State based EV road user charge (Overturned 18/10/23)

[Quickst]

I

RUC is only charged for vehicle owners, irrespective of income status. It is not a broad tax

Broad based taxation is not that. It is taxation from a broader base than just personal income tax.

Every single member of society benefits from roads whether they 'drive themselves' or not.

And the benefit those who don't use the roads directly are paid for through the price of the goods and service they get that are transported by road. Those that use the roads directly then pay the fee

 

[Vostok]

Plus, using your example, one is assuming the charge per km is the same between states...I bet it won't be...

It might not be, but who’s going to get het up over $10?

The NSW RUC started at the same level as VIC and is also CPI indexed, even though it’s not being charged yet.

 

[Vostok]

Up until the late 90s the states did actually levy the fuel excise, prior to another high court decision that meant the Federal Government had to do it instead.

Yep that was NSW’s 3x3 Fuel tax (3c/litre for 3 years but it actually ran from 1989 to 1997 ) but that was clearly an excise which is unlawful for a state to apply, and it ceased as a consequence of the Ha v New South Wales case that a licence fee based on the value of tobacco was unconstitutional.

 

[Vostok]

that's a confident assertion… I think the Commonwealth govt is supporting the plaintiffs?
there's a lot at stake beyond this immediate issue

Yes it is a very confident assertion that I have been making since this case started, and I will look a mug if I’m wrong, but I’ll own it. And I’m not a lawyer

The Commonwealth is an “intervening” party in support of the plaintiffs because you are spot on - there is a lot at stake here. Every State is in there intervening in supporting Victoria, which I’m sure will surprise no-one (even SA, despite abolishing their RUC).

If the VIC RUC is deemed constitutional, the Feds will feel like their taxation powers have been eroded and it will be very interesting to see what happens next.

 

[paulp]

Yes it is a very confident assertion that I have been making since this case started, and I will look a mug if I’m wrong, but I’ll own it. And I’m not a lawyer

The Commonwealth is an “intervening” party in support of the plaintiffs because you are spot on - there is a lot at stake here. Every State is in there intervening in supporting Victoria, which I’m sure will surprise no-one (even SA, despite abolishing their RUC).

If the VIC RUC is deemed constitutional, the Feds will feel like their taxation powers have been eroded and it will be very interesting to see what happens next.

Isnt the risk that the states then have free reign to impose a stack of new taxes on us such as sunlight tax on solar, or energy tax on battery systems

 

[schnaxxl]

Isnt the risk that the states then have free reign to impose a stack of new taxes on us such as sunlight tax on solar, or energy tax on battery systems

it would reverse decades of the current allocation of responsibilities
I wonder how thoroughly the Vics considered the implications of this approach
I guess they weren’t expecting much help from the ‘save the utes’ gang

 

[gm12]

Exactly.

As are all taxes - even the EV road usage tax

That's what's done now - via income taxes etc etc. but why should someone who pays income taxes but who does not drive have to pay for road usage?.

Correct - just as Medicare does not even closely track health expenditure.

Answer: Road usage charge/tax/levy. Think of it like a Medicare levy for roads. It's not going to completely cover the costs of roads - there is no tax which covers anything but the best way to raise tax revenue is a broad based taxation.

Rapid adoption of EV is a bit shortsighted. It should be rapid adoption of Electric public transport. Less cars on roads - including EV.

Your answer seems to ignore the logic of your preceding comments.

Everybody uses and benefits from roads even if you don't own a car. Car owners already pay extras for the privilege of a car such as rego, tolls, insurances, services, etc.

The Medicare levy is a flat income based tax. It doesn't matter how often you go to the doctor, although after $2,500 out 9f pocket you get more rebates. So nothing like the EV tax

 

[Quickst]

Car owners already pay extras for the privilege of a car such as rego, tolls, insurances, services

Rego is for registration, number plate fee, vehicle tax and an inspection fee. Nothing to do with roads.
Insurance has little to do with road usage
Tolls are the perfect example of road usage charge, but not all roads are tolled.

ICE vehicles pay for Fuel excise. Logically if EV users should not pay for RUC, then ICE vehicles should not pay for Fuel excise. Again Fuel excise do not contribute 100% to road maintenance - same as a RUC. Its a bit hypocritical to say ICE should pay a fuel excise but EV users dont have to pay RUC.

The use of these infrastructure classes are subject to a charge
electricity
telecommunications
gas
water
sewerage
land
rail

The Medicare levy is a flat income based tax

So nothing like the EV tax

Its exactly the same as an EV tax.

Road usage charge: cents per km - the more you drive the more you pay - its a flat rate
Medicare: % of income - the more you earn the more you pay - its a flat rate

RUC could be tweaked so that the first X km is free - maybe for pensioners who still use their cars occasionally (just as medicare levy only starts when income is above a minimum level)

Road usage Charge does not contribute 100% to road maintenance
Medicate does not contribute 100% to health care
The rest come out of other taxation - which then goes toward paying for roads for situations where as you say everyone benefits:

Everybody uses and benefits from roads even if you don't own a car

 

[PC__LoadLetter]

Why can't the road user charge be based on income, same as the Medicare levy? Make it a progressive tax. Only worry about supplementary usage charges for heavy vehicles.

 

[paulp]

Why can't the road user charge be based on income, same as the Medicare levy? Make it a progressive tax. Only worry about supplementary usage charges for heavy vehicles.

That would become an administrative nightmare and would require the ato to provide your data to state motor reg. Also very difficult to work out for company owned vehicles as a company that makes zero profit could be established to own the company cars.

 

[Davemcd]

It is not used for roads nor is medicare for health or fuel excise for roads.
Goes into a big pool of money that is wasted on consultants and mates siphoning off large chunks of $.

I think the UK Road tax system is interesting, encourages people to buy cleaner cars as you taxed less
We could also like Norway tax the mining companies more.. You know that Gas, Coal and iron ore belongs to the people.
Although again cannot hurt people who pay for our campaigns.

 

[Quickst]

Why can't the road user charge be based on income, same as the Medicare levy

They could do that for a lot of things.
They will need to call it an Infrastructure levy which could be 0% for low income group
A RUC sends a different signal compared to an infrastructure levy - it provides a price signal that road usage incurs a cost. In large cities, cars (however they are powered - EV/ICE) are not the best idea for transportation, and cause other issues such as congestion. It should be EV based public transportation. Robotaxis eventually will also hopefully reduce car ownership.

There should also be congestion taxes as well.

 

[Quickst]

encourages people to buy cleaner cars as you taxed less

For London there are 3 zones:

The inner one is the congestion zone - currently free for BEV until 2025
The middle one is the ULEV zone payable if not an ULEV or better
The outer one is LEZ zone and also bans HGW vehicle of greater than 12T

And London City has recently won a Court case which allows them to expand the ULEV to all of greater London - to include basically all of the other zone in pic.

 

[gm12]

Rego is for registration, number plate fee, vehicle tax and an inspection fee. Nothing to do with roads.

It has as much to do with the maintenance of roads as a Fuel excise does. (ie, nothing). And since when did a couple bits of stamped metal (number plates) cost $500. Some gouging going on there.

Insurance has little to do with road usage
Tolls are the perfect example of road usage charge, but not all roads are tolled.

ICE vehicles pay for Fuel excise. Logically if EV users should not pay for RUC, then ICE vehicles should not pay for Fuel excise. Again Fuel excise do not contribute 100% to road maintenance - same as a RUC. Its a bit hypocritical to say ICE should pay a fuel excise but EV users dont have to pay RUC.

Why? They both have no correlation to road maintenance. One is a fossil fuel usage tax. Mostly foreign sourced, bad for the environment and people's health. The more inefficient your vehicle, or mower, or generator, the more you pay. The other is an km tax for a special type of vehicle in which its power is sourced locally, is good for the environment and excellent for peoples health. But, no incentive for efficiency.
There could not be any two taxes more different. You, and fossil fuel lobby, are trying to tie them together as road maintenance revenue, which has been made clear, they are not. Seems an argument hanging by the flimsiest of threads.

 

[gm12]

They could do that for a lot of things.
They will need to call it an Infrastructure levy which could be 0% for low income group
A RUC sends a different signal compared to an infrastructure levy - it provides a price signal that road usage incurs a cost. In large cities, cars (however they are powered - EV/ICE) are not the best idea for transportation, and cause other issues such as congestion. It should be EV based public transportation. Robotaxis eventually will also hopefully reduce car ownership.

There should also be congestion taxes as well.

Idealistic claptrap.
Actually, for Australian sized cities, cars are the best option for transportation. Can you imagine living in suburban adelaide without a car?
And the best type of car in cities is a non-poluting, low noice, EV.

 

[Quickst]

And the best type of car in cities is a non-poluting, low noice, EV.

Agree that the best type of CAR in cities is a non poluting, low noise, EV. Though no cars are non polluting - even EV.
However the best tyre of TRANSPORTATION in cities are not cars.

The reason who cars are so ubiquitous in Cities is because of the government encouragement of private car ownership.

 

[meloccom]

For London there are 3 zones:

The inner one is the congestion zone - currently free for BEV until 2025
The middle one is the ULEV zone payable if not an ULEV or better
The outer one is LEZ zone and also bans HGW vehicle of greater than 12T

And London City has recently won a Court case which allows them to expand the ULEV to all of greater London - to include basically all of the other zone in pic.

View attachment 965021

The UK ULEZ zones are an air quality initiative and not really a source of revenue. From the ULEZ website:

How the ULEZ helps clear London's air​

The aim of the ULEZ is to improve air quality by reducing the number of vehicles in London that don't meet emissions standards.

94% of vehicles seen driving in the current zone now meet the strict emissions standards on an average day, significantly higher than the 39% in 2017 when the ULEZ was first announced. This has helped to reduce harmful nitrogen dioxide pollution by nearly half in central London.

Despite this progress, more needs to be done, as air pollution is not just a central London problem. In fact, the greatest number of deaths related to air pollution occur in outer London areas. That's why from 29 August 2023, the ULEZ will expand across all London boroughs, to help give the five million Londoners in outer boroughs clearer air to breathe too.

 

[Quickst]

Why? They both have no correlation to road maintenance

If you read my post upthread you will notice that a RUC has nothing to do with road maintenance

km tax for a special type of vehicle

it should be extended as I have consistently said above to all cars

You, and fossil fuel lobby, are trying to tie them together as road maintenance revenue, which has been made clear, they are not.

No, as I have consistently said upthread fuel excise and RUC have nothing to do with road maintenance revenue per se - except that it goes into consolidated revenue which is then used for road maintenance among all the other spending by government.

The point remains that IMO there should be a tax/levy for road usage for all vehicles. How it could be equitable shared among all the different road users is a different argument.

 

[Quickst]

That's why from 29 August 2023, the ULEZ will expand across all London boroughs, to help give the five million Londoners in outer boroughs clearer air to breathe too.

Don't forget the congestion zone tax will also apply to BEV from 2025 in London

RUC and cleaner air zones are related but separate issues.
The former relates to price signals relating to general road usage and the second relates to air pollution. Reducing Road usage helps with pollution.

You can have all at the same time.
A general road usage charge for all vehicles + separate BEV zone + congestion zone inside the BEV zone which can be timed based for all vehicles

Congestion Zone is for congestion - EVs also cause congestion.
BEV for reduction in air pollution
General road usage charge - recognises that all vehicles use roads.

 

[meloccom]

Idealistic claptrap.
Actually, for Australian sized cities, cars are the best option for transportation. Can you imagine living in suburban adelaide without a car?
And the best type of car in cities is a non-poluting, low noice, EV.

You mean for “Car dependant” cities like most Australian cities, an electric car is one answer, as it reduces local noise and pollution. However it doesn’t solve traffic and pedestrian safety issues. Careful reexamination of the roads and built environment along with good public transport options both reduce pollution and give space to improve local residents amenities. Many European cities have made the change but Australians obsession with the house on the quarter acre block and government policies that support car dependency have only made things worse here. Given safe, clean and reliable alternatives to a car people will use them to the benefit of all.