"Fuel Tax" to become a fuel tax?

[sulavaca]

[Ducked]

Wheelbase/track width tax. Opposed, naturally, so as to favour short wide vehicles. You can fit more of them in a traffic jam.

[CraigTPE]

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

How does a tax based on engine size vs tax based on liters used make rich people pay more? I have a large engine, but my car is 25 years old and worth peanuts on the market. I am certainly not rich, but pay an enormous fuel tax annually.

I would totally support having the tax added to the price of gas.

[sulavaca]

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

How does a tax based on engine size vs tax based on liters used make rich people pay more? I have a large engine, but my car is 25 years old and worth peanuts on the market. I am certainly not rich, but pay an enormous fuel tax annually.

I would totally support having the tax added to the price of gas.

I believe the engine size tax was to promote the production and use of vehicles with smaller engines, in the short sighted, anti logic assumption that engine size alone has everything to do with fuel consumption. This is the point I tried to address earlier.

Right now we're very busy with trying to think of new and interesting ways in which the government can shift it's anti logic to taxations on other daft things.

Red car tax, because everyone knows that red cars go faster and use more fuel.

[CraigTPE]

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

How does a tax based on engine size vs tax based on liters used make rich people pay more? I have a large engine, but my car is 25 years old and worth peanuts on the market. I am certainly not rich, but pay an enormous fuel tax annually.

I would totally support having the tax added to the price of gas.

I believe the engine size tax was to promote the production and use of vehicles with smaller engines, in the short sighted, anti logic assumption that engine size alone has everything to do with fuel consumption. This is the point I tried to address earlier.

Not disputing that. I'm disputing the idea that this tax has anything to do with whether one is rich or poor.

Putting the tax directly on consumption would accomplish the same thing you suggest. (Thank goodness my car is not red.....)

[sulavaca]

Not disputing that. I'm disputing the idea that this tax has anything to do with whether one is rich or poor.

Putting the tax directly on consumption would accomplish the same thing you suggest. (Thank goodness my car is not red.....)

Yes, this was the point I made earlier. "Pay for what you use and nothing more."
I hope I already did a reasonable job of getting this point across already. I'll leave that to everyone else to decide.

[Ducked]

I would totally support having the tax added to the price of gas.

I agree with you, and that was my attitude when I opened this thread. That's the rational position.

However, we don't live in a rational world, and in the course of the discussion I came to think that perhaps I hadn't given that enough weight.

In democracies, stupid people elect stupid governments who make stupid laws to suit them. In dictatorships the stupidity is less broadly based, but still supreme. As I noted above, its at least arguable that some kind of vehicle-rating carbon tax might have more influence on the vehicle purchasing decisions of punters than a tax on fuel, which requires a higher level of awareness and foresight.

The other valid argument against a transfer of engine capacity tax to a fuel tax (valid, IMHO, because its my argument)is that, by increasing road transport, and thus general costs, it's a transfer from a tax on a luxury, to a tax on essentials.

For me, these arguments are not sufficient to defeat the proposal, but they do weaken it a bit, and I'm not a politician.

[headhonchoII]

I think there is already tax added into fuel cost. Where is this one versus the other choice coming from?
The existing engine capacity tax is not well thought out. I would agree with a flat rate of VAT on cars , annual tax based on fuel efficiency (MPG) and big wodge of tax on imports (which I believe already happens with imports anyway and is classified as the 'luxury tax'). Aswell as fuel tax. Phex that's a lot of tax.

But I do have a problem if there is an arms race of big vehicles in Taiwan like in the US. You can see so many big cars in Taichung, they are convenient etc, great for families, but 'generally speaking and all things being equal', they DO create more air pollution because as they lug their heavy bodies around they need to burn more fuel. They also kind of push you to upgrade to drive a heavier meatier car, because in an impact you are not going to come off well. There are so many SUVs and heavy vehicles on the road here. In addition, they take up more space on the road and parking wise and they also impede my view of the road ahead when I am driving. They can give their owners a sense of security which sometimes encourages the already reckless driving habits. When a pedestrian is hit by an SUV/cross over you are probably finished due to the extra force of impact and the angle of impact, with smaller cars and sedans there is a crumple zone and less force applied to the pedestrian. The material that goes into building a bigger car also requires more resources and energy. There are a lot of arguments for small(er) cars beyond the immediate fuel pollution argument.

Admission, I would like to drive a crossover eventually due to extra space and comfort on the road. Cost concerns would definitely impact my decision though.

[sulavaca]

In democracies, stupid people elect stupid governments who make stupid laws to suit them. In dictatorships the stupidity is less broadly based, but still supreme. As I noted above, its at least arguable that some kind of vehicle-rating carbon tax might have more influence on the vehicle purchasing decisions of punters than a tax on fuel, which requires a higher level of awareness and foresight.

The other valid argument against a transfer of engine capacity tax to a fuel tax (valid, IMHO, because its my argument)is that, by increasing road transport, and thus general costs, it's a transfer from a tax on a luxury, to a tax on essentials.

For me, these arguments are not sufficient to defeat the proposal, but they do weaken it a bit, and I'm not a politician.

Your arguments do not weaken logic and fairness at all. And a "luxury car" is a concept produced by marketing and car companies. Practically you can either argue and consider all cars to be luxuries, or none of them to be luxuries. The term "luxury" is to be completely subjective.

A tax on essentials. Now there's a thing! Will this be added to my proposed "red car" tax?

[Ducked]

Your arguments do not weaken logic and fairness at all.

Didn't say they did. In fact, in the preamble that you didn't quote, I said they didn't.

But logic and fairness are not the only issues here. Practical outcomes, and political impacts are also relevant. Headhoncho's concerns about the risk of encouraging big US-stylee gas guzzlers can't simply be dismissed because purchasing big US-stylee gas guzzlers is an irrational response to a shift to fuel tax. People are irrational...er....and of course, not only in the US (Lets not go there again )

Practically you can either argue and consider all cars to be luxuries,......... :

Sure, that's implied here. I said it explicitly up above somewhere, when arguing that the engine capacity tax wasn't a wealth tax.

I doubt a car is an essential here in Taiwan, but in some places, notably the US, a car might reasonably be regarded as an essential.