@BaconWrappedEnigma , I think that overall a large portion of petrol driven cars will pay quite a bit more - the reason is that a huge amount of newer cars were bought because they consumed up to half the amount that older ones did, the huge number of small, fuel friendly cars on the road atm shows this trend - so it will be a win for the tax man.
I can see that this will result in less kms driven (a good thing for the environment where it involves petrol cars), this in turn will also mean less weekend outings, less holidays further afield, and in clear text another knockout for the industry depending on it and for business in general - I hope I'm not going to be right.

[–] BaconWrappedEnigma@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Weekend trips would contribute to the velocity of money in the economy. It's a bit hidden in your message. Are you saying we should:

Tax the things that are bad for the economy
Incentivise the things that are good for the economy

Are you also saying that this change would:

Disconnect incentives from fuel economy / vehicle efficiency
Unfairly punish people that made choices under the previous rules
Remove a tax from "something bad" for our economy (importing petrol)
Add a tax for "something good" for the economy (travel/shipping/deliveries)

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Am I reading too much into your comment? 🙂

[–] Antigrav@mastodon.nz 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@BaconWrappedEnigma , yes.
It's another thumb screw to squeeze ever more taxes from those who can barely/not afford it anymore.
An ill thought through action from a government we already know gives a damn about the environment and generally looks after the top of society and contrary to their statements cares neither for general business either.
Good solutions should take all these issues into account and find a way that serves the people.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nah, the people you're talking about are driving old beaters that drink fuel, because that's all they can afford, and are paying far more per KM than anyone

70c/l at 10l per 100km is almost exactly the same as RUCs, which are $76 per 100km, but with a bigger overall bill, as an equivalent diesel would be somewhere in the 7l range.

[–] BaconWrappedEnigma@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's an interesting distinction you bring up. What is our goal? Do we want to ameliorate the plight of the poor with a fuel tax or RUCs? If that was the goal wouldn't a tax based on the age or price of the vehicle be more effective?

Personally, I was heavy vehicles and gas guzzling vehicle to be charge more because they:

put more wear of the roads
requie us to import more fossil fuels

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 month ago

We also don't want to give people an incentive to drive an old car either, because that's it's own set of problems.

There's also the fact that hybrids are typically heavier than a conventional power train, because of the extra equipment they carry around. These vehicles might end up paying more in RUCs as a result of this.

It's also worth noting some of the biggest and thirstiest vehicles on the road are people movers and SUVs, often driven by people with big families who need a large vehicle.

Charging by GVM is probably the fairest and simplest way to run the scheme.

load more comments (5 replies)