Federal Government says it is “closely considering” charging drivers per kilometre t

[EBII Fairmont]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Jump to conclusions much?

This is an idea! not a policy nor law. With something this complex it would have to go through major industry and public debate, review and consultation before being introduced then pass both houses. There is no way any government would be stupid enough to add it on top of already existing taxes levies or similar. To be honest I don't think any Government would be stupid enough to actually persue it given the cost of implementation and public outcry. These ****ers need to get reelected.

My commute is 5.5 km's return daily and I do it on a bike so Bring it on if it saves ME money.

JP

I hope you are right JP, but I have little confidence in these people who are in power. It's like in Melb with the East-West link. The details are thin and they are pushing through with it anyway. Tax payer money is constantly wasted on projects that aren't right the first time. It's like they are pushing through policies to help the few while the majority are left to foot the bill.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by EBII Fairmont

I hope you are right JP, but I have little confidence in these people who are in power. It's like in Melb with the East-West link. The details are thin and they are pushing through with it anyway. Tax payer money is constantly wasted on projects that aren't right the first time. It's like they are pushing through policies to help the few while the majority are left to foot the bill.

You are right there is a percieved imbalance in rightness and fairness when it comes to wealth distribution and opportunity as affected by policy. I don't know if its real or not but this idea is so big and all incompassing rather than just affecting the people of western Sydney.
My ME was sarcasm by the way.

JP

[Struggo]

Won't happen.

[my_gxl]

Has anyone else noticed that csv8 creates plenty of threads form 'quoted' sources, then sits back and watches the poo fly with no more input???

Plenty of people bag trolls. Surely internet trolls need be taxed so we can operate the NBN due to the number of posts they create??? Plenty of similarity there.

Originally Posted by csv8

"THE Federal Government says it is “closely considering” charging drivers per kilometre they travel in order to pay for roads.

A final report into infrastructure by the Productivity Commission has recommended pilot technical studies of how cars and light vehicles might be charged.

It recommends adopting telematics, which can monitor a vehicle’s location and movements in real time.

“The application of a charging mechanism created by rapidly changing communications technology appears promising,” the report says.



“Importantly, these trials would introduce direct user charges as a substitute for other taxes, such as the fuel excise.”

The report suggests each state and territory hold its own road fund to pay for new roads, upgrades and maintenance.

States and territories would be best placed to decide where money needed to be spent.

Despite Prime Minister Tony Abbott saying in March road-user charging was “unlikely to ever be adopted by any government”, Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs said the Government was considering all aspects of the report.


As if driving around Sydney is not bad enough, now motorists are being slugged even more to sit in traffic jams on our major motorways

Noting the majority of recommendations were relevant to state governments, Mr Briggs said the Government would consult with them before releasing its formal response.

He said issues relating to road-user charging would be considered as part of the Federal Government’s broader reform agenda.

“There are already a number of initiatives on user charging already under way,” Mr Briggs said.

That included consultation with motoring clubs and industry bodies on potential road-user charge models.

The fuel excise is due to rise twice yearly under a Budget proposal, but legislation has not yet passed Parliament."
http://www.news.com.au/national/vict...-1226988912045

[burnz]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

Jump to conclusions much?

This is an idea! not a policy nor law. With something this complex it would have to go through major industry and public debate, review and consultation before being introduced then pass both houses. There is no way any government would be stupid enough to add it on top of already existing taxes levies or similar. To be honest I don't think any Government would be stupid enough to actually persue it given the cost of implementation and public outcry. These ****ers need to get reelected.

My commute is 5.5 km's return daily and I do it on a bike so Bring it on if it saves ME money.

JP

government and the word stupid are like two peas in a pod.

they are and always will be used in one sentence.

[Vesper Martini]

Well they managed to introduce smart meters (for Power), which were supposed to make bills Cheaper..

[Maka]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

Has anyone else noticed that csv8 creates plenty of threads form 'quoted' sources, then sits back and watches the poo fly with no more input???

Plenty of people bag trolls. Surely internet trolls need be taxed so we can operate the NBN due to the number of posts they create??? Plenty of similarity there.

Imo a bit unfair really, csv8 creates discussion on AFF forums by posting all sorts of motoring info - maybe on this issue he's sitting on the fence?

My opinion on this issue is it wont happen, too complicated!

cheers, Maka

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Well they managed to introduce smart meters (for Power), which were supposed to make bills Cheaper..

Yeah imagine how expensive the power would be without them...

JP

[GasoLane]

I can only remember two things that State Governments have got right at first attempt.

The Adelaide GP and the Syd Olympics

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

Has anyone else noticed that csv8 creates plenty of threads form 'quoted' sources, then sits back and watches the poo fly with no more input???

Plenty of people bag trolls. Surely internet trolls need be taxed so we can operate the NBN due to the number of posts they create??? Plenty of similarity there.

What is the issue posting an item of news into the forum for discussion? Isn't that the whole purpose of a forum?

Does he need to have input or an opinion and why would he be considered a troll? Trolls only stir trouble by baiting others. I don't see how csv8 has done this.

Would like to hear more on this from you.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by Wretched

What is the issue posting an item of news into the forum for discussion? Isn't that the whole purpose of a forum?

No, No, No, that's where we are all going wrong. the purpose of AFF forums is to shout down anyone who disagrees, call them names, diminish their masculinity and question their ethics and sexuality. And I wont have it any other way!

JP

[Focusfan]

Diesel is already taxed to extreme to charge trucks for road maintenance.
Petrol is already taxed to extreme to charge driver for road maintenance.
20 Years ago roads were good. Pot holes were fixed within 48 hours. Highways were being redesigned and constructed all the time.
Now all these extra taxes and we have bad roads, pot holes take weeks to fix and still highway building goes on. Notice something. YES less money
is directed to road repairs despite extra taxes compared to 20 years ago.
Any guess where new taxes from charging drivers per klm would go.
Let me see. Pay rise 10% to pollies to start with. Maybe a new parliament
building with IPod connections in the walls so they can browse the net
a few hours a day between the one hour meetings. Will see.
Love these chances to bag a pollie.

[Crazy Dazz]

If the government wants to solve all their financial problems, and keep everyone happy, they should just abolish all other forms of revenue raising, and place a tax on sex.
Blokes who are getting it won't mind paying the tax, and the rest of us can enjoy the tax break.

[Guzz226]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

This per kilometre charge isn't just under consideration, planning and design is already under way. The way they see it, any costs associated with implementation and running it will be completely offset by the revenue it would bring in. Fuel excise will remain, and all the current registration structures will remain in place as is.

I don't have a source for this, it is a deduction based on precedent and knowing how the bureaucracy works. Remember, speed cameras were under consideration at one point, where are we now? Victoria alone has revenue from speed cameras as a budget item and is in the ballpark of $350 million per year.

And yet every day, we keep being told the system is working...

The number of speed cameras is a rounding error compared to the number of cars.

Logistically this is a non starter - depend on mileage - easily defeated. Fit electronic devices to cars? Thats a lot of retros that can be easily bypassed/modded to be ineffective.

If its about revenue they can get more or less the same income by jacking up fuel excise - an exisitng mechanism that grows automatically year on year as it is.

As others have said it is a pie in the sky conversation starter at best.

[xxx000]

csv8 needs to stop reading obviously purely speculative articles

[brismike]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

If the government wants to solve all their financial problems, and keep everyone happy, they should just abolish all other forms of revenue raising, and place a tax on sex.
Blokes who are getting it won't mind paying the tax, and the rest of us can enjoy the tax break.

Well I don't get any so sounds like a great idea to me lol.

[Maka]

Originally Posted by xxx000

csv8 needs to stop reading obviously purely speculative articles

Shooting the messenger much? The government says the policy is under active consideration, not Mr Dowling! Bit different hey

cheers, Maka

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by Maka

Shooting the messenger much? The government says the policy is under active consideration, not Mr Dowling! Bit different hey

cheers, Maka

no the quote was

Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs said the Government was considering all aspects of the report

so they're looking at everything contained in the report and not fixated or locked onto this per km charge that the article, and thereby this thread, infers.

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by Wretched

What is the issue posting an item of news into the forum for discussion? Isn't that the whole purpose of a forum?

Does he need to have input or an opinion and why would he be considered a troll? Trolls only stir trouble by baiting others. I don't see how csv8 has done this.

Would like to hear more on this from you.

The actual answer to my question is no.

The second paragraph in no way calls anyone anything. It makes an absurd statement just like the idea quoted by the OP.

Read what I write. Don't make up what I don't.

[Maka]

"The government says the policy* is under active consideration, not Mr Dowling! Bit different hey" & -

"no the quote was

Quote:
Assistant Infrastructure Minister Jamie Briggs said the Government was considering all aspects of the report"

I said considering first, so nah!

cheers, Maka

[Maka]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

The actual answer to my question is no.

The second paragraph in no way calls anyone anything. It makes an absurd statement just like the idea quoted by the OP.

Read what I write. Don't make up what I don't.

Shame that the first paragraph was there in the first place though.

cheers, Maka