Aussies explode over Albo's latest cash grab
Earlier this week, we published a story about the Federal Government's intention to introduce a road user charge (RUC) for electric vehicle (EV) owners.
A per-kilometre tax to replace the fuel excise revenue lost as more Australians switch to electric vehicles.
The proposal encouraged more than 2000 readers to comment.
What followed was a passionate public policy debate, part stand-up comedy and a masterclass in Australian scepticism.
RELATED: Carmaker's fury over Albo's new road tax
Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers has long flagged the development of a new road-user charge across Australia for drivers of electric vehicles to ensure EV drivers are contributing a fair share to road upgrades. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman
While the conversation is divided, a large majority of readers believe EV drivers should contribute to road maintenance. But many also say the policy must be fair, transparent and apply equally across all vehicle types.
'Tax the trucks, not the Teslas,' one reader wrote, summing up a sentiment that hundreds of readers agreed with.
Another, HelpMeOverHere, accused the government of double standards:
'A mining truck the size of a suburban street guzzles thousands of litres a week and gets all the fuel tax refunded.'
The 'free ride' is over
Many of our readers argue it's simply time for EV owners to pay their way.
They believe that EV owners are currently getting a 'free ride' by avoiding the fuel excise, which raises more than $15 billion annually.
'There is not one solitary argument that supports the notion that EV drivers should be able to use the roads and not contribute to their upkeep. Not one,' nonedeplume said.
RELATED: New EV tax makes no sense
Heavy vehicles cause heavy road damage.
Stephen argued: 'EV manufacturers are upset that the free ride is coming to an end and the EV drivers will have to pay to use the road like everyone else.'
But others saw it less as fairness, more as the government's latest 'gotcha' tax.
'It's always the proletariat that has to pay for incompetent government,' Walker Texas Ranger said.
'Just another tax to prevent us from moving up in the world.'
Some readers proposed replacing the fuel excise entirely with a universal RUC.
'Why don't we scrap the fuel excise and then just apply a RUC to all road users - that would then be fair to ALL road users regardless of what type of fuel (petrol, diesel, EV, hybrid),' Gaynor said.
The trucking elephant in the room
A big chunk of outrage was over Australia's heavy freight industry.
Many said heavy vehicles are the 'culprits' and should pay more, given their impact on infrastructure.
Fair enough.
RELATED: What new Albo road tax would mean for you
EV owners fear a new road tax will hit them harder than fuel guzzlers. Picture: AFP
Infrastructure Australia data shows that one five-axle truck causes the same road wear as 2900 cars.
The actual ratio varies depending on factors like axle weight and road construction, but a truck's damage is often cited as being much higher than 2900.
Currently, heavy vehicles pay a RUC of 32.4 cents per litre, set to rise 6 per cent annually until 2025-2026.
They also pay the federal fuel excise, now around 51-52 cents per litre - but operators can claim back the difference through fuel tax credits, reducing their net cost by about 20 cents per litre.
'Trucks are the issue,' Grande_choice said.
'All those regional roads are getting slammed by trucks but not EVs.'
Aussie drivers are split over who should really pay the price. Picture NCA Newswire / Gaye Gerard
Rural drivers fear being slugged harder
Polestar Australia's managing director Scott Maynard said a one-size-fits-all approach could unfairly hit regional drivers who travel long distances for essential services.
According to property.com.au, Australians tend to drive longer distances for essentials and often live further out because property is more affordable.
'People in regional areas generally are poorer and drive more distances to get from A to B,' BobtheBuilder said.
'Hence why the CEO (Scott Maynard) makes the point that they will be discriminated against.'
Reader Vicki agreed: 'I'm rural and 75km from my nearest town, doctor, supermarket…city EV owners with public transport will cost them nothing, and rural/regional drivers big money.
When the policy debate turned into a comedy set
In between the policy arguments came some memorable one-liners that had me chuckling hard.
'If it can't be eaten or plucked, it will be taxed.'
'The word of the day is fungible.'
'I'm just going to wait until a hamster-powered car comes out.'
'How about we bring in a tax on breathing?'
Another day, another tax for Albo?. Picture: NewsWire / Nikki Short
The green glow-up….or greenwash?
Some readers went straight for the environmental jugular.
'It's time the idealists wake up to the fact that electric cars aren't better for the environment…they will never pay off the carbon footprint cost of making the batteries,' Mark wrote.
But Adam added, 'battery disposal facilities are already at 90+ per cent recyclability…the 'cut even' point for emissions is approx 37,000km.'
Trusting the government…like trusting a cheating ex
Underlying much of the conversation was the distrust of the government.
Even commenters who back the idea of EVs paying said they didn't trust Canberra to use the money for roads.
'For FY23-24 the fuel excise raised $15b while [the] government only spent $10bn on roads,' Bryn wrote.
'When is it enough?'
'It's just revenue raising,' Jeff said.
'Once they have you hooked, they tax you.'
The road ahead
So the consensus? Most readers agree that EV drivers should pay and contribute.
But it's simple, they want it to be fair.
If the government can deliver that, they might just win people over.
But if not, they'll be left with a few angry Australians.
Originally published as Aussies explode over Albo's latest cash grab
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
22 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Jim Chalmers flags action on ‘nuisance tariffs' in thinly veiled shot at Trump
Jim Chalmers has blasted tariffs as a 'tax on the workers and families of the country that levies them' while flagging further action on 'nuisance tariffs'. Nuisance tariffs are import taxes that, while generating some government revenue, are considered inefficient and burdensome. The Treasurer last year removed some 500 duties on a range of everyday items, including toothbrushes, women's health products and fridges. In a thinly veiled shot at Donald Trump, he said on Sunday 'there are good reasons to swim against the tide a bit when it comes to tariffs'. 'Some of these nuisance tariffs in our economy risk doing more harm than good, and tariffs are essentially a tax on the workers and families of the country that levies them,' Mr Chalmers told Sky News. 'So we've made a heap of progress abolishing 500 nuisance tariffs, working closely with (Trade Minister) Don Farrell and other colleagues to do that.' He went on to say the Albanese government was 'very proud of that progress that we've been able to make unilaterally, because tariffs push up compliance costs on business'. 'They risk pushing up prices for workers and families as well,' Mr Chalmers said. 'If I can build consensus and momentum to go further on that, I would like to, but I'll do that in a way that works closely with Don Farrell, conscious of the negotiations that he has under way. 'But I think we've shown a willingness and enthusiasm to cut those nuisance tariffs. 'I would like to go further, if I can. They do often do more harm than good, and so we approach the challenge in that light.' His comments come as trade talks with the US drag on. While Australia managed to avoid an increase in US tariffs earlier this month, exports are still subject to blanket 10 per cent levies. Some sectors, such as steel and aluminium, have rates of up to 50 per cent. The US President has also threatened to slap imposts of 250 per cent on foreign pharmaceuticals – a move that would hit Australian producers hard. The Albanese government has repeatedly labelled tariffs 'economic self-harm'. Mr Chalmers did not specify which products he considered slumped with nuisance tariffs, but he did say 'there's hundreds'. 'In those first 500 that we abolished, there were a lot of instances where it costs more actually to levy the tariff than to the benefit that we get from it,' he said. 'So I'm not prepared to put a number on any additional steps that we might be prepared to take, but this has been a pretty constant interest of mine.'
Sky News AU
22 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Vladimir Putin ‘needs to show that he's actually serious' about ending the war in Ukraine
Treasurer Jim Chalmers claims Australia supports America's efforts to get Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. 'Putin needs to show that he's actually serious here,' he told Sky News Political Editor Andrew Clennell. 'We need a proper, lasting peace on Ukrainian terms; the war has dragged on for too long, the Russian aggression has dragged on for too long.'
Perth Now
22 minutes ago
- Perth Now
‘Nuisance tariffs': Chalmers' shot at Trump
Jim Chalmers has blasted tariffs as a 'tax on the workers and families of the country that levies them' while flagging further action on 'nuisance tariffs'. Nuisance tariffs are import taxes that, while generating some government revenue, are considered inefficient and burdensome. The Treasurer last year removed some 500 duties on a range of everyday items, including toothbrushes, women's health products and fridges. In a thinly veiled shot at Donald Trump, he said on Sunday 'there are good reasons to swim against the tide a bit when it comes to tariffs'. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is mulling further action on 'nuisance tariffs'. Martin Ollman / NewsWire Credit: News Corp Australia 'Some of these nuisance tariffs in our economy risk doing more harm than good, and tariffs are essentially a tax on the workers and families of the country that levies them,' Mr Chalmers told Sky News. 'So we've made a heap of progress abolishing 500 nuisance tariffs, working closely with (Trade Minister) Don Farrell and other colleagues to do that.' He went on to say the Albanese government was 'very proud of that progress that we've been able to make unilaterally, because tariffs push up compliance costs on business'. 'They risk pushing up prices for workers and families as well,' Mr Chalmers said. 'If I can build consensus and momentum to go further on that, I would like to, but I'll do that in a way that works closely with Don Farrell, conscious of the negotiations that he has under way. 'But I think we've shown a willingness and enthusiasm to cut those nuisance tariffs. 'I would like to go further, if I can. They do often do more harm than good, and so we approach the challenge in that light.' His comments come as trade talks with the US drag on. While Australia managed to avoid an increase in US tariffs earlier this month, exports are still subject to blanket 10 per cent levies. Some sectors, such as steel and aluminium, have rates of up to 50 per cent. The US President has also threatened to slap imposts of 250 per cent on foreign pharmaceuticals – a move that would hit Australian producers hard. The Albanese government has repeatedly labelled tariffs 'economic self-harm'. Mr Chalmers did not specify which products he considered slumped with nuisance tariffs, but he did say 'there's hundreds'. 'In those first 500 that we abolished, there were a lot of instances where it costs more actually to levy the tariff than to the benefit that we get from it,' he said. 'So I'm not prepared to put a number on any additional steps that we might be prepared to take, but this has been a pretty constant interest of mine.'
