Coe says Greens want to charge you for car mileage

Solidarity said :

arescarti42 said :

The piece of text in question for those who are interested:

“While the ACT has registration fees based on vehicle size
it does not have anything based on distance traveled. The Greens are supportive of a
mileage-based car user fee.”

For what it is worth, the real value of excise has been falling for over a decade as it hasn’t been indexed to inflation since 2001.

Considering pretty much all the negative impacts of car ownership on society (e.g. air pollution, accidents, road wear, congestion, etc.) increase with the amount one drives, it makes a lot of sense to tax vehicle use by distance traveled.

Soooo…. would you support extra tax just for fat people because they consume more resources?

Resources they pay for with own money. Honestly, as far as analogies go your’s falls flat on its pathetic face.

Very stupid, yet another silly attempt by the Greens to force people on to public transport.

Smarter thing would be to make registration dependant on the emissions and fuel efficiency/consumption of a vehicle.

Encourage people to drive more efficient and cleaner vehicles.

For that matter, I wouldn’t mind it if the Federal Government introduced the kind of EPA ratings they use in the US for C02 and Smog ratings.

watto23 said :

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

watto23 said :

Surely penalising fuel inefficient cars more in rego is much more efficient. If some drives a small car or hybrid car 100kms a day versus someone in their V8 driving 50kms a day,

I bet I can drive my Gas powered V8 more efficiently and with less wear and tear on the roads than most Hybrid drivers I see these days.

You may be right and thats my point. The rego fee should reflect the relative green credentials of the vehicle.

Except that poor people can never afford new cars so they will be penalised simply for being poor.

Rubbish. They can afford small fuel-efficient cars.

And this Greens idea is completely stupid. As Johnboy just pointed out, a tax on fuel taxes BOTH mileage AND inefficiency.
If you get rid of the fuel-excise disincentive for inefficiency, you reduce the incentive to drive fuel-efficient cars.

If you want to promote fuel-efficient cars, you tax fuel, not mileage.

Another example of the greens proving they are not very clever or thoughtful, and prone to non-evidence-based policymaking.
Just like the god-botherers, they are blinded by their ideology and incapable of clear analysis.
Bob Brown was a very smart bloke, but the idiots who’ve ridden in on his coat-tails have not brought any comparable intelligence with them, which means the Greens have probably now passed the apogee of their relevance in politics.

There are some pretty big holes in the idea. As you pointed out, distance travelled doesn’t necessarily have a decent causal relationship with probability of having an accident. Insurers don’t even seem to ask anything related to how many kms you drive when they determine your probability of crashing. So using that as a replacement for CTP will not make it any more efficient really. And it also may be much more unfair than the current system because poorer people tend to live further away from town then the richer people and so need to drive further to work.

The other issue is that it’s basically impossible to monitor accurately and cheaply. You’d have to get your car inspected each year and your odometer reading recorded by a trusted official. This could cost us easily more than any saving even in the most ideal case. And people would just swap odometers or wind them back to save money.

So how do they propose to charge me for all the km’s I do outside the ACT, like if I drive to Sydney every three weeks?

Would I have to buy another car and leave it at the border, but that’d use more of the earth’s precious resources. Looks like there may be asn employment explosion in the local public service to administer something like this.

The ACT government cannot demand payment for something I do outside the ACT. Or do they want to charge me rates for the holiday house down the coast too…

The idea has zero merit.

‘we’re’…

Pork Hunt said :

willo said :

a car user is taxed on every litre of fuel they purchase so someone who does more ks uses more fuel and pays more tax per year as things are now
this policy is unnecessary

+1

however, just because someone is paying for a service/privilege/whetever already doesn’t mean they are paying enough, so such taxes etc that already exist doesn’t mean this sort of policy response is unecessary QED, does it?

so -1. now we’ve even… 🙂

wildturkeycanoe said :

watto23 said :

Surely penalising fuel inefficient cars more in rego is much more efficient. If some drives a small car or hybrid car 100kms a day versus someone in their V8 driving 50kms a day, has to pay more under the alledged greens plan then it clearly hasn’t worked. Although I’m all for discussion on ideas like this, the ACT needs to sort the whole transport plan out. The light rail idea is bad because its not going to be a rapid transit solution. Whether its busways or light rail, we really need to provide a quick transport option between town centres, otherwise regardless of what it costs people will drive, because timewise its far more convenient.

As it is right now people pay more to drive and park, because its more convenient and quicker than buses. Penalising this is not going to change anything.

You do realise however, that a seven seater four wheel drive is often the only way you can fit three children under ten, with booster seats and baby capsules [leaving room for strollers and groceries]? So, your one fuel efficient car with one occupant is more efficient per head than a V6 carrying 5 people? 1 person for 1200cc versus 5 people for 3000cc = 600cc per person. Which is more efficient now!
How many hybrid 4×4 or SUVs have you seen around lately that have adequate space for all this?

I’m not arguing for or against i’m just saying that there is effeciency in doing things and trying to work out distances travelled would be very difficult. As others have stated, often thye cheaper housing is further away, so then they’ll be penalised for driving further to work, which leads to my point that the public transport in canberra is rubbish because it in itself is not efficient either.

Also, most people do decide to have children and how many they want. I can accept its not always entirely your choice ie multiple births and unplanned pregnancies, but lets face it. Having children has a financial impact on ones life and families do get a lot of support in general.

You are completely right about it being more efficient to use one car for more people, but again, how does one calculate these taxes, based on distances covered, number of occupants in the vehicle, type of vehicle etc etc. And yes there are not many fuel efficient vehicles for larger numbers of occupants, although there are alternatives to SUV’s and 4×4’s that carry 6 to 8 people.

However again it goes back to this idea that if they tax things enough, people may use the inefficient and subpar public transport system instead. Just like taxing vehicles when a greener alternative doesn’t exist.

I have supported the greens in the past, but they seem to overlook the problem and make suggestions that just mask the real issue. Unlikely to vote green this election thats for sure.

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

watto23 said :

Surely penalising fuel inefficient cars more in rego is much more efficient. If some drives a small car or hybrid car 100kms a day versus someone in their V8 driving 50kms a day,

I bet I can drive my Gas powered V8 more efficiently and with less wear and tear on the roads than most Hybrid drivers I see these days.

You may be right and thats my point. The rego fee should reflect the relative green credentials of the vehicle.

The funny thing is what we really need is more fuel excise.

It attacks a mixture of vehicle weight (road damage works to a square power of vehicle weight, heavy really costs the community) and miles driven.

Coe can almost see it from where he is.

Good luck selling it to the bogue.

wildturkeycanoe said :

watto23 said :

Surely penalising fuel inefficient cars more in rego is much more efficient. If some drives a small car or hybrid car 100kms a day versus someone in their V8 driving 50kms a day, has to pay more under the alledged greens plan then it clearly hasn’t worked. Although I’m all for discussion on ideas like this, the ACT needs to sort the whole transport plan out. The light rail idea is bad because its not going to be a rapid transit solution. Whether its busways or light rail, we really need to provide a quick transport option between town centres, otherwise regardless of what it costs people will drive, because timewise its far more convenient.

As it is right now people pay more to drive and park, because its more convenient and quicker than buses. Penalising this is not going to change anything.

You do realise however, that a seven seater four wheel drive is often the only way you can fit three children under ten, with booster seats and baby capsules [leaving room for strollers and groceries]? So, your one fuel efficient car with one occupant is more efficient per head than a V6 carrying 5 people? 1 person for 1200cc versus 5 people for 3000cc = 600cc per person. Which is more efficient now!
How many hybrid 4×4 or SUVs have you seen around lately that have adequate space for all this?

I don’t think anyone has the right answer and I doubt anyone is begrudging of someone who fully utilises their seven seater four wheel drive. The trouble is that too many people drive oversized or inefficient vehicles when they are only needed for occasional use.

What we need is a system that doesn’t penalise people who want to own, co-own or hire more than one vehicle for specific purposes.

It’s just not feasible.

Jethro said :

chewy14 said :

Jethro said :

I would support car registration being linked to mileage. It makes sense that those who use the roads more and contribute more to congestion, etc should pay more.

Do you support this kind of principle in other forms of government expenditure?

I don’t use schools, ill have my share back.
I don’t use public transport, ill have my share back.
I barely use healthcare, ill have my share back.
Etc etc

There’s plenty of areas that this kind of policy could be enacted but somehow i don’t think the people pushing this type of thing would like the outcomes.

Well considering these things, like roads, are mostly funded through consolidated revenue, with a small extra ‘user pays’ added on at point of service (most doctors don’t bulk bill, public schools ask for contributions, public transport charges ticketing fees, roads require our vehicles to be registered) I believe that already happens. This is simply saying rego costs should be linked to road usage. The little old lady who uses her car to drive to church on Sundays should pay less rego than the person driving 800km a week.

Except the little old lady uses the same road as everyone else which has to be there whether she uses it once or every day. I agree she isnt wearing it out as much but the difference I expect is minimal. Im no expert on road construction so cant say for certain. The reality is the little old lady needs the same infrastructure as anyone else.

Everyone is always keen on user pays when they arent the user.

willo said :

a car user is taxed on every litre of fuel they purchase so someone who does more ks uses more fuel and pays more tax per year as things are now
this policy is unnecessary

+1

Jethro said :

Well considering these things, like roads, are mostly funded through consolidated revenue, with a small extra ‘user pays’ added on at point of service (most doctors don’t bulk bill, public schools ask for contributions, public transport charges ticketing fees, roads require our vehicles to be registered) I believe that already happens. This is simply saying rego costs should be linked to road usage. The little old lady who uses her car to drive to church on Sundays should pay less rego than the person driving 800km a week.

They still require large government contributions, but if you’re only talking a slightly higher charge (say a couple of hundred dollars) for high use drivers, then I’d probably agree with you.

watto23 said :

Surely penalising fuel inefficient cars more in rego is much more efficient. If some drives a small car or hybrid car 100kms a day versus someone in their V8 driving 50kms a day, has to pay more under the alledged greens plan then it clearly hasn’t worked. Although I’m all for discussion on ideas like this, the ACT needs to sort the whole transport plan out. The light rail idea is bad because its not going to be a rapid transit solution. Whether its busways or light rail, we really need to provide a quick transport option between town centres, otherwise regardless of what it costs people will drive, because timewise its far more convenient.

As it is right now people pay more to drive and park, because its more convenient and quicker than buses. Penalising this is not going to change anything.

You do realise however, that a seven seater four wheel drive is often the only way you can fit three children under ten, with booster seats and baby capsules [leaving room for strollers and groceries]? So, your one fuel efficient car with one occupant is more efficient per head than a V6 carrying 5 people? 1 person for 1200cc versus 5 people for 3000cc = 600cc per person. Which is more efficient now!
How many hybrid 4×4 or SUVs have you seen around lately that have adequate space for all this?

chewy14 said :

Jethro said :

I would support car registration being linked to mileage. It makes sense that those who use the roads more and contribute more to congestion, etc should pay more.

Do you support this kind of principle in other forms of government expenditure?

I don’t use schools, ill have my share back.
I don’t use public transport, ill have my share back.
I barely use healthcare, ill have my share back.
Etc etc

There’s plenty of areas that this kind of policy could be enacted but somehow i don’t think the people pushing this type of thing would like the outcomes.

Well considering these things, like roads, are mostly funded through consolidated revenue, with a small extra ‘user pays’ added on at point of service (most doctors don’t bulk bill, public schools ask for contributions, public transport charges ticketing fees, roads require our vehicles to be registered) I believe that already happens. This is simply saying rego costs should be linked to road usage. The little old lady who uses her car to drive to church on Sundays should pay less rego than the person driving 800km a week.

a car user is taxed on every litre of fuel they purchase so someone who does more ks uses more fuel and pays more tax per year as things are now
this policy is unnecessary

Coe is a little boy playing in a sandpit beyond his capacity. Pure d’head devoid of thought. A modern day Harold Hird. The reality is the car user do NOT pay thir way.

watto23 said :

Surely penalising fuel inefficient cars more in rego is much more efficient…small car or hybrid car 100kms a day versus…V8 driving 50kms a day, has to pay more under the alledged greens plan then it clearly hasn’t worked.

You miss the point, the V8 driving 50kms a day pays more than the hybrid driving 50kms a day. Of course you should pay more if you drive more.

Incorporating the costs of registration/CTP into the price of fuel would be the best way to run a user pays system. The more k’s you drive, the more you pay. The more fuel efficient your vehicle, the less you pay. Depreciation aside it would make it more manageable to own vehicles that meet individual needs, ie you could run a small car to work and back through the week and have a large car for family outings on the weekend and you only pay based on the fuel you consume in each.

Of course this would need to be a national system, otherwise the servo’s in qbn would be rather busy. I’m sure we can rely on all the states to come to an agreement on this in no time.

just wondering if they would want to charge for all km travelled or just the ones in the ACT (ie. their jurisdiction)?

There should be some extra charge for people choosing to drive on congested roads during peak periods. Plenty of extra money is spent catering for an hours peak usage each day. That extra money should be provided by those getting the main benefit. Ie: toll roads!

arescarti42 said :

Considering pretty much all the negative impacts of car ownership on society (e.g. air pollution, accidents, road wear, congestion, etc.) increase with the amount one drives, it makes a lot of sense to tax vehicle use by distance traveled.

Agreed.

It would make sense to reward people for using their car LESS. This doesnt, however mean that its carte blanche for increasing rego even further than it is today (and Im not buying the CTP insurance is to blame one bit argument…)

People may look at the way they use their cars and think about their habits a bit more.

Have some sort of annual inspection system (like in NSW), and in this process measure the pollution a car generates. Use that as some sort of factor against the rego fee as well. So you drive a car that is more harmful to the environment, you pay more rego. Drive one that is kinder to the environment, you pay less. I know its looking at it a bit simplistically, but its got to be better than whats on offer now.

At the moment a very crude instrument of increasing parking fees and rego, on appearance seems to be the only real means by which the govt seems to be discouraging car usage.

Jethro said :

I would support car registration being linked to mileage. It makes sense that those who use the roads more and contribute more to congestion, etc should pay more.

Do you support this kind of principle in other forms of government expenditure?

I don’t use schools, ill have my share back.
I don’t use public transport, ill have my share back.
I barely use healthcare, ill have my share back.
Etc etc

There’s plenty of areas that this kind of policy could be enacted but somehow i don’t think the people pushing this type of thing would like the outcomes.

I would support a system based on rego and insurance based on distance travelled as well as an increase in charges for heavier vehicles. Too many people drive oversize cars unnecessarily or make car trips without forethought or planning. (I’m sick of sitting at intersections trying to see over the top of single occupant and otherwise (relatively) empty oversize trucks, vans and four wheel drives.)

Although, this would mean that we would all have to pay a lot more for a lot of our goods and services, expect poorer service when other items take longer to get delivered and place the ACT residents at a disadvantage compared to the States. As well, without an improvement in public transport, it would disadvantage those living in outer suburbs who have to travel large distances or can’t afford more than one car (for times when they occasionally need a larger vehicle).

Jethro said :

I would support car registration being linked to mileage. It makes sense that those who use the roads more and contribute more to congestion, etc should pay more.

No it doesn’t. It’s ridiculous. The ongoing costs of ownership – petrol, servicing, parking, tolls etc – all go up the more you use it. That’s the disincentive. I’m sure the Greens would also like a say in how much we watch our TVs, or put the heating on, or water our plants. But life is actually about personal choice – we are free to weigh up the costs and make our own decisions.

I would support car registration being linked to mileage. It makes sense that those who use the roads more and contribute more to congestion, etc should pay more.

Good luck policing such a tax. I can’t speak for others but I can wire up a switch to my odometer that will allow me to determine exactly when it records miles. 20 minutes for a quick switch that works or a couple of hours for a harness integrated switch undetectable without tearing the car apart.

And I’m not even that dodgy. Imagine what the dodgy guys would do.

Solidarity said :

Soooo…. would you support extra tax just for fat people because they consume more resources?

Whether I’d support that or not would depend entirely on whether fat people change their eating habits in response to price. If being taxed would actually induce them to change their habits, then it’d be hugely beneficial for both fat people and wider society. If they’re just going to keep eating regardless, then taxing them is just going to make them poorer (which I suspect would actually be the case).

In the case of driving, I’m pretty sure that increasing the marginal cost of vehicle usage does actually induce people to drive less.

watto23 said :

Surely penalising fuel inefficient cars more in rego is much more efficient. If some drives a small car or hybrid car 100kms a day versus someone in their V8 driving 50kms a day,

I bet I can drive my Gas powered V8 more efficiently and with less wear and tear on the roads than most Hybrid drivers I see these days.

The Greens are running a close second to Poocockhead as far as credibility is concerned!

Surely penalising fuel inefficient cars more in rego is much more efficient. If some drives a small car or hybrid car 100kms a day versus someone in their V8 driving 50kms a day, has to pay more under the alledged greens plan then it clearly hasn’t worked. Although I’m all for discussion on ideas like this, the ACT needs to sort the whole transport plan out. The light rail idea is bad because its not going to be a rapid transit solution. Whether its busways or light rail, we really need to provide a quick transport option between town centres, otherwise regardless of what it costs people will drive, because timewise its far more convenient.

As it is right now people pay more to drive and park, because its more convenient and quicker than buses. Penalising this is not going to change anything.

arescarti42 said :

The piece of text in question for those who are interested:

“While the ACT has registration fees based on vehicle size
it does not have anything based on distance traveled. The Greens are supportive of a
mileage-based car user fee.”

For what it is worth, the real value of excise has been falling for over a decade as it hasn’t been indexed to inflation since 2001.

Considering pretty much all the negative impacts of car ownership on society (e.g. air pollution, accidents, road wear, congestion, etc.) increase with the amount one drives, it makes a lot of sense to tax vehicle use by distance traveled.

Soooo…. would you support extra tax just for fat people because they consume more resources?

The piece of text in question for those who are interested:

“While the ACT has registration fees based on vehicle size
it does not have anything based on distance traveled. The Greens are supportive of a
mileage-based car user fee.”

For what it is worth, the real value of excise has been falling for over a decade as it hasn’t been indexed to inflation since 2001.

Considering pretty much all the negative impacts of car ownership on society (e.g. air pollution, accidents, road wear, congestion, etc.) increase with the amount one drives, it makes a lot of sense to tax vehicle use by distance traveled.

I checked http://act.greens.org.au/policies/act/transport for their policy on a milage based car user fee, and it doesn’t exist.

I’m not supportive of a mileage based car user fee, but I’m not opposed to discussing whether it could be a better solution in some situations.

The biggest component cost of rego by far is CTP insurance.
I’ve mused on CanberraRIDERS recently about whether it’d be a more equitable solution to switch CTP insurance onto licenses (a person) instead of as part of rego (a car), but that would hit dual licensed, single vehicle families harder.
We could then reduce CTP premiums for a person who undertakes training courses and maintains a good driving record, something you can’t do if you insure a car for your bad driving.
If the twin licensed, single car family are good drivers then you could balance the system so that they end up paying less, while those more likely to cause CTP claims through bad driving will end up paying more.

Perhaps a kilometres travelled system could be a fairer system for CTP insurance if we continue to insure the car, with cheaper CTP for vehicles that are not used very often. You have a lower risk of being in an accident if you aren’t driving much.
The downside – it’d disproportionally penalise those who travel long distances to visit family and friends, as distance travelled isn’t directly related to your risk of causing an accident.

Glen Takkenberg
Pirate Party ACT for Ginninderra

Opinions are mine, and not those of Pirate Party ACT.