Labour's proposed regional fuel tax: Will you be happy to pay it?

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Labour's proposed regional fuel tax: Will you be happy to pay it?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1840521 7-Aug-2017 12:40

sbiddle:

How will all the lost tax from EV's be funded? At some point these people have to start paying road user charges.

Government has simply seen there is no benefit in applying road user charges to EV's at this stage. The revenue would be miniscule.

Now they are trying to spin this into political point scoring by saying they are promoting the use of EV's by not applying road taxes.

You are right of course, the govt will change the law as soon as EV's cause a noticeable drop in road tax revenue.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18538 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1840523 7-Aug-2017 12:51

ajw:

Higher taxes hit the poorest people the hardest and take more revenue from the productive sector, this proposed exercise in social engineering is only designed to force people out of their cars.

Nah, that is just a fringe benefit. Everything, including taxes, always hits the poor proportionately harder. The answer to that is to improve their income in the first place, either through supplements, more generous benefits, or higher minimum wage.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Sam91

620 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1840525 7-Aug-2017 12:53

A tax acts as an incentive to reduce overall vehicle use, while also providing revenue for public transport, but it fails to influence the timing of vehicle use, which is key to solving congestion problems. We can't just keep trying to increase road capacity (supply) to keep up with the growing number of vehicles using our roads (demand). We need to reduce demand during peak times, so congestion pricing seems like the most logical way to achieve this. But hey, "how dare you charge me to use the motorway" will be the reaction by many people.

dylanp:

Auckland needs to fund enormous projects like rail to the airport. The two options are fuel tax or road tolls like congestion charging etc. Fuel tax is much, much better because there is no overhead to administer and collect it. With roads rolls there are cameras, toll gates, millions of individual payments to process etc - all that overhead and enforcement takes up something like 40% of the income. Fuel taxes are much more efficient so we'll pay far less over the long term.

A fuel tax is probably better at generating revenue for public transport, if that's the goal, but it's not very effective at reducing congestion. On the other hand, congestion pricing will immediately ease congestion and add some additional income to improve public transport as well. The main goal of a congestion tax isn't to generate revenue, its purpose is to reduce congestion by reducing demand, the revenue from it is more of a bonus.

Jedsdad

120 posts

Master Geek

#1840526 7-Aug-2017 12:53

The problem with all these grandiose schemes is they dont resolve the problem we have now with heavy traffic congestion wherever you go in Auckland.

It takes years to put any infrastructure in place like the Light Rail they are talking about down Dominion Rd and then in so many years time extend it to the airport
Or the highway running parallel to the Southern Motorway or extending the Rail Electrification to Pukekohe or extending the Rail Line from Onehunga to Auckland Airport.

This list just goes on and on.

In my view they should make the Rail and Bus fares more affordable than they are now (or free) and also increase the Parking Charges in the CBD whether on the roadside or in Parking Buildings, even charge a Tax on Private Parking in other buildings etc.

As for the additional Fuel Tax, they often quote 10 cents per litre extra, but the problem there is it is very easy then to increase it as the money collected will not go very far in all these grandiose schemes.

So in the meantime the poor suffering motorist has to continue to suffer with the congestion we have now.

Mind you I am not one of them as I am retired LOL, but still need to allow extra time for travelling throughout Auckland where Public Transport (free for me after 9am) is not available

Well thats my whinge LOL!

networkn

Networkn
32155 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1840527 7-Aug-2017 12:53

surfisup1000:

sbiddle:

How will all the lost tax from EV's be funded? At some point these people have to start paying road user charges.

Government has simply seen there is no benefit in applying road user charges to EV's at this stage. The revenue would be miniscule.

Now they are trying to spin this into political point scoring by saying they are promoting the use of EV's by not applying road taxes.

You are right of course, the govt will change the law as soon as EV's cause a noticeable drop in road tax revenue.

Maybe I missed something, but EV's use the road, so why wouldn't they be charged?

old3eyes

9110 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1840530 7-Aug-2017 12:56

kiwifidget:

allan:

We've had regional fuel taxes in the past I'm quite sure. How did it work then?

Cant recall that, but I remember carless days!

Auckland had a 2 cent / liter regional fuel tax some years ago . Not sure if it's still there or not..

Regards,

Old3eyes

ajw

1928 posts

Uber Geek

#1840533 7-Aug-2017 13:00

@Jedsdad: In my view they should make the Rail and Bus fares more affordable than they are now (or free) and also increase the Parking Charges in the CBD whether on the roadside or in Parking Buildings, even charge a Tax on Private Parking in other buildings etc.

And who's going to pay for the revenue shortfall, you can't keep hiking rates especially households that do not use public transport. Anyway hasn't Goff promised to keep rates in check. Don't hold your breath on that happening.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1840534 7-Aug-2017 13:02

networkn:

surfisup1000:

sbiddle:

How will all the lost tax from EV's be funded? At some point these people have to start paying road user charges.

Government has simply seen there is no benefit in applying road user charges to EV's at this stage. The revenue would be miniscule.

Now they are trying to spin this into political point scoring by saying they are promoting the use of EV's by not applying road taxes.

You are right of course, the govt will change the law as soon as EV's cause a noticeable drop in road tax revenue.

Maybe I missed something, but EV's use the road, so why wouldn't they be charged?

Who said they wouldn't be charged? It is almost like you didn't even read what I wrote.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18538 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1840535 7-Aug-2017 13:04

networkn:

Maybe I missed something, but EV's use the road, so why wouldn't they be charged?

It's a nefarious plot to undermine the unfettered joy of V8 owners.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ajw

1928 posts

Uber Geek

#1840536 7-Aug-2017 13:06

Rikkitic:

ajw:

Higher taxes hit the poorest people the hardest and take more revenue from the productive sector, this proposed exercise in social engineering is only designed to force people out of their cars.

Nah, that is just a fringe benefit. Everything, including taxes, always hits the poor proportionately harder. The answer to that is to improve their income in the first place, either through supplements, more generous benefits, or higher minimum wage.

And that's not going to happen so what else. ????

networkn

Networkn
32155 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1840539 7-Aug-2017 13:07

surfisup1000:

networkn:

surfisup1000:

sbiddle:

How will all the lost tax from EV's be funded? At some point these people have to start paying road user charges.

Government has simply seen there is no benefit in applying road user charges to EV's at this stage. The revenue would be miniscule.

Now they are trying to spin this into political point scoring by saying they are promoting the use of EV's by not applying road taxes.

You are right of course, the govt will change the law as soon as EV's cause a noticeable drop in road tax revenue.

Maybe I missed something, but EV's use the road, so why wouldn't they be charged?

Who said they wouldn't be charged? It is almost like you didn't even read what I wrote.

I read what you wrote, I interpreted it differently perhaps. I don't think EV's should be on the road *now* if they aren't contributing. I am all for EV's for the record, but they should be contributing like everyone else.

networkn

Networkn
32155 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1840543 7-Aug-2017 13:10

Rikkitic:

ajw:

Higher taxes hit the poorest people the hardest and take more revenue from the productive sector, this proposed exercise in social engineering is only designed to force people out of their cars.

Nah, that is just a fringe benefit. Everything, including taxes, always hits the poor proportionately harder. The answer to that is to improve their income in the first place, either through supplements, more generous benefits, or higher minimum wage.

Or, as a novel idea... Training, incentives, and back to work programs.

Obviously, that doesn't apply to the relatively small % of people who genuinely cannot work.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18538 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1840544 7-Aug-2017 13:11

networkn:

I read what you wrote, I interpreted it differently perhaps. I don't think EV's should be on the road *now* if they aren't contributing. I am all for EV's for the record, but they should be contributing like everyone else.

Could they possibly be contributing by not adding to our fuel import debt, and by not pumping thousands of tons of pollutants into the air?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

networkn

Networkn
32155 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1840545 7-Aug-2017 13:12

Rikkitic:

networkn:

I read what you wrote, I interpreted it differently perhaps. I don't think EV's should be on the road *now* if they aren't contributing. I am all for EV's for the record, but they should be contributing like everyone else.

Could they possibly be contributing by not adding to our fuel import debt, and by not pumping thousands of tons of pollutants into the air?

Yes, they can contribute to that *AS WELL* as paying to help us build and maintain our roads, since they *use* them.

robjg63

4077 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1840547 7-Aug-2017 13:15

kryptonjohn:

I'm against it for a few reasons.

There's no practical use of rail for a majority of Aucklanders who don't have a track running from near home home to near work. Having to drive or worse bus to the nearest station to home, then something similar at the other end is dreadfully non productive.

The tax can be avoided by many who will add to congestion and waste by driving over the boundary to fill up their car and bootload of jerry cans. You could save $160 by doing so at the proposed 10c/L rate.

The tax adds overhead to the simple tax system we have now.

Public transport takes the load off the roads even further out from where the tracks/bus lanes are. Congestion in central Auckland still reaches many kilometres out.

They gather tax on fuel now - nothing changes - still simple.

$160? Thats 1600 litres! The average fuel tank is around (say) 60 Litres. That means an extra $6 per tank at worst - assuming you are dead empty. You would waste more fuel trying to save the 10c a litre!

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6