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?) https://twitter.com/BJafari/status/1336141918061785089?s=20
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.)

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/FundingRoads
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."

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/FundingRoads
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. https://twitter.com/Gergyl/status/1330375582815805442?s=20
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.