The gasoline/petrol price thread.

[Hermit]

Government(s) in Australia want to retain the fuel tax on electric vehicles. Understandable because that's a part of road funding. Although, the average bloke doesn't seem to understand this.

Sure, if nobody uses fossil based fuel any more, the Australian federal government will suffer a shortfall of at least $2.2 billion per year. This shortfall has to be made up for with taxation elsewhere, but the Australian fuel tax has not gone into road building and maintenance for years. It goes straight into consolidated revenue. Consolidated revenue is where the funds for federal roads come from.

State and local road have been funded by means other fuel excises since 1983. In that year excises other than those levied by the federal government have been ruled unconstitutional.

Like all excises and levies, fuel tax is a flat tax, and affects lower income earners more than higher ones. Instead of taxing electricity to claw back the losses incurred by decreasing use of fossil fuels I'd prefer to see an increase in the upper brackets of income tax.

Yes, I have paid tax at the top rate for a number of years. No, I did not suffer as a result, and no, I did not resent it.

[pErvinalia]

Socialist!

[Brian Peacock]

If driving an electric and a petrol vehicle is going to cost you the same in tax then you might as well chose petrol.

[macdoc]

not

Electric Cars Are Better for the Planet – and Often Your Budget, Too
By Veronica PenneyJan. 15, 2021
Electric vehicles are better for the climate than gas-powered cars, but many Americans are still reluctant to buy them. One reason: The larger upfront cost.

New data published Thursday shows that despite the higher sticker price, electric cars may actually save drivers money in the long-run.

To reach this conclusion, a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated both the carbon dioxide emissions and full lifetime cost — including purchase price, maintenance and fuel — for nearly every new car model on the market.

They found electric cars were easily more climate friendly than gas-burning ones. Over a lifetime, they were often cheaper, too.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... -cost.html

road tax is a minor issue.

[Tero]

The electric vehicles would get better mileage than gas, if you burned the same amount of gas to "drive" both. You burn the gas to make the electricity. So yes, however you do it, less fossil fuel is spent.

[JimC]

The key is government policies to encourage their use (either private ownership, or one of those ride-share programs). Certainly no additional taxes, possible discounts on registration fees, and incentives for companies to establish more charging points.

[Brian Peacock]

How can you let the market decide on a fair and equitable basis if the government are going to fix that market in favour of one thing over another?

/devil's advocate

[pErvinalia]

Well they currently favour fossil fuels, so subsidising EVs would just even that out.

[Hermit]

How can you let the market decide on a fair and equitable basis if the government are going to fix that market in favour of one thing over another?

/devil's advocate

People who argue that falsely claim that the energy market is decided on a free and equitable basis right now.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates

This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries. Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017. The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion). About three quarters of global subsidies are due to domestic factors—energy pricing reform thus remains largely in countries’ own national interest—while coal and petroleum together account for 85 percent of global subsidies. Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP. (Link)

The paper was published by the International Monetary Fund, hardly a bunch of lefty, vegan wingnuts.

[JimC]

There is a broad and interesting question about the degree to which government policies (particularly in regard to taxes and charges) should be framed to encourage the choices of citizens in directions with value to the community (or that governments decide have value to the community...).

The general conservative answer would be "mostly no", the general progressive answer would be "often yes" (for policies they approve of, naturally... )

[rainbow]

If driving an electric and a petrol vehicle is going to cost you the same in tax then you might as well chose petrol.

If that electric car is powered from a fossil fuel source, then it should be.
...plus a petrol powered V6 makes such a cool VROOM sound.

[pErvinalia]

Do they not have V8s in Africa?

[macdoc]

here you go

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9hZdwi8f9M

[rainbow]

Do they not have V8s in Africa?

Meh. American ones that have no real charm.

We only drive Japanese.

[pErvinalia]

Rice boys.