If I'd known what a pain mileage was with diesel I would have went petrol. Probably unrelated but gah.

I recall someone in National making a suggestion a few years ago that RUCs should be removed from Petrol and charged separately like diesel currently is, the argument being that a modern vehicle traveling between say Auckland and Wellington would not need as much fuel as one from the 1980s would hence the government has been missing out on a lot of fuel tax based on cars getting more efficient 

JayADee:

If I'd known what a pain mileage was with diesel I would have went petrol. Probably unrelated but gah.

DjShadow:

 

I recall someone in National making a suggestion a few years ago that RUCs should be removed from Petrol and charged separately like diesel currently is, the argument being that a modern vehicle traveling between say Auckland and Wellington would not need as much fuel as one from the 1980s would hence the government has been missing out on a lot of fuel tax based on cars getting more efficient 

The intention with RUCs was that collection of road taxes could be separated from fuel consumption.  Diesel-powered vehicles pay RUc based on distance and weight meaning that even if you could find an extremely fuel-efficient engine that can haul a 40 tonne load you pay the same in RUCs.  The down side is enforcement, but this could be vastly improved with technology that monitors distance traveled and current location.

The upside of taxing fuel is that it is paid for sure - you want fuel then tax is mandatorily included in the price.

One of the main points I will be making in my submission is that all road-legal vehicles should switch to RUCs, and that RUCs should recover public costs directly related to mileage - road damage repairs, congestion, safety upgrades etc. and that fuels should primarily be taxed for carbon and other pollution emissions. In doing so they avoid having to make a technical definition of "partly" in regards to vehicles partly powered by electricity, for example, because there's no incentive to try to game the system by putting a 1kW motor in - if there's no meaningful contribution from the electricity, there's no meaningful reduction in tax. Pollution tax is reduced directly in proportion to the fuel efficiency of the vehicle no matter how it is achieved.

To balance out the regressive tendency of such a tax towards the poorest drivers who tend to drive the worst cars because they're cheap, a portion of the fuel tax could be put back into programs to get them into EVs by giving them a free replacement battery if they swap their 1993 Cefiro for a $3000 8-bar SoH Leaf or the like. That keeps the old Leafs on the road longer, improving their environmental contribution too.

insane: 

I don't mind paying a fair amount of tax, but believe this system is not fair as it currently stands.

That's why they're asking for comments!

Can't you just do like under and over system like water and provisional tax?

Every year as part of getting your WOF (or 6 months for older cars which will help smooth payments for those with older cars), you just pay the RUC?

Sell the car, and pa the RUC to get it up to date, much like when you buy/sell a house with rates?

That way every vehicle is paying for the wear they cause on the road.

BUT it can't be like Auckland Council/Transport where they only spend 1/2 of what is collected.

SaltyNZ:

One of the main points I will be making in my submission is that all road-legal vehicles should switch to RUCs, and that RUCs should recover public costs directly related to mileage - road damage repairs, congestion, safety upgrades etc. and that fuels should primarily be taxed for carbon and other pollution emissions. In doing so they avoid having to make a technical definition of "partly" in regards to vehicles partly powered by electricity, for example, because there's no incentive to try to game the system by putting a 1kW motor in - if there's no meaningful contribution from the electricity, there's no meaningful reduction in tax. Pollution tax is reduced directly in proportion to the fuel efficiency of the vehicle no matter how it is achieved.

To balance out the regressive tendency of such a tax towards the poorest drivers who tend to drive the worst cars because they're cheap, a portion of the fuel tax could be put back into programs to get them into EVs by giving them a free replacement battery if they swap their 1993 Cefiro for a $3000 8-bar SoH Leaf or the like. That keeps the old Leafs on the road longer, improving their environmental contribution too.

JayADee:

 

If I'd known what a pain mileage was with diesel I would have went petrol. Probably unrelated but gah.

 

It's definitely related. If people find a pain to buy RUC it is quite material.

That said, don't fill out the below and they send it to you?

https://transact.nzta.govt.nz/v2/purchase-ruc

Note that they're also looking for ideas to make the practical application of RUCs less of a pain both for themselves and for the public. So if you've got any suggestions, send them in.

insane: I see a flaw with this though. It'll just become yet another Tax and the full amount won't be removed at the pump.

But agree EVs etc should all pay an equal share of road wear and tear.

When I bought my diesel in 2012 I assumed they would descreas over time, but believe they have gone from $53 to $76 over the last ten years. Given those increases were in response to reductions in oil prices, I'd also expect to see reductions now that oil prices are at record highs.

I don't mind paying a fair amount of tax, but believe this system is not fair as it currently stands.

Not sure you thought RUC's would decrease over time. Inflation and all that... Also we are not breaking even on cost of running our roading system.

I don't think changes were in response to oil prices. It's a tax per km (for diesel vehicles), or per liter (for petrol vehicles) to pay for some of the cost of running the roading system. It may be true that it is not politically palatable to raise RUC / petrol tax at time when oil prices are high, but I think it is very unlikely we see a decrease given current revenue isn't enough to pay for the roading system.

"but believe this system is not fair as it currently stands."

Absolutely. Taxing one fuel by the liter, and other's by km is unfair, and creates a resulting market distortion.

• Yaris hybrid will pay 1/3rd the tax of a VW polo diesel or hydrogen car (or an EV if they weren't exempt).
• Recently towed a boat on a long trip in petrol car, in convoy with a diesel vehicle towing the a boat of the same type. I would have paid 40% more road tax than the other car.

Someone didn't proof read the document very well. Either that or the authors have a poor understanding of the subject matter.

On page 47, talking about possible removal of the requirement to display physical RUC and licence (rego) labels on windscreens, the document states:

"Removing the licence label would put greater
responsibility on the registered person and the
use of licence reminder notices provided by
Waka Kotahi as a primary means through which
a registered person would be made aware of the
impending expiry. Compliance is also reinforced
through the Warrant or Certificate of Fitness
inspection process as a vehicle must be licensed
to be issued with a Warrant or Certificate of
Fitness".

I have put the error in bold. A vehicle does not need to be licenced in order to get a WOF - in fact the opposite is true: You cannot pay for your vehicle licence renewal unless it has a current WOF (or passes a WOF inspection) first.

I could take my registered but unlicenced racecar to get a WOF any time I wish, but I can't buy a licence label for it unless it passes a WOF first.

> You cannot pay for your vehicle licence renewal unless it has a current WOF.

This may be true in theory - or for some classes of vehicle - but I re-registered my trailer recently and it certainly didn't have a current WOF.