"Fuel Tax" to become a fuel tax?

[Ducked]

Saw an article in either the Taipei Times or the China Post (can't remember which) saying the gubmint are considering abolishing the fixed, engine capacity based fuel tax and replacing it with an additional tax on fuel at the point of sale.

Although my car is in the lowest tax band, that'd still be good for me, since I don't do many miles. It'd also lower the fixed-cost barrier to my indulging myself with something bigger, like a Jeep, though I guess it might put the price of those up a bit.

Its simpler, more logical, and it also seems likely to be better environmentally.

It'll never happen.

This was UK govt policy maybe 15 years ago and it never happened there either. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I assume they reckon it'll reduce their revenues and/or inhibit new car sales in some way.

[tommy525]

I agree getting away from the flat tax . Instead adding it to gas prices . It becomes "you use it you pay for it". Makes sense to me.

[finley]

Its simpler, more logical, and it also seems likely to be better environmentally.
It'll never happen.
This was UK govt policy maybe 15 years ago and it never happened there either. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I assume they reckon it'll reduce their revenues and/or inhibit new car sales in some way.

Well, in the UK, annual road tax is a huge revenue stream - it brings in a few billion a year. With fuel tax, it's enough to pay for the road network maintenance (not that it gets very much) and still leave a lot left over to spend on random shitecritical public services.

I assume the Taiwan gov't will implement a similar system: introduce a fuel tax, and retain the vehicle tax in an attenuated form. No government in recorded history has ever voluntarily reduced the tax take.

[headhonchoII]

In Ireland they tried to change to a carbon tax model specifically taxing bigger engines. They also have high rates of tax on fuel.

What happened? Everybody went out and bought small cars. They were so successful they reduced their own income when they need it most! Now they are going to change the system again.

[Ducked]

Its simpler, more logical, and it also seems likely to be better environmentally.
It'll never happen.
This was UK govt policy maybe 15 years ago and it never happened there either. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I assume they reckon it'll reduce their revenues and/or inhibit new car sales in some way.

Well, in the UK, annual road tax is a huge revenue stream - it brings in a few billion a year. With fuel tax, it's enough to pay for the road network maintenance (not that it gets very much) and still leave a lot left over to spend on random shitecritical public services.

I assume the Taiwan gov't will implement a similar system: introduce a fuel tax, and retain the vehicle tax in an attenuated form. No government in recorded history has ever voluntarily reduced the tax take.

Reducing the tax take isn't inherent to an exclusively fuel-tax based system. They'd just have to adjust the fuel tax rate until they were getting the same amount of money (or perhaps a bit more, "for their trouble").

I suppose the jobs-for-the-boys/iron-rice-bowl aspect might be an incentive to keep an unnecessarily complex system, plus lobbying from major vested interests like the road hauliers (Pissed off lorry drivers can cause traffic problems) and the car industry.

I think the last one's probably a biggie, taking the shameful UK govt subsidised scrappage scheme as a big fat corrupt clue.

[Ducked]

I suppose since everything depends on road transport, a fuel tax puts up costs for everyone, so it could be regarded as a tax shift from "luxuries" (e.g/i.e. private car possession) to "essentials" (e.g/i.e. food).

DAMN! I just thought of a valid objection to it.

I think too much.

[omerojs]

Saw an article in either the Taipei Times or the China Post (can't remember which) saying the gubmint are considering abolishing the fixed, engine capacity based fuel tax and replacing it with an additional tax on fuel at the point of sale.

Although my car is in the lowest tax band, that'd still be good for me, since I don't do many miles. It'd also lower the fixed-cost barrier to my indulging myself with something bigger, like a Jeep, though I guess it might put the price of those up a bit.

Its simpler, more logical, and it also seems likely to be better environmentally.

It'll never happen.

This was UK govt policy maybe 15 years ago and it never happened there either. I'm not sure what the problem is, but I assume they reckon it'll reduce their revenues and/or inhibit new car sales in some way.

It sounds really good... it makes sence the idea if you use it then you pay for it... I had a Rodeo 3.3L V6 and i paid 38k tax every year.. but it was parked most of the time as my daily car is a small corsa.. actually they may have started because the fuel now is around 35Ntd..

any news on a confirmation of this plan/story?

[headhonchoII]

User pays is a good idea. But there is nothing wrong with richer people contributing a bit more too.

[sulavaca]

User pays is a good idea. But there is nothing wrong with richer people contributing a bit more too.

And that's an impossible line to draw. "He's rich!" "He's not!" Anyone who can afford a car in my book is rich. I can't abide the so called "luxury tax". It makes no sense at all. Hell cheese is a luxury, so is beer, so is using an escalator, leather jackets, going on holiday.

Reducing tax on smaller engined cars in most countries has only encouraged small car ownership which has in turn boosted small car production, investment, and the result has been affordability. As small cars have become more affordable for people than ever, they are more popular and are used more frequently. As they are used more frequently than ever before, they have as a result become the greatest fuel consuming bracket of all cars on the road. Small cars use more fuel than big cars. That makes no sense at all.
The only way to levy tax in a fair way is to put it on the fuel. The less you use therefore, the less you pay, and the less it costs people to operate vehicles in an efficient manner. This would also help super car sales too, which would be a great thing, as its basically the super car bracket and sports bracket, which makes most of the breakthroughs in fuel efficiency and safety, which trickle down to the small car bracket.
Any government has only ever done the worst job of improving efficiency in vehicles. Just check out C.A.F.E. standards in the largest motor vehicle market on the planet, to see how efficiency and regulations go hand in hand. NOT!

[headhonchoII]

The rich can be defined as people in a certain top percentile income bracket. It's really not very complicated. It can also be defined as people able to afford a few million NTD car.