The apparent implication was that Victoria has made its per-kilometre tax on electric vehicles equivalent to the fuel excise paid by a ~10 year old internal combustion engine vehicle doing ~10.8 L/100 km.
But that's not right; he's tweeted the comparison himself -- balance point is at ~6 L/100 km (below) ...just a miss-hear / misinterpretation I suppose. (Was the point that Vic, in some announcement, had compared 2.5 c/km with a 10.8 L/100 km ICE vehicle?)
I'll just note again, in passing, that Victoria does not distance-tax internal combustion engine vehicles at all. Fuel excise is a Federal tax, and it is not hypotheticated to state revenues. (It used to be; that ended 1 July 2000.)
Nor is fuel excise hypothecated to road funding:

"...Although none of these charges are hypothecated to road funding, they form a significant part of total government revenue."
Both of those are standard lies. They're effective because they're so widely assumed to be correct.
Point: The Victorian electric vehicle tax is a completely new tax (at least for this century), not a replacement tax. Claiming it is a replacement tax is a lie.
There's a strong case for states to distance-tax *all* vehicles. They could easily effect that by replacing part (maybe half) of their vehicle registration charges with a distance-based charge, assessed on a similar basis to Victoria (with regional discounts if must; I wouldn't).
IIRC Qld went close to implementing that under the Goss government, using higher fuel excise (then a state tax) rather than self-reported kilometres. Fell through on the standard objections: regressive (most taxes are), unfair to regionals (already get a huge road-cost subsidy).
Also, a fuel-excise based 'distance charge' is particularly pernicious (i.e. inherently regressive) because it taxes older, less efficient vehicles more -- about twice as much according to @BJafari -- and those are the vehicles that poorer folk are likely to own.
Yet it does other things moderately well. High petrol excise discourages big fuel-guzzler cars (not so much, because sales are booming). High diesel excise taxes trucking, pretty much proportional to load x distance, and is hypothecated to that purpose (the 'Road User Charge').
Except, as we've argued, the (Federal) 'Road User Charge' on diesel fuel goes nowhere near funding the road-damage cost from trucking (that's approximately all road damage), let alone the increased road capital cost required to provide for trucking.
And, curiously, the excises on petrol and diesel are the same (42.3 c/L), even though part of the excise on diesel (25.8 c/L) is hypothecated to a Road User Charge, supposedly to cover the trucking road cost ... except, somehow, petrol buyers pay the same; just isn't called that.
It's a sham. Trucking gets the roads it drives on approximately for free.

(That is why we pretty-much don't have general rail freight in Australia -- railway line construction and use is not free to rail freight operators.)
You can follow @Gergyl.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.