Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360782053/petrol-tax-getting-scrapped-road-user-charges-expand-all-vehicles-2027

This is totally logical. Heavier vehicles damage the road more than a light >vehicle, and the further you drive the more wear there is. The existing pay >as you go has gotten out of use for purpose.

EVs need to pay for the extra wear of carting the 400kg plus battery around. >Light cars just over the tonne, need to be rewarded.

The devil is in the detail and the Government plans to go slowly so that >everything is a smooth change over.

Whether the motorist is going to pay more remains to be seen. Let us hope >that competion can serve the public well. Time will tell.

In principle it seems like a good idea. I look forward to the detail.
I note the usual suspects are hating it already without any detail or real knowledge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 10:59:07 +1200, Mutley <[email protected]>
wrote:

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360782053/petrol-tax-getting-scrapped-road-user-charges-expand-all-vehicles-2027

This is totally logical. Heavier vehicles damage the road more than a light >>>vehicle, and the further you drive the more wear there is. The existing pay >>>as you go has gotten out of use for purpose.

EVs need to pay for the extra wear of carting the 400kg plus battery around. >>>Light cars just over the tonne, need to be rewarded.

The devil is in the detail and the Government plans to go slowly so that >>>everything is a smooth change over.

Whether the motorist is going to pay more remains to be seen. Let us hope >>>that competion can serve the public well. Time will tell.

In principle it seems like a good idea. I look forward to the detail.
I note the usual suspects are hating it already without any detail or real >>knowledge.

Yes the devil is in the detail. I don't like the idea that it is a
GPS tracker and can also be used for tolling, congestion charging
and speed tickets and of course the insurance industry will want
access to this data when there is an accident ..

Don't need a GPS tracker. Number plate recognition is already
widespread.

It will indeed be interesting to note how the Government goes ahead
with this. RUCs is inherently fairer and was implemented for diesel
vehicles because the transport using diesel-powered vehicles was
mainly commercial goods transport (Public Transport and Goods
movement). Taxing diesel-powered vehicles at the pump as petrol is,
was not fair because a 40 tonne truck is about 40 times heavier than a
car but its 15-litre engine was only 8 times the size of the car.

RUCs were the solution to tax based on distance and maximum weight.
Enforcement was not too effective but few organisations and vehicles
were involved.

The advent of diesel cars made RUCs enforcement more difficult - with
a separate owner for each such vehicle. But WOF inspections (with the
odometer readings) helped.

RUCs is currently a pre-pay system - you pay in advance. From
yesterdays announcement it seems that monthly billing is being
considered as part of the reforms. How exactly will monthly bills be calculated?


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Tony <[email protected]> wrote:

Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360782053/petrol-tax-getting-scrapped-road-user-charges-expand-all-vehicles-2027

This is totally logical. Heavier vehicles damage the road more than a light >>vehicle, and the further you drive the more wear there is. The existing pay >>as you go has gotten out of use for purpose.

EVs need to pay for the extra wear of carting the 400kg plus battery around. >>Light cars just over the tonne, need to be rewarded.

The devil is in the detail and the Government plans to go slowly so that >>everything is a smooth change over.

Whether the motorist is going to pay more remains to be seen. Let us hope >>that competion can serve the public well. Time will tell.

In principle it seems like a good idea. I look forward to the detail.
I note the usual suspects are hating it already without any detail or real >knowledge.

Yes the devil is in the detail. I don't like the idea that it is a
GPS tracker and can also be used for tolling, congestion charging
and speed tickets and of course the insurance industry will want
access to this data when there is an accident ..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360782053/petrol-tax-getting-scrapped-road-user-charges-expand-all-vehicles-2027

This is totally logical. Heavier vehicles damage the road more than a light vehicle, and the further you drive the more wear there is. The existing pay
as you go has gotten out of use for purpose.

EVs need to pay for the extra wear of carting the 400kg plus battery around. Light cars just over the tonne, need to be rewarded.

The devil is in the detail and the Government plans to go slowly so that everything is a smooth change over.

Whether the motorist is going to pay more remains to be seen. Let us hope
that competion can serve the public well. Time will tell.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 07 Aug 2025, Mutley <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes the devil is in the detail. I don't like the idea that it is a
GPS tracker and can also be used for tolling, congestion charging

Exactly. The petrol tax is simple and anonymous. Never underestimate
how much additional bureaucracy will be needed to administer something
more complicated. That should actually be the #1 consideration. If
it ain't broke, don't fix it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 23:13:40 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2025, Mutley <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes the devil is in the detail. I don't like the idea that it is a
GPS tracker and can also be used for tolling, congestion charging

Exactly. The petrol tax is simple and anonymous. Never underestimate
how much additional bureaucracy will be needed to administer something
more complicated. That should actually be the #1 consideration. If
it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It is broke and always has been, but now we have a solution enabled by
modern tech.

Taxing petrol at source always resulted in petrol used for engines not
involved in transport paying road taxes. The proportion of tax paid
related to petrol consumption rates - and engine efficiency gains in
the last 50 years or so have reduced consumption rates and therefore
the tax take.

The current RUCs system was introduced because diesel engines that
could haul a weight 40 times that of a car, used an engine that
consumed about 6 times more fuel per km. Enforcement measures worked
because of small vehicle numbers, although the system could be gamed
by those determined to do so.

The issue of concern is that the new system will be fair and privacy
concerns acknowledged and addressed.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)