Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

carwow.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 360 posts

Re: Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

#101

Post by Robotbeat »

wil421 wrote: post #76
analog31 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>> I hate that it's being used as an argument against cyclists: "get off the road, you don't pay road tax". This of course also ignores that most adult cyclists also own a car. Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use. For instance most local roads in cities and counties are paid for with property taxes. Income taxes cover a fair amount of road construction. The county bike paths have a fe…

> Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use. For instance most local roads in cities and counties are paid for with property taxes. Not true for a lot of states. Property tax is not used for roads. Georgia pays for roads using gas taxes and road use fees like registration (tolls contribute a very small amount). Florida is similar but they are much more toll heavy. Alabama is similar as too. A…

EV fees are already much higher than the state gas tax they replace in many places, especially considering the extra sales tax on the battery, tax on electricity, and even personal property tax on the battery. The idea EVs get a free pass is a myth.

Re: Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

#102

Post by phpisthebest »

mab122 wrote: post #48

Why not just tax the tires? Seems like they are good indicator on how much you are using roads and how many miles you drove etc. (Safety maybe an argument. Don't do it so people don't drive on shitty old ones)

Aside from the safety factor, tires do have an expiration date, like with most things tires are rated for time and mileage. ie 5 years or 50,000 miles

Now most people only replace them at the milage limit like their oil because they run out their miles faster but for some people (like me) I tend to replace things on time more often because I do not drive that much

Re: Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

#103

Post by Robotbeat »

IndrekR wrote: post #78

For the road wear — tax the tires proportional to the tire weight. But that most likely would mean few-fold increase in the tire cost and may impair road safety. Easier to add an annual fee proportional to the square of fully loaded vehicle mass. Would be about £1k/yr on average. Less for smaller cars, more for larger ones.

I think it’d be pretty bad to penalize electric cars based on weight squared unless fossil fuels are eliminated from transportation. Then I agree.

Re: Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

#104

Post by ErikVandeWater »

neilwilson wrote: post #87

Oh dear. Somebody didn't pass the geometric sequence question on their GSCE maths paper. The £35B revenue replaces itself, because money doesn't stop at its first use. What you don't spend on fuel duty, you spend on something else, which is subject to VAT, causes wages to be paid subject to PAYE, and profits to be earned subject to corporation tax. They then spend their increased income cause more tax to be raised an…

> a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place.

Please explain this. Are you suggesting governments can just stop taxing, and print the money to pay their debts with no ill consequences?

Re: Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

#105

Post by rexreed »

iso1631 wrote: post #95
rexreed wrote: post #49

Or... maybe national taxes should pay for national roads as a form of national infrastructure, state or county taxes paying for state or county roads and local taxes for local roads. Isn't this the way roads were paid for before widespread use of personal vehicles? Roads are a shared benefit for all whether you own or drive a vehicle or not. Think of deliveries and public transport and other approaches in which you p…

In the UK local council tax funds local roads, and national government (funded mainly from income tax, national insurance and VAT) funds major trunk roads.

How does that square with the main point of the article: "The UK government receives tax revenue from drivers of petrol and diesel cars via two key methods: fuel duty, which brings £28 billion a year into government coffers, and Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax), which nets roughly £7 billion. Combined, these sources make up 1.5% of the UK’s GDP and account for around 4% of all tax revenue."

Re: Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

#106

Post by dsr_ »

phpisthebest wrote: post #97
neilwilson wrote: post #87

Oh dear. Somebody didn't pass the geometric sequence question on their GSCE maths paper. The £35B revenue replaces itself, because money doesn't stop at its first use. What you don't spend on fuel duty, you spend on something else, which is subject to VAT, causes wages to be paid subject to PAYE, and profits to be earned subject to corporation tax. They then spend their increased income cause more tax to be raised an…

>>firstly because you can't rely on it and secondly because a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place. That's not the purpose of taxes! Soo much wrong here... Revenue should be the ONLY purpose of taxation, and falsehood that sovereign government steams from a combination of fiat currency and MMT, which when combined and executed on like you are implying lead to inflation can currency collapse…

When you're arguing SHOULD, you're not arguing DOES.

(You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse.)

Re: Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

#107

Post by phpisthebest »

dsr_ wrote: post #106
phpisthebest wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>firstly because you can't rely on it and secondly because a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place. That's not the purpose of taxes! Soo much wrong here... Revenue should be the ONLY purpose of taxation, and falsehood that sovereign government steams from a combination of fiat currency and MMT, which when combined and executed on like you are implying lead to inflation can currency collapse…

When you're arguing SHOULD, you're not arguing DOES. (You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse.)

>When you're arguing SHOULD, you're not arguing DOES.

As is the person who I was reply to, their comment was that the government should not need to view taxation as revenue, I disagree

>You're also wrong about the inevitability of currency collapse

In the extreme of the parent comment, were a government ceases taxation (since they do not need the revenue) and just prints money to pay for everything the collapse of that currency is inevitable.

Re: Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

#108

Post by balderdash »

gorgoiler wrote: post #88

53p (+20% VAT) per litre for a car that uses 7.5 litres per 100km is about £48/1000km. The average UK mileage has dropped a lot over the years and is now just below 7000 miles a year. An odometer duty for that would be about £200, or £17 a month. If HMRC bring in £35bn a year in fuel duty a year for 45m drivers (the number of people with active driving licenses) that’s more like £700 a head. Why the threefold differe…

Trucks/lorries might make up a big chunk of that revenue

Re: Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

#109

Post by phpisthebest »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #100
phpisthebest wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>firstly because you can't rely on it and secondly because a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place. That's not the purpose of taxes! Soo much wrong here... Revenue should be the ONLY purpose of taxation, and falsehood that sovereign government steams from a combination of fiat currency and MMT, which when combined and executed on like you are implying lead to inflation can currency collapse…

Taxing activities that have negative externalities is a positive use of taxation. It's better than forbidding such behavior for many reasons. The simplest reason is that it's better to make revenue dis-incentivizing something bad (pollution) as opposed to dis-incentivizing something good (income).

To the extent that I would agree, it would IMO only be ethical for a government tax negative externalities to directly pay for mitigation, control, etc , i.e a carbon tax that directly goes to carbon removal / capture.

taxing exernalties then using the money for unrelated projects i.e taxing cigarettes to pay for schools, is something I would oppose

Re: Electric Cars – fuel duty and road tax: how to replace £35B annual revenue

#110

Post by flaviut »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #104
neilwilson wrote: post #87

Oh dear. Somebody didn't pass the geometric sequence question on their GSCE maths paper. The £35B revenue replaces itself, because money doesn't stop at its first use. What you don't spend on fuel duty, you spend on something else, which is subject to VAT, causes wages to be paid subject to PAYE, and profits to be earned subject to corporation tax. They then spend their increased income cause more tax to be raised an…

> a sovereign government has no need of revenue in the first place. Please explain this. Are you suggesting governments can just stop taxing, and print the money to pay their debts with no ill consequences?

I'm not an economist. But I can see inflation being thought of as a type of tax.

I'm not sure what kind of incentives that creates, and if those incentives are better or worse than the incentives existing taxes create.

So, maybe?

Post reply on HN