Just like the current situation where the States collect the Rego irrespective of whether an out of state vehicle drives through another state. The bureaucracy is already established. Simple and relatively cheap to administer
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
State based EV road user charge (Overturned 18/10/23)
- Thread starter jamesgo
- Start date
LWI
Member
If only it was as simple as private EVs used as cars, which I agree might be better done by the States. However it will not be long before we start to electrify all manner of commercial vehicles (Trucks, Interstate buses, Heavy haulage and light delivery vehicles, fleet utes etc). Then we will have some fun as the RUC rates will need to be much larger to account for the real road wear and damage, and if the rates are not centralised some haulage companies will end up being uncompetitive. NZ has shown how RUC can be used to proportion costs relative to road damage. I can also imagine a State based company driving many thousands of kms in other states who will not reap any benefit from their RUCs. And if left to the States who will be the first to lower heavy vehicle RUC to ensure a big fleet stays in that State to encourage local employment?
Or we could accept that the industries that send goods on trucks aren't doing so for fun, but rather to keep society and the economy chugging along. Ultimately we all pay whether it's taxes for road repairs or higher trucking costs pushing higher transport costs onto consumers at the supermarket.
Costs borne at rego time are unhelpful when disposable transport companies can bankrupt and phoenix themselves just before rego is due, recycle the batteries, and get away without paying.
Last edited:
If it is upheld by the High Court, my guess is that within a few years the States and Territories will end up agreeing on a harmonised rate for the RUC, possibly under the strong encouragement of the Federal Government. They all know a race to the bottom isn't in any of their interests.
It will also allow the Feds to reduce their grants to the States. Its a win win for the Feds whatever the outcome in the HCoA
I reckon the Feds are contesting it because they want a cut of the pie
They're doing it for profit, like any business. And like any business, they should pay for their inputs and pass those on to their customers.
Anything else means you'll get non-optimal distribution of resources. In this case, underpriced road access means you'll have products moved longer distances by road when there were more efficient options close by. The commercial rail freight businesses have to pay the full cost of upkeep in their track access fees.
We've all seen what happens when a resource is dramatically under-priced with the free chargers.
The Feds are contesting it because the Federal Government will always support the side of the case that tends to reduce State powers and increase Federal powers, and vice-versa with the States.
Any road maintenance costs are not proportional to the km driven, but the weight of the vehicle. In the current fuel excise regime, car drivers are over paying, while trucks (10x more damage) get a free ride.
The electrification of cars is a great opportunity to redress this imbalance.
Governments primarily build roads to facilitate commerce. Private cars should not need to contribute.
The electrification of cars is a great opportunity to redress this imbalance.
Governments primarily build roads to facilitate commerce. Private cars should not need to contribute.
Roads are built for a variety for a reasons. Commerce is one, but the main one is to facilitate transportation and mobility.
Thats true
I also think the Fed sees the potential electrification of transportation cutting their cash cow the Fuel Excise. They will want to be involved in some way with EV road usage charge. Always best to hold the purse strings of the tax collection.
..for commerce. Joe blow going to visit grandma is not contributing to the bottom line.
Fuel excise is a bad tax. It targets the wrong people, and it's revenue is not tied to road maintenance. It's only justification is as a pseudo carbon tax to penalise polluting vehicles. In which case an EV km tax is even worse. Absolutely no justification for it, and that is why no one else has done it around the world, and it's regarded as the worlds worst tax.
For the betterment of the people, the government should encourage the rapid adoption of EV's. This is a tax designed by the fossil fuel lobby to disincentivise EV's
Chances are that road out the front of your house is paid for by your local council, not the state. I propose the RUC gets charged by local councils. They can chip in to the state for the 15% of roads actually funded by the state.
www.transport.nsw.gov.au
Will 85% of funds be allocated to local councils if this state based excise grab goes ahead?
/s
Societies don't exist without roads. Less than 1% of road travel would be 'just for the fun of it'. Just pay for it out of general revenue and flat tax it.
RUC's are just making every road a toll road. ie. State government's wet dreams.
Fixing Local Roads Program | Transport for NSW
Fixing Local Roads is a $691 million NSW Government Program, enabling councils to accelerate upgrades and maintenance on their local road network.The Program has funded 577 projects across the state, improving the day-to-day lives of locals and ensuring better regional connections on...
Will 85% of funds be allocated to local councils if this state based excise grab goes ahead?
/s
Societies don't exist without roads. Less than 1% of road travel would be 'just for the fun of it'. Just pay for it out of general revenue and flat tax it.
RUC's are just making every road a toll road. ie. State government's wet dreams.
That's the simple answer (flat tax). Road expenditure doesn't even closely track fuel excise revenue. Time to end the BS.
The power companies make substantial profit. The more power they sell the more profit they make, and the more tax they pay. The feds are getting their cut. I’m sure someone in treasury has modelled it by now
The problem is the state roads in the cities have way more traffic and deteriorate much more quickly, so the financial split based on ownership isnt how the costs work out…our state roads in Adelaide are all screwed and require a major cash injection.Chances are that road out the front of your house is paid for by your local council, not the state. I propose the RUC gets charged by local councils. They can chip in to the state for the 15% of roads actually funded by the state.
Fixing Local Roads Program | Transport for NSW
Fixing Local Roads is a $691 million NSW Government Program, enabling councils to accelerate upgrades and maintenance on their local road network.The Program has funded 577 projects across the state, improving the day-to-day lives of locals and ensuring better regional connections on...
Will 85% of funds be allocated to local councils if this state based excise grab goes ahead?
/s
Societies don't exist without roads. Less than 1% of road travel would be 'just for the fun of it'. Just pay for it out of general revenue and flat tax it.
RUC's are just making every road a toll road. ie. State government's wet dreams.
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.
Because their society which they are a part of wouldn't exist without roads. The food gets to their supermarkets, or market stalls, or from their local farmer, via them. The mail to their front door goes down a road. Every time they need to go to the doctor, the shops, their kids go to school, or visit their relatives .. they are using roads.
Every single member of society benefits from roads whether they 'drive themselves' or not.
Medicare levy is a broad tax. It is charged to everyone over a certain income threshold (no exceptions). Just like income tax.
RUC is only charged for vehicle owners, irrespective of income status. It is not a broad tax.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
