Submitted 1 day ago by HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net to australia@aussie.zone
A specific road use tax on EVs and hybrids makes no sense.
Given the harms caused by traditional vehicles, society should welcome the decline in fuel excise revenue caused by the transition to EVs – in the same way we should welcome declining revenue from cigarette taxes.
Vehicle registration fees make only a modest contribution to road costs. That’s why all motorists should pay a road-user charge. The payment should be based on a combination of vehicle mass and distance travelled
It would be logical to base road tax also on vehicle weight and the use of studded tires (in addition to CO2 like it is now). However, the weight classes should be devised so that the change only affects the needlessly massive cars. This would be a win-win.
The fuel excise obviously taxed larger vehicles more over the same distance. It totally makes sense to have weight classes.
Oh, and Australia needs a “kei” class, dammit. Nobody’s second car has any business being bigger than that.
2x the weight causes 16x the damage (2⁴)
Isn’t the EV tax effectively just a fuel excise tax for cars that don’t use fuel?
As the article points out, the fuel excise tax does not pay for roads, it goes into general revenue and does not collect enough to pay for the damage done by air pollution. The argument is that roads should be paid for by a tax on vehicle weight and distance travelled whether ICE or EV in addition to the fuel excise tax.
That’s what it is presented as. It functions as a disincentive against EVs
Don’t discriminate against the poor.
The environment is better off with improved public transport rather than EV’s anyhow.
That make sense.
Also, an hybrid vehicle may pollute more if it’s never recharged and only use gas. Or less if it’s frequently recharged.
So that change could get rid of an automatic insentive for hybrid. Taxing gas and fossil fuel is a more direct and efficient insentive. If gas cost more, hybrid owners will recharge more often.
Fuel excise makes sense, the more fuel you use the more you’ve probably driven, the more damage you’ve contributed to the road. How to make it fair for EV users with out invading individual privacy is harder. Like what should a commuter pay compared to a courier who would do far more kms and relies on the road for the business?
It’s going to be unpopular, but as a car lover, I’m happy to pay a carbon tax to keep driving gas guzzlers and have that reinvested into carbon neutrality, whether that’s EV subsidies or something else work a better carbon return
If a commuter and or courrier drive the same distance on the same road with a similar car, they should contribute the same road toll for maintenance.
A courier should be able to deduct the toll from his income, counting it as a business expense. So it’s a bit less of a burden for profesionnals who depend on their vehicle.
Thanks for sharing!
I thought this line from the conclusion was particularly interesting:
Vehicle registration fees make only a modest contribution to road costs. That’s why all motorists should pay a road-user charge.
I’m torn. I do like the idea, in principle. Add a road-use charge to both EVs and ICE vehicles. That helps keep EVs at an economic leg-up over ICE, while also helping address the broader societal costs of cars.
The thing that makes me nervous is that even today, when there’s no such thing as a road use charge and roads are paid for out of general revenue, we frequently see drivers say things like “I have a right to be on the road because I’m paying to use it, and you need to get out of my way” to cyclists. This is both factually and morally wrong, and my concern is that if the factual side of it were made correct, it might be a little harder to immediately shut them down for the bad morals. Not that I think some people arguing in bad faith should be a reason to avoid doing a good thing. It just needs to be accompanied by strong PR around the idea that it’s to help offset the damage cars do to roads, and perhaps also the effects of pollution caused by tyres. And not merely framed purely as a toll for the right to use the roads.
So tax cyclists a nominal amount. $10/year.
Hang on , though. Tell me - because I don’t know - who pays for cyclist injury compensation? e.g. Car and cyclist collide, cyclist is taken off to hospital where they <sadly> lose a foot. Those who pay the third-party personal injury component of vehicle registration are covered for compensation for that sort of injury. Where would a cyclist’s compensation come from?
And if it comes from the same insurance pool as motorists, why aren’t cyclists contributing?
FWIW I’m the most polite and respectful motorist when it comes to cyclists, but if they’re using the road, they should share the cost. Even a nominal amount would be good. Right now they get to use the road without contributing like other road users.
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 1 day ago
This would incentivise cycling and public transport
No1@aussie.zone 21 hours ago
Well, we’ll just have to tax bicycles, buses and trains etc!
And anyone/anything who has legs. I’m awake to your ‘walking’ and ‘riding a horse’ schemes.
DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 19 hours ago
It is funny when revenue raising and incentivising behaviour get mixed. Like when governments become dependent on speeding fine revenue.