doubtless any suggestion of increasing fuel costs will upset many AULROVians, but let us take two examples - a 100 tdi getting 10 km/L and travelling 10,000 km and my V8 110 that travels 4000 km per year and gets a conservative 5km/L. The tdi avoids around 650 in Qld rego and pays 500 dollars more in fuel costs - a saving of 150 dollars. My V8 saves 1000 dollars in rego and pays 400 dollars more in fuel.
Obviously if you travel very long distances you pay more. But frankly that seems reasonable to me, and if, like many enthusiasts you travel few km you will be hundreds of dollars a year ahead.
Best Wishes
Michael
Back in the 1970s, a friend of mine wrote a number of letters to the Canberra Times advocating just such a revenue neutral scheme.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984V8110
One of his arguments was that it would encourage people to use fuel efficient cars and that it would encourage people to leave their cars at home and take public transport, ride a bike or walk.
With fuel as cheap as it was in the 70s, he argued there was no real incentive to reduce car use.
He argued that rego needed to be cheaper and fuel needed to be dearer.
Obviously no-one listened to him.
GPS tracking of all vehicles, an excellent idea. Would pay for itself by negating the need to build a network of point to point speed camera across the country's road system.
The revenue raising potential is attractive. Fuel tax and speeding tax all handled at the same time and deducted from your account by the one system ;)