@BaconWrappedEnigma , yes.
It's another thumb screw to squeeze ever more taxes from those who can barely/not afford it anymore.
An ill thought through action from a government we already know gives a damn about the environment and generally looks after the top of society and contrary to their statements cares neither for general business either.
Good solutions should take all these issues into account and find a way that serves the people.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Nah, the people you're talking about are driving old beaters that drink fuel, because that's all they can afford, and are paying far more per KM than anyone

70c/l at 10l per 100km is almost exactly the same as RUCs, which are $76 per 100km, but with a bigger overall bill, as an equivalent diesel would be somewhere in the 7l range.

[–] BaconWrappedEnigma@lemmy.nz 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's an interesting distinction you bring up. What is our goal? Do we want to ameliorate the plight of the poor with a fuel tax or RUCs? If that was the goal wouldn't a tax based on the age or price of the vehicle be more effective?

Personally, I was heavy vehicles and gas guzzling vehicle to be charge more because they:

put more wear of the roads
requie us to import more fossil fuels

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 days ago

We also don't want to give people an incentive to drive an old car either, because that's it's own set of problems.

There's also the fact that hybrids are typically heavier than a conventional power train, because of the extra equipment they carry around. These vehicles might end up paying more in RUCs as a result of this.

It's also worth noting some of the biggest and thirstiest vehicles on the road are people movers and SUVs, often driven by people with big families who need a large vehicle.

Charging by GVM is probably the fairest and simplest way to run the scheme.