Scrap rego: push to charge drivers per km

LOL.. Do you REALLY think you'll get something for nothing from KRudd?? ROFLMAO...

Well in Qld "The Smart State" its $800 to register a 6 cylinder car now.

In NZ they have a similar system for diesel vehicles.

You have to buy RUC's in multiples of 1000k IN ADVANCE.

It goes according to GVM of the vehicle so a Car would be a 2000kg rate or maybe 3000kg for a big one up to a Bdouble etc.

Costs x amount per K at say 6c pk for car up to maybe $1 a k for biggest rig.

Dont get caught being behind as the cost of getting up to date is

Say you are $500 behind So you pay $1000 to get up to date and $500 in advance again
Then you pay twice the amount you were behind for the fine.EG $1000

All trucks have to have hubometers and cars are done on odo readings.

Dont know that it would work unless everyone had hubometers as it used to be pretty easy to wind back an odometer.

Cheers

As an uneducated guess, i would assume the break even point to be 20,000km in your case.

This means that every person who travels more than 20K would be worse off......do i smell a problem with city v's country driving characteristics?

Andrew

And I run LPG.. No excise... I Loose :-((

I guess if it was collected at the time you purchased your fuel it would be good .

But that would be too simple wouldn't it !!

Cheers

Steve

I have thought for along time, that registration & CTP insurance should be in the way of a fuel levy, that way everybody is registered & insured, also it means that it is a user pays system.

They tried this in the Uk and it got bumped. Was tracked with a black box. logged time of travel, Miles, and speed.
It didn't last..

Steve

Who said anything about insurance ie CTP??

My reading was about REGISTRATION.

The executive director of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA), Brendan Lyon, says all existing road taxes - including registration, licensing fees and the fuel excise - could be abolished and replaced with a per-kilometre charge for motorists.

CTP is a requirement of the government but not a tax.
So I suggest you will be more out of pocket than you consider.

Regards Philip A

Might have appeal to city/urban dwellers.

Not much chop when you have to drive 220 km round trip to the grocer, chemist or hardware!

Our two vehicles average 75,000 km per year combined.

I can't wait!

Cheers

A couple of discussion points on the Henry Tax Review....

And I’ll start by saying the Henry Tax review is about finding ways to fund a growing and aging Australian population and on that basis it ultimately means that in the long-run, many, if not most Australian households will be paying more in tax one-way or the other. We might gain on some things, and lose on others. But rest assured this review hasn’t been undertaken to work out ways to be giving money back to us taxpayers!

This review is a potential blue-print for the future, and if the current Federal Government’s track record of implementation is anything to be guided by, don’t hold your breath waiting....mind you they have a few things to pay for, so expect to see those who have worked hard and built up some equity, and have sought to better themselves through up skilling to achieve a higher salary, will be ‘slugged’ quick and fast – watch superannuation for instance.......

But as it relates to this discussion about Licence, Registration, Greenslip, and other motoring charges, the devil may well be in the detail. At the moment these fees are the domain of the individual State Governments, so to unilaterally suggest that the Federal Government can bring in a per kilometre fee to pay for these items will require discussions on who would administer the system, how the money would be collected and how the funds will be distributed to the States. Much easier said than done, but it will make for an interesting read.

Good weekend to all.......The Landy

Without getting too carried away with comparing current prices to kilometres travelled, I would look at what the Government would do within four years of implementing the scheme.
8 cents per kilometre will soon become 10 cents, then 12 and 14.
The push for higher prices will sound so moderate, "only 2 more cents per kilometre", instead of a 25% increase.
Based on lack of some Stamp Duty reductions after implementation of GST proved that State Governments can't be trusted.
The Qld Govt increases fes like this with Q Leave fees on building projects. They increase it by 0.2% of the contract price which sounds cheap, but in reality adds $400 for a house.
Sly and subltle changes in taxation can only be beneficial to one level of Aussies, and that is the State and Federal Treasurers.
This Henry character is paid by politicians to suggest options to suit politicians.
I do a moderate 20 000k's per year, and I can't see any immediate benefit, but sure can see some pain coming.

Would it be over simplifying to suggest abolishing all rego, stamp duty and various sundry charges and just increase the fuel levy. That way u use u pay u don't use u don't pay????


ob

As landy said above "the Henry Tax review is about finding ways to fund a growing and aging Australian population" The problem with an aging population is that their health deteriorates and they become very expensive.

The govenrment's single greatest cost is health. (That's why it's so hard to increase health spending.)

An average person's health costs of their last two years of life, equate to all their previous years put together.

As the babyboomers reach an age where their health costs are going to spiral out of control, they are going to be a massive burden on the country's finances. Never before in the history of the modern world has there been such a large proportion older people supported by a relatively small working group.

Therefore we have the following choices
1. Increase the younger, working population (through births and migration)
2. Increase the tax everybody pays (including super)
3. Let people die two years earlier then they otherwise would.
or all of the above.

I hope I can die soon...its going to get too hard to be alive

Hmm.
I saw an item on TV last week that the Chamber of Automotive Manufacturers (I think) announced that vehicle carbon emissions had decreased by 13.5% last year. They put it down to more people buying diesels, although IMHO its generally people buying more fuel efficient cars.

That means in general terms that fuel coinsumption declined by around 13.5%, so the fuel tax would have declined by a similar amount.

Governments HATE declining tax bases.

If the current trends continue then the "take" will continue to decline.

The Feds and State Governments wll therefore be looking for an INCREASING tax base. When people have more economical cars they tend to drive further , just ask me.

Regards Philip A

"According to IPA's calculations, the average motorist would pay about 8 cents for every kilometer they drove"
I travel on average 18000km's per year, which equates to a cost of $1440.00 under this scheme. This is what could be abolished, registration, licensing fees and the fuel excise.
Notice they say "COULD be abolished"

Does any body remember the build up to introducing GST?

Forget the fact that he said "there will be NO GST under this government", then proceeded to introduce it.
Their biggest lie was, and I know the state gov's. are to blame aswell, "if you agree to GST, it will remove all these other taxes"
Yep, and we all believed that too. Some minor taxes were reduced or removed, but I remember the big one was they would remove the fuel excise. And then reneged. Again.
And this will be the same - they will remove and / or reduce some minor taxes and then renege on the major taxes. Again.
It is a tax grab plain and simple, and if any of us believe we will be better off then we are being naive.
Liberal, Labour or any other party you would care to mention will try to sell you manure and tell you it is roses.

Since the Report won’t be released until Sunday, the whole thing at this stage is conjecture; analysts and commentators earning their wages by putting forward their opinion (probably informed but possibly not) determined by their own political bias, that of their editors/owners or the political/social demographic of their readership.

The fact that the report has been written doesn’t mean it will be implemented…it is a discussion paper which will be discussed in democratically elected arenas (the House of Representatives and the Senate).

The last time I looked at the Constitution I didn’t see journalists, talk back commentators or opinion writers have any place in this process (after all none of which are democratically elected). The Fourth Estate has an important place in a democracy, but it is not the basis of a democracy (no matter what they say)

I find it amazing that so many people on this topic and others on this forum seem to believe the “Government” is an entity which they are impotent to challenge. Every 3 years we have the ability to bring our parliamentarians to heel. The Government we have is directly attributed to our involvement in the democratic process; if there is corrupt, callous, uncaring powermongers ruling this country it is because we allow it.

It is not as if we have secret policemen lurking in every street corner intimidating or killing those who step out of line (the situation in so many countries)

An Uncle of mine used an expression regularly; he described people as ‘hearts’…they were the people that started each sentence with “’ey oughta (aorta)do something about…” whilst never doing something themselves.

If we consider ourselves to be inhabitants of the best country in the world (which I do), we have a responsibility to look at the paper in the light what is best for Australia, not what is best for our hip pocket.

I want a fair and equitable country for my children and grandchildren to grow up in; not a selfish, me, me, me country where everything is devalued to the lowest common denominator of “what is in it for me”

The process is starting on Sunday for all of us to get involved in a process that may govern Australia’s direction for the next 20 years

Rant mode off

Sate Govt's scrap registrations, licences, permits etc. NEVER. Won't happen. Just look at the recent arguements between the States and Federal Govt. over proposed changes to health funding and that (health reforms) were apparently in the best interests of the community.

Jon, Until a few years ago i was travelling from Moss Vale to Bankstown 6 days a week. 200ks a day and about 70,000 ks a year... There must be a dollar or two for the Government with the 8 cents per kilometer ;) Michael

Just as an after thought,
Would this include Trailers, Caravan/Campers, Horse floats or any thing that needs rego to be on the road net work?
Hmmm

Today's Australian Financial Review reports that this scheme could make an extra $4 billion dollars available annually for supposed investment in transport infrastructure.

I would somehow doubt that the extra revenue would ever end up spent on transport infrastructure.

So they are following the lead of Insurers (lower rates for lower km's driven - despite that group having the highers accident rate....per km a least) and some overseas countries.

It's a far cry from a certain Victorian party that many years ago "promised" a mere ~$10 per extra vehicle registered to a name. Instead of 3 regos it would be 1 plus 2x$10 etc.

But the logic is the same - tax what you drive, not the vehicles you can drive.

Is this an anti-fuel incentive? Or to bring us in line with European prices (a change from recent alignments to the USA)? Or a revenue raiser?

Maybe to compensate they could half CTP through proper driver education?

This is a rort pure and simple .... anyone who lives in a regional area will get stung by this. There not a snowflakes chance in hell that any Govt. will reduce fuel excise as they get too much money from it.

What works for Europe works for Europe but will it work here ? NO it won't How many Europeans have to drive 100 km to town or 50 km each day to work because there is no viable public transport system, not many i'd say. This is a wolf in sheeps clothing coming back to bite all of us in the end.

It sounds ok'ish to me but I don't think it will happen. I want a system where I am rego'ed for the vehicle I am driving not the number of vehicles I have. Each vehicle would have to be safety inspected but only one on the road at any time. It would be great but again too open to fraud etc.

At the moment i would like to have a low cost low emission scooter but the additional rego etc is prohibitive so I am left driving a much higher emmision vehicle.

Hi Everyone,
I was wondering about this too when I heard it on the radio.
I checked my reg papers and for my 1985 Landcruiser I pay $303 TAC and $91.70 for the Reg With another $30.30 in Stamp Duty. I reckon the TAC charges would stay so I'm wondering if we would be any better off.
Cheers
Neil

What's the go with my lawnmower and chainsaw?
If I don't have to pay fuel excise on the fuel for them, do I have to fit an odometer to both of them?
And my generator too, what about that?

Dave

How can registration be scrapped? There would ALWAYS have to be some form of it along with a "fee".

Otherwise numberplates would handed out willynilly, there would be no record of who a vehicle belongs to, and hence culpability.

heck-this is sounding better and better all the time...