That is, its a user pays system
This is regardless of whether a fuel exercise is retained or scrapped
Should Petrol & Diesel Fuel Have an Air Pollution Tax & a Carbon Tax?
Boogerman on 13/03/2022 - 12:49
Poll Options
- 59Yes
- 151No
Comments
- 1
- 2
Maybe you should get into politics and sort them all out.
It’s already more than user pays.
Australia should start with cleaner fossil fuels
What is a cleaner fossil fuel?
Give the coal a scrub before burning it.
Sulphur content
How do you remove the sulphur? Does it require extra processing or donhey just not put it in. Making cleaner fuel by using more energy to do so may not be the best solution. Refining fossil fuels now already costs vast amount of energy.
@Euphemistic: Cleaner fuels are used in more efficient vehicles that use additional catalytic converters to remove additional pollutants from exhaust gases.
You can't remove stupid from an idiot but you can make them a little less stupid, hopefully.
With the current environment all Greenies can go where the sun don't shine on fuel .
Makes sense for inner city where fossil fuels are causing health problems, but pity the poor outer suburbs dweller that gets hit with this. And pretty useless for rural folk especially.
Better to have an inner city tax for this to limit congestion and pollution IMO. Like a lot of cities in the world.
Still voted yes. Mainly to aggravate folk that think our ICE cars are not a health problem in places. 😁
Yeah add more tax to them and freight costs go up along with everything else. Everybody but the wealthy will suffer.
Of the over 100 who have so far voted ‘No’, waddya reckon that about 75% will be voting LNP/Palmer/ONP in 8 weeks time.
What percentage do you think can't afford EVs? You sure are a genius. "Much conservatives living rent free" hurr durr.
"…living rent free…"
Coming from the guy who forum stalks.
Oh. The. Irony.Who am I stalking exactly? Didn't realise making a comment on an open forum was stalking. Rent free champ.
All of Albanese campaign should be a vote for Palmer is a vote for Scomo in a simple way .
To educate what happens to his votes .What's sad is the amount idiots who forget the 2019 election & the 2013 to 16 senatorship of fat Clive. And polling suggests there's around half a million of them
Well, it's not hard to predict that 100% of those who votes yes will cast their vote for the Greens or Labor.
Smartness!
"Smartness!"
That's what the peer reviewed research implies!
I'm much more inclined to support a tax on things where there is undeniable, unanimous proof that they are harmful to society at large. Climate change is hardly one of those things.
It's puzzling to me why we don't tax obesity or other lifestyle choices more. Junk food, chips, and refined carbs should be massively taxed. Australia's obesity crisis is getting out of hand while the laziest among us continue to drive up healthcare costs.
But instead, we tax healthy 30 year olds who don't have health insurance. The system is a joke.
We should also be taxing birth control as those who use it are most likely to demand free assistance when their unwanted child comes along. But instead, we subsidise it.
38% of ozb want to pay more taxes.
Is this because you pay little or zero income taxes?
Nope. I pay income tax happily. Do my own tax, don't have some corporate financial adviser squeezing every last deductible in to my returns, bought an EV in 2019 for $50k, would be fine getting taxed more income tax like chuq is suggesting below if that helps too.
Obviously no one solution is going to perfect for everyone. It's a weird assumption thinking everyone voting yes to this poll pays little to no income tax.
On the whole "road tax for EVs, to replace fuel excise" I'd just rather see them gradually adjust income tax brackets.
- People who can afford to drive more (for pleasure) are generally earning more
- Lower earning people who have to drive more to get to work due to where they live are not punished
- Doesn't introduce another new tax
- Less overhead, income tax system already exists.
- Avoids weird complications with different car types as demonstrated with the Vic system, e.g. standard petrol cars pay fuel excise, hybrids pay far less excise, plug-in hybrids pay both excise and EV tax, electrics pay EV tax.
- Can be applied gradually over many years by slowly adjusting the brackets/rates.
Over time, the fuel excise revenue with be phased out, and increased revenue from income tax will be phased in.
Of course this requires a government to not be afraid of taxing middle/upper incoming earners.
The things you have proposed have already been done.
Income tax represents 45.6% of total tax receipts and climbing.
The top 10% of taxpayers pay about 52% of personal income tax receipts while paying for generous social transfers in kind
from themselves to those on lower incomes.The top quintile of income earners pay $1332 of income tax and receive $325 of social transfers in kind per week, while the lowest quintile pay $18 of income tax and receive $570 of social transfers in kind per week.
Not sure what you mean by "already been done". Income tax rates and brackets are adjusted all the time. It's a continuous process.
I'm suggesting that they take whatever the dollar amount that is currently being collected from the fuel excise, and they plan to collect it via income tax.
The top quintile of income earners pay $1332 of income tax and receive $325 of social transfers in kind per week, while the lowest quintile pay $18 of income tax and receive $570 of social transfers in kind per week.
Yes… not sure of the relevance here - that's how funding social services works.
I was specifically responding to this:
Of course this requires a government to not be afraid of taxing middle/upper incoming earners.
As per the posted facts, the government is certainly not afraid of applying significantly progressive taxation policy to middle/upper income earners.
Yes… not sure of the relevance here - that's how funding social services works.
The relevance is that social services receive very generous funding as is. As you say, income tax rates and brackets are adjusted regularly, and the implemented Stage 2 and upcoming Stage 3 tax cuts suggest the funding level is considered a little too generous by a significant proportion of the electorate.
Your proposal to increase the tax burden on the portion of the electorate that already shoulders the vast majority of said burden would not be well received by the 1.3 million taxpayers (of 13 million) that supply nearly 25% of Australia's total tax receipts from their income tax alone.
@Dogsrule: Ah right I get what you mean.
Remember that these people are already paying fuel excise, and my guess (big assumption) is that higher earning people driving ICEs are already driving more kilometres, and/or are driving less fuel efficient vehicles (sports cars, big 4WDs). So it will generally scale in relation to what they were paying in fuel excise before.
The difference will be people who need to drive for work, such as those who live in areas far away from their place of work due to their economic situation (and are poorly serviced by public transport). Also applies to those in remote/regional areas who need to drive longer distances on a regular basis. I think it's reasonable to support people in these situations.
And simultaneously, it makes it less complicated. Fewer overheads. No need to submit annual reports or get an inspection (I know some states have this requirement now, but not all do)
@chuq: I understand your point, but I think it will be politically unpalatable given income tax rates are being driven down by the electorate, not up.
Anyway, expect to see the exact opposite to happen in the meantime - Feds will probably cut fuel excise instead which will make everything worse in the long run.
Wrong forum to post this you are way too logical and forward thinking. This would no doubt happen in Europe but we are years away from that.
there's already a 42c excise that effectively goes into general revenue
these taxes, like GST affect the poor and middle class the hardest so how much do you want the avg. and those on below average income to suffer?
people generally dont want to burn hydrocarbons, but again, what is the clean renewable alternative that is available to all?
if you force people to drive, if you force people to commute then you're just punishing people for participating in a system they dont want to be in
if you force people to drive, if you force people to commute then you're just punishing people for participating in a system they dont want to be in
It’s a cycle that started long ago when traffic was light and fuel was a lot cheaper. We’re kinda stuck with it now, but it’s effectively still a choice to commute by car. I need to get back off my butt and cycle to work more often. WFH has been shown to work for a lot of places so that should give some people more choice.
i'm only 10km away from work but the problem with cycling is you're dealing with three lane hwys with b-doubles and i may leave at 2am… and its raining… and i dont want to be puffed out by the time i get to work
its perfect for any EV to be honest but… you know how $60k EVs are going for anyone middle class or lower
I’ve cycle commuted a lot. If you can pick your roads it’s not that bad, just don’t hide in the gutter. Ride wide enough that cars can’t squeeze last if there isn’t space off on the shoulder. Also don’t need to waste time going to the gym get your exercise on the way to work.
I wouldn’t be keen to risk a 3 lane b double route though. Let’s build some more cycle paths along them.
What kind of idiot votes for more taxes
One that thinks they’ll only apply to others. One that doesn’t know how it really works.
Less selfish people?
- 1
- 2
Not about the efficacy of covid or the vax. It's the fact that Australia's response was uniquely arrogant and overdrawn. Even the most noble, unquestionable, morally justified policies should not be enforced with the systemic obnoxiousness that Australia adopted.
That's our problem. Any policy we enact is almost aet up to fail because of how obsessively overboard we go. Every country managed to implement vaccines and lockdowns with minimal controversy yet Australia had to be the one to make headlines for violently beating dissenters and locking everyone indoors for 23 hours a day.