A controversial proposal to means-test vehicle registration fees has divided Aussie readers.
Thousands of people have reacted to a bold pitch for high-income Australians to pay more than triple what lower-income people might for annual vehicle registrations.
Originally put forward by the EV Council and McKell Institute, the proposal suggests that lower income earners living in outer suburbs of capital cities should be given a break compared to wealthier people close to town.
McKell Institute chief executive Edward Cavanough said the existing taxation system, which taxes motorists based on how many litres of fuel they buy, was not fair.
“For example, a nurse driving from the outer suburbs to the hospital for a shift will pay far more fuel tax than a higher-income earner who lives close to their office,” he said.
MORE: Proposed road tax would target wealthy Australians
A reader poll that attracted thousands of votes found 25 per cent of respondents were in favour of rich people paying more to use the roads.
But 75 per cent were against the proposal, with some describing it as “ridiculous”, “stupid”, and “idiotic”.
That split was roughly reflected in more than 1000 comments responding to the idea on news pages and social media.
Some readers felt the push to charge higher road user fees to wealthy people was “plain old discrimination” that would “punish those that work the hardest”.
MORE: Working class Aussies rush to EVs
Others pointed out that wealthy people “are more likely to own multiple vehicles, drive more often, and drive more expensive vehicles that attract luxury tax”, and already pay high taxes.
“What’s next? extra on your grocery bill because you earn more?”, one person wrote.
The proposal attracted criticism from people who felt that those who drive the furthest put the most wear and tear on the roads, and should therefore pay more.
“Those of us who live inner city 15 minute lives are helping us achieve net zero while suburban and rural types are not,” one person said.
“It’s only fair the latter pay more as a result.”
MORE: New EV bill could be charged to every Aussie
More than a few people felt the current system works well.
“The Fuel Excise system is objectively fair,” one person said.
“A small lightweight vehicle does less damage to roads per km but if you drive it far enough it eventually racks up enough to have some appreciable damage.
“A small light vehicle is inherently fuel efficient so the ‘tax’ per km is low.
“A heavy vehicle does appreciable damage to roads per km and heavier vehicles use inherently more fuel so the per km “tax” is higher.
“Fuel excise is an inherently FAIR way to pay for road infrastructure.”
Some felt that road user charges “should be scaled to suit the person”.
“A speeding fine which might have some people struggling to put food on the table would be barely to others.”
“Road based fines, speeding, parking and the like, should also be levied as a proportion of income so the fine has similar impact and disincentive to behave antisocially,” another person said.
Naturally, the think tank’s proposal drew larrikin responses from some readers.
Michael said rich people stung with fresh fees will “just use their helicopters more often”, while Tory said they would “happily pay that if it means I get a special rich lane to avoid all the congestion”.
