A threshold for numbers of vehicles (or road-km use) that are EV's before applying a road tax to them? Provide other subsidies/incentives, greater than that tax? We need to rapidly grow EV use for good reasons.
But expecting soundly based foresight and planning that internalizes the cumulative significance of climate change to survive the politicking - which still includes high levels of Doubt, Deny, Delay obstruction and opposition - seems optimistic.
Don't understand this logon stuff, am told I have 24 hours before it runs out. So sick of companies making things more complicated than they need to be.
The AFR has a terrible take thinking that this somehow encourages congestion. If you do a lot of kms in the country what impact does it have, you need to be able to differentiate between peak hour city driving and country driving. Road user charging makes sense but you need to line up the ducks, it shouldn't be that hard to track when and where a vehicle uses a road, and agree with Gregory that we should base rego more on the 4th power rule
Also the fuel tax does not pay for road maintenance.
The “toll road excise” is a good idea. A fundamental concept in economics is the user pays concept.,That is if you use something you pay for that use. Roads are expensive to maintain and tax offsets are a good idea. Turning main roads departments into business enterprises may improve standards of roads. But there must be fairness and equity in the tax legislation. Occasional users must not be overcharged and excessive users must bear most of the burden if this tax. Cars and trucks are used too often instead of buses and trains. The weight of the vehicle using the roads should be the key determinant. Anything over one tonne must bear a higher charge. But perhaps buses could be zero rated.
I think I would characterise it the other way around — the main goal of the majority was to invalidate State taxes; the impact on the ZLEV charge was the tail.
I note the dissenting judges were very scathing of the majority’s economic reasoning. For example, Edelman J was scathing of the lack of economic expert evidence underpinning the majority judgment: "With genuine respect and esteem to my colleagues who adopt this view, such treatment is unsupported in this special case by any relevant expert or empirical evidence. And it is counterintuitive. Thirty years ago, this Court unanimously held that a fee of $600 per year calculated by reference to the quantity and value of cheap videotapes sold by small business suppliers was not an excise, in part because it had an economic effect that was too insubstantial. It took the principal joint judgment in that case only one sentence to reach that conclusion. Despite thirty years of inflation, and without any empirical or economic evidence, the majority of this Court today concludes that a tax of around half that amount is reasonably anticipated to have a real and substantial economic effect in the market for the sale of goods worth up to $300,000 each. Certainly such an effect was not reasonably anticipated by the Parliament of Victoria, where it was confidently asserted that the tax was anticipated to 'have a negligible impact' on the sale of such goods."
A threshold for numbers of vehicles (or road-km use) that are EV's before applying a road tax to them? Provide other subsidies/incentives, greater than that tax? We need to rapidly grow EV use for good reasons.
But expecting soundly based foresight and planning that internalizes the cumulative significance of climate change to survive the politicking - which still includes high levels of Doubt, Deny, Delay obstruction and opposition - seems optimistic.
Don't understand this logon stuff, am told I have 24 hours before it runs out. So sick of companies making things more complicated than they need to be.
On the issue, fossil fuels lobby.
Beginning middle and end...
The AFR has a terrible take thinking that this somehow encourages congestion. If you do a lot of kms in the country what impact does it have, you need to be able to differentiate between peak hour city driving and country driving. Road user charging makes sense but you need to line up the ducks, it shouldn't be that hard to track when and where a vehicle uses a road, and agree with Gregory that we should base rego more on the 4th power rule
Also the fuel tax does not pay for road maintenance.
The “toll road excise” is a good idea. A fundamental concept in economics is the user pays concept.,That is if you use something you pay for that use. Roads are expensive to maintain and tax offsets are a good idea. Turning main roads departments into business enterprises may improve standards of roads. But there must be fairness and equity in the tax legislation. Occasional users must not be overcharged and excessive users must bear most of the burden if this tax. Cars and trucks are used too often instead of buses and trains. The weight of the vehicle using the roads should be the key determinant. Anything over one tonne must bear a higher charge. But perhaps buses could be zero rated.
Do it by mileage according to vehicle characteristic. Tolls are better used as an (inferior) way to charge for congestion.
I think I would characterise it the other way around — the main goal of the majority was to invalidate State taxes; the impact on the ZLEV charge was the tail.
I note the dissenting judges were very scathing of the majority’s economic reasoning. For example, Edelman J was scathing of the lack of economic expert evidence underpinning the majority judgment: "With genuine respect and esteem to my colleagues who adopt this view, such treatment is unsupported in this special case by any relevant expert or empirical evidence. And it is counterintuitive. Thirty years ago, this Court unanimously held that a fee of $600 per year calculated by reference to the quantity and value of cheap videotapes sold by small business suppliers was not an excise, in part because it had an economic effect that was too insubstantial. It took the principal joint judgment in that case only one sentence to reach that conclusion. Despite thirty years of inflation, and without any empirical or economic evidence, the majority of this Court today concludes that a tax of around half that amount is reasonably anticipated to have a real and substantial economic effect in the market for the sale of goods worth up to $300,000 each. Certainly such an effect was not reasonably anticipated by the Parliament of Victoria, where it was confidently asserted that the tax was anticipated to 'have a negligible impact' on the sale of such goods."
What do you make of the Court’s economics?
Yes, 2c a km is negligible for the vast majority. Could cap it for the few where it was a burden.