Latest news with #stategovernments
News.com.au
a day ago
- Automotive
- News.com.au
How the Albanese Government plans to revolutionise the taxes you pay for driving a car
Australia's new tax on electric vehicle drivers is set to kick off with a trial period for trucks before it stings cars. can reveal that the Albanese Government is looking at a staged rollout to test the proposed new EV tax and trucks will be the first cab off the rank. It is also interested in a new road user charge that sends price signals on the best time to be on the road, or the freeway. Over time, it could replace petrol taxes and apply to all cars based on distance travelled and when cars and trucks are on the road to tackle congestion. Free ride for EVs nearly over The free ride enjoyed by drivers of electric vehicles is coming to a close with Treasurer Jim Chalmers and state governments finalising plans for a new road-user charge. All Australian motorists who buy petrol and diesel at the bowser pay 51.6 cents a litre in fuel excise. But drivers of EV vehicles pay nothing. 'The status quo won't be sustainable over the next decade or two,'' Treasurer Jim Chalmers told 'As more and more people get off petrol cars and into EVs we've got to make sure that the tax arrangements support investment in roads. 'But we're in no rush, changes of this nature will be made, because the status quo won't work in 10 or 20 years.' The Treasurer made no secret of his support for a road user charge before the election, but favours a staged rollout of the changes. Based on a planned NSW road user scheme, a national rollout will depend on your mileage but might cost between $300 and $400 a year. Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas said that electric vehicles are 'heavier and do more damage to the road network as a consequence than do internal combustion engine vehicles'. 'By giving drivers a clear signal about the cost of infrastructure, they would have an incentive to use it more efficiently,' the Productivity Commission report said. How does fuel excise work? The current rate of fuel excise is 51.6 cents in excise for every litre of fuel purchased. For a typical household with a car running on petrol, the tax costs more than $1200 a year. But the flat sales tax isn't paid by drivers of pure electric vehicles, who simply need to plug in their cars to recharge. While registration and driver's licence fees go to state and territory governments, fuel excise is collected by the federal government. Australian motorists paid an estimated $15.71 billion in net fuel excise in 2023-24, and are expected to pay $67.6 billion over the four years to 2026-27. However, governments have long-warned that a road-user charge will be required to fill the gap in the budget left by declining revenue from the fuel excise, as the petrol and diesel engines in new cars consume less fuel and Australians adopt hybrid and electric cars. What does the AAA say? The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) is calling for a national approach to road-user charging but wants a guarantee the revenue will be earmarked for road upgrades. The AAA backs a distance-based road-user charging as a fairer and more equitable way to fund land transport infrastructure. The 2024 federal budget forecasted a reduction in fuel excise receipts by $470 million over four years from 2024-25. Roadblocks to reform Currently, New South Wales is the only state with firm plans to introduce a road-user charge from 2027 or when EVs reach 30 per cent of new car sales. Plug-in hybrid EVs will be charged a fixed 80 per cent proportion of the full road-user charge to reflect their vehicle type. Western Australia has also stated an intention to implement a road-user charge. Meanwhile, Victoria's electric vehicle levy had to be scrapped following a ruling from the High Court. Two Victorian electric car owners launched a legal challenge on the basis the tax was not legal as it was an excise that only a federal government could impose. They won, with the High Court upholding the legal challenge. There have been several false starts to enshrine a road-user charge including in South Australia, where the former Liberal Government planned to introduce a charge for plug-in electric and other zero emission vehicles, which included a fixed component and a variable charge based on distance travelled. It was later pushed back to 2027 due to a backlash before the legislation was ultimately repealed. 'Gold standard' for reform Some experts argue the gold standard for reform is a variable rate that factors in the vehicle's mass, distance travelled, location, and time of day. But there's a big barrier to the Commonwealth imposing those charges because the Constitution prohibits it from imposing taxes that discriminate between states or parts of states.
News.com.au
6 days ago
- Automotive
- News.com.au
Plans being fast-tracked for new road user charge for EV drivers
The free ride enjoyed by drivers of electric vehicles is coming to a close with Treasurer Jim Chalmers and state governments fast-tracking plans for a new road-user charge. The Treasurer 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. Now the government, state treasurers and industry experts are gathering to hold high-level talks on how a new road user charge will work ahead of next week's economic roundtable in Canberra. All Australian motorists who buy petrol and diesel at the bowser pay 51.6 cents a litre in fuel excise. Based on a planned NSW road user scheme, a national rollout will depend on your mileage but might cost between $300 and $400 a year. NSW officials have forecast $73 million in revenue from the road-user charge for the 2027-2028 financial year – increasing to $141 million the following 12 months. The Infrastructure Partnerships Australia road-user charging forum in Sydney this week will include officials from the NSW and Victorian Treasury departments, the Productivity Commission, Transurban chief executive Michelle Jablko and Australian Automobile Association managing director Michael Bradley. Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas said that electric vehicles are 'heavier and do more damage to the road network as a consequence than do internal combustion engine vehicles'. 'But there's an environmental plus to electric vehicles,'' he told The Australian. 'So getting that balance right was key to us. The way we figured it, (a road-user charge) came in about half of the equivalent costs of fuel excise and that's not counting the incentives the state was putting into the vehicle purchase or registration for low-emissions vehicles,' Mr Pallas added. The Productivity Commission has urged the Albanese government to take action over declining fuel excise revenue amid spiralling rising maintenance costs. 'By giving drivers a clear signal about the cost of infrastructure, they would have an incentive to use it more efficiently,' the Productivity Commission report said. The Treasurer has made no secret of his support for a shake-up of the current system before the election, raising the idea with business leaders in February. 'We will also continue to work with states and territories on the future of road-user charging,'' Dr Chalmers said in June. 'All of this represents a big agenda on the supply side of our economy. None of these reforms are simple.' How does fuel excise work? The current rate of fuel excise is 51.6 cents in excise for every litre of fuel purchased. For a typical household with a car running on petrol, the tax costs more than $1200 a year. But the flat sales tax isn't paid by drivers of pure electric vehicles, who simply need to plug in their cars to recharge. While registration and driver's licence fees go to state and territory governments, fuel excise is collected by the federal government. Australian motorists paid an estimated $15.71 billion in net fuel excise in 2023-24, and are expected to pay $67.6 billion over the four years to 2026-27. However, governments have long-warned that a road-user charge will be required to fill the gap in the budget left by declining revenue from the fuel excise, as the petrol and diesel engines in new cars consume less fuel and Australians adopt hybrid and electric cars. What does the AAA say? The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) is calling for a national approach to road-user charging but wants a guarantee the revenue will be earmarked for road upgrades. The AAA backs a distance-based road-user charging as a fairer and more equitable way to fund land transport infrastructure. The 2024 federal budget forecasted a reduction in fuel excise receipts by $470 million over four years from 2024-25. Roadblocks to reform Currently, New South Wales is the only state with firm plans to introduce a road-user charge from 2027 or when EVs reach 30 per cent of new car sales. Plug-in hybrid EVs will be charged a fixed 80 per cent proportion of the full road-user charge to reflect their vehicle type. Western Australia has also stated an intention to implement a road-user charge. Meanwhile, Victoria's electric vehicle levy had to be scrapped following a ruling from the High Court. Two Victorian electric car owners launched a legal challenge on the basis the tax was not legal as it was an excise that only a federal government could impose. They won with the High Court upholding the legal challenge. There have been several false starts to enshrine a road-user charge including in South Australia, where the former Liberal Government planned to introduce a charge for plug-in electric and other zero emission vehicles, which included a fixed component and a variable charge based on distance travelled. It was later pushed back to 2027 due to a backlash before the legislation was ultimately repealed. 'Gold standard' for reform Some experts argue the gold standard for reform is a variable rate that factors in the vehicle's mass, distance travelled, location, and time of day. But there's a big barrier to the Commonwealth imposing those charges because the Constitution prohibits it from imposing taxes that discriminate between states or parts of states. State governments could impose those levies, but as the experience of the Victorian Government underlines, it is legally complex.
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Maryland joins more legal actions against Trump, including a challenge to billions in grant cuts
Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought is one of 12 federal agency directors named in a new federal lawsuit filed by Democratic state attorneys general contesting abrupt funding cuts to state governments, research institutions, universities and nonprofits. (Photo by) Maryland joined two more legal challenges to the Trump administration Tuesday, one to defend a specific minority business program and another to challenge a sweeping legal maneuver the White House has used to terminate billions in federal funding. The legal actions, like many against the administration, were filed by Democratic attorneys general and governors from 20 or more states and the District of Columbia. They are the latest of about two dozen such suits that Maryland has joined since President Donald Trump took office. The states filed a friend of the court brief in a federal case in Kentucky that Maryland Attorney General Brown called a 'backdoor attempt to dismantle' the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program in federal contracting. The lawsuit targets the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal departments and agencies for what it calls their unlawful use of 'a single subclause buried in federal regulations' to cut 'billions of dollars of federal funding' to the states. That subclause says a congressionally approved grant can be canceled for a handful of reasons, including if the grant 'no longer effectuates … agency priorities.' OMB originally interpreted that to apply when new evidence showed that a grant was ineffective or not feasible. It was not to 'terminate grants arbitrarily.' But that's what OMB has done since Trump took office, says the suit that was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts. OMB now claims that that five-word clause 'permits agencies to terminate grant awards when the agency simply changes its mind.' Electric shock: Maryland has not joined suit against Trump over EV sales rules Under that interpretation of the regulation, Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency directed federal agencies, including all of those listed in the lawsuit, to cut billions in grants that were already awarded in what the lawsuit described as a 'slash-and-burn campaign.' In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Brown's office said that in Maryland these cuts have targeted funding for STEM research, food purchasing programs that support underserved communities and modernization of the state's unemployment insurance systems. The lawsuit is asking the court to rule that the OMB clause doesn't 'independently authorize the Trump administration to terminate funding based on agency priorities that were identified after the grant was awarded.' Alternatively, the lawsuit seeks to overturn the Trump administration's decision to terminate billions of dollars in federal funding 'based on purported changes in agency priorities.' 'The Trump administration cannot unilaterally cut federal funding that Congress has already approved simply to serve its political agenda,' Brown said in a statement Tuesday. 'We will not stand by while Maryland families lose access to healthy, affordable food or our universities are stripped of critical research funding.' The challenge to the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program stems from a lawsuit filed by two highway contractors in 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. They argued that the program violates the Constitution's equal protection clause by mandating a certain amount of funds be reserved for woman- or minority-owned businesses. The program, founded in 1983, aims to ensure nondiscrimination in the awarding of contracts and has steered billions in federal transportation and infrastructure contracts to minority- and woman-owned businesses. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises include firms that are classified as a small business, majority owned by women, minorities or other socially and economically disadvantaged adults, and are run day-to-day by women or minorities. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE The federal government, under former President Joe Biden, initially opposed the lawsuit. But after President Donald Trump was returned to office in January, the government switched its position and now sides with the highway contractors, according to the brief. The administration asked the court to issue a consent order which 'could restrict or eliminate' the program across the country, according to a statement on Tuesday from Brown's office. The brief argues that if the court were to grant the order requested by the federal government and the two highway contractors, it would be exceeding 'the proper role of the court in our adversarial system of government, because the parties requesting the order take the same position on the issues.' 'This so-called settlement is a backdoor attempt to dismantle a program that helps underrepresented businesses compete for federally funded transportation projects,' Brown said in a separate statement Tuesday. 'We're fighting to protect fair access, strengthen our infrastructure, and ensure these investments benefit all of our communities.'
Bloomberg
11-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Senate GOP Clashes With House on Food Aid Cuts in Trump Tax Bill
Senate Republicans are planning to water down House legislation that would shift as much as a quarter of the cost of federal food stamps to state governments to help pay for Donald Trump's massive tax and spending package, a key senator said Wednesday. The Senate version of the tax legislation will change the cost-shifting provision to make it less burdensome on state governments, Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman said in an interview.
Washington Post
13-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Proposed GOP cuts could jeopardize SNAP users, farmers and state budgets
The federal government has fully paid for benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program since it was first created in 1939 as a way to fight food insecurity amid the Great Depression. But now, Republicans in Congress are looking into forcing states to pay for 5 to 25 percent of SNAP funding in a move experts warn could force state governments to remove individuals from the food assistance program, leave local budgets with massive shortfalls and hurt the food producers and retailers that serve them.
