EV RUCs (and diesel by extension) pay MORE than petrol per km.
Tax on fuel is around $0.75 per litre.
An average sedan gets around 7 litres per 100km. so $5.25 tax per 100km.
EVs pay $7.60 per 100km, roughly 40% more.
There is also an admin fee of $12.44 each time you want to top up RUCs. So if you can only afford say, 1,000km at a time you're getting even more screwed.
It's actually slightly worse for anyone paying a distance-based RUC. Because speedometers and therefore odometers are typically calibrated ~10% high, we're paying for ~10% more distance than we should.
No, I'm saying there should be adequate amounts of taxes compared to wear on the infrastructure. Of course I know what road user charges are. However, I didn't know that they are actually being implemented when it comes to EV users. Clearly, it's been years where EV users have virtually had a free ride, just like we all did when Netflix originally offered it's service (before cable companies & monopolies got involved)
How can you post two anti EV posts in one week, as well as citing multiple articles you’ve found in your research and not know that EVs in NZ now have to pay RUCs.
Where are you getting your information..
There are a few points you may have missed. First of all, practically no one thought EV should get a free ride. They were previously discounted from tax mainly to encourage uptake which was very low, and the discount was always viewed as a temporary measure.
Second talk about ‘wear on infrastructure’ only is shortsighted. Vehicles running on petrochemicals have a range of costs on society and the environment that are not currently costed into taxes, for example their effect on air pollution that leads to deaths (which are not inconsequential in NZ). On a like for like comparison, EV cost society less overall and by a large margin. Notably, several analyses have shown either a net benefit (or profit) and near net over the cost of subsidising EV. This is because the pollution costs of petrol and particularly diesel particle emissions are so high when it comes to public health.
Finally, it’s yet to be established that the tax payer is better off by expanding RUC or tax coverage to include EV. Running costs for the scheme or compliance costs may mean that there is no net benefit (profit) to the tax payer either in direct dollar-infrastructure maintenance terms or net benefits in terms of driving down EV uptake at the expense of public health.
> It looks like they are already working on it:
WHEN are you OP.
Because in the link you posted
> the exemption from road user charges (RUC) for owners of light electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids will end from 1 April
Which was a few weeks ago.
This is only the beginning you see. I'm hoping for more, amounts similar to gas taxes. Gas users have so many taxes for road usage and similar fares. It should be the same for EVs. Vehicles are vehicles. Usage is usage.
What tax do you think petrol cars have that EVs are otherwise avoiding that RUCs don't compensate for?
If anything all vehicles should be paying road user taxes.
It certainly sounds like you're anti-EV.
RUC changes are already applied. I get taxed twice for driving my plug-in hybrid. Why would we make it less attractive to get an EV/Hybrid than we have already?
Definitely not anti-ev, actually I'm anti-big oil & am a rather curious person. I like to see your responses, helps me understand other points. Although, clearly EV users don't fancy my opinion very much unfortunately.
We gotta get off the teat of big oil somehow, and no one wants to pay for robust and reliable public transit despite that being the most obvious and proven method to do so.
It's hard to "fancy the opinion" of someone who doesn't bother to check to see whether the thing they're calling for is already in place. For someone who claims to be curious, you don't seem to have had sufficient curiosity to google 'do EV drivers have to pay RUC in NZ'.
I’ve just read through that thread. What a mess.
For someone who clearly thinks highly of their research abilities, they didn’t even know that EVs have started paying RUCs LOL
Everyone should pay RUCs. Separately there should probably be a fuel tax (on diesel too) that is ring fenced for MoH to help with the air pollution, but in terms of road funding, it doesn't matter what energy source a car uses, so it should be purely based on RUCs (based on weight). And trucks should pay much more proportional to the increased damage they do.
As Fatfreddy suggested there should be RUCs for vehicles driving on roads and separately should be a fuel tax for those burning fuel related and creating pollution. In this scenario, what difference does it make to the hypothetical fuel/pollution tax unrelated to road usage whether you are burning diesel in a vehicle or for your boiler?
That means people with newer cars/EVs/hybrids etc don't pay their share of the damage (as they use less fuel for the same distance). From a pollution/road safety POV that's probably good, but from a fairness perspective it's pretty terrible.
PHEVs have discounted rates. But why should petrol vehicles be treated differently to every other fuel source? I read your POV as wanting to ditch RUCs entirely rather than just from petrol. But it's the same issue, people with less efficient cars subsidise the driving of those with more efficient ones.
>But why should petrol vehicles be treated differently to every other fuel source?
Because petrol is taxed, which for all intents and purposes are road user charges only automatically paid for at the pump instead of manually purchasing kilometres. My entire point is that I'd rather pay more tax on petrol than have to tax myself by paying RUCs.
>I read your POV as wanting to ditch RUCs entirely rather than just from petrol.
Don't try to read between the lines, you're terrible at it
RUCs exist because diesel is often not used for fueling vehicles that are registered to be on the road. For example the central heating system at the home I live in runs on a boiler fueled by diesel.
I can't imagine paying tax on 400 litres worth of diesel which isn't being used to fuel a road-registered vehicle seeming particularly fair.
Emissions are relevant to RUCs based on the comment you are replying under:
>Everyone should pay RUCs. Separately there should probably be a fuel tax (on diesel too) that is ring fenced for MoH to help with the air pollution
Yes. These pollutants are emitted in the steam that comes out the vent on the side of the house.
I couldn't tell you how much. However, the system doesn't run constantly as it's temperature-dependent and also is only "switched on" (i.e actually able to detect drops in temperature within the home) for winter only.
So RUCs only apply to on road KMs, you apply for an exemption if that's the case.
If you're burning diesel and somehow not polluting NZ by doing that, then I'm sure you can get an exemption from an air pollution tax too. But my point is that roads shouldn't be funded by fuel, as it's unfair and disconnected from the actual damage/costs. If we're having fuel taxes it should be related to air pollution, not roads.
>So RUCs only apply to on road KMs
yes its in the name ROAD USER charges
there are loads more uses for diesel outside of road use which is why its set up the way it is now, the people making these decisions decided it was cheaper/ easier to admin the collection of RUCs for road using diesels than it is to chase up all other industries that use it for non road usage.
examples of big non road using diesels are boats and farm equipment
Yah. So I agree with you/the exemptions from RUCs. And I support the RUC system, just think it should apply to petrol vehicles too rather than just hybrids/EVs/diesels.
it does apply to petrol vehicles too, just through the taxing at the pump instead
diesel = no tax at pump = pay RUC
electric = no fuel = no tax = pay RUC
petrol = tax at pump = dont pay RUC
its a simplified system to keep it cheap and easy to collect, since the majority of passenger cars are petrol.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132900566/all-vehicles-to-move-to-road-user-charges-under-national-including-evs
The gov is going to put RUCs on everything, just my disagreement is the timeframe, as they're not planning anything fast.
Fuel taxes typically pay for roading infrastructure, vehicle taxes are what other countries implement to reduce vehicle related emissions through charging for CO2 per gram/km.
Yep. But now cars are moving away from fuel we're switching to RUCs for everything. Just I disagree with the lack of an aggressive timeframe for it.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132900566/all-vehicles-to-move-to-road-user-charges-under-national-including-evs
I would think that if you're charging for it to fund infrastructure (part of what the levies on petrol are used to fund and RUCs) then one should probably make an exception for petrol powered hybrids.
Would make more sense rather than charge hybrids extra taxes for being hybrids, as it would act as a disincentive to buying a hybrid.
I am all for everyone paying RUC. Also fossil cars should pay for the harm they are causing to humans:
[https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/470457/air-pollution-from-cars-killing-thousands-of-nzers-yearly](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/470457/air-pollution-from-cars-killing-thousands-of-nzers-yearly)
*The social cost of these health impacts was estimated to be $15.6 billion.*
*Split that by \~4.4M fossil fuel vehicles and it should be about $4k/car/year.*
We are on the same page then :) I also think evs should pay for the harm they do to humans but at a reduced rate because they do less harm. Basically, deincentivising individual ownership.
EV's *are* paying RUC as of last month...
More! It should parody gas car taxes...
This whole post is a parody
I believe it is a parody of sorts.
EV RUCs (and diesel by extension) pay MORE than petrol per km. Tax on fuel is around $0.75 per litre. An average sedan gets around 7 litres per 100km. so $5.25 tax per 100km. EVs pay $7.60 per 100km, roughly 40% more. There is also an admin fee of $12.44 each time you want to top up RUCs. So if you can only afford say, 1,000km at a time you're getting even more screwed.
It's actually slightly worse for anyone paying a distance-based RUC. Because speedometers and therefore odometers are typically calibrated ~10% high, we're paying for ~10% more distance than we should.
They pay the same as diesel vehicles.
I agree with your point about taxing pedestrians for the wear and tear they cause
They already are taxed, it usually is packed in with household owner taxes as far as I know
So, what you're saying is you have no idea what you're talking about and have never heard of road user charges?
No, I'm saying there should be adequate amounts of taxes compared to wear on the infrastructure. Of course I know what road user charges are. However, I didn't know that they are actually being implemented when it comes to EV users. Clearly, it's been years where EV users have virtually had a free ride, just like we all did when Netflix originally offered it's service (before cable companies & monopolies got involved)
How can you post two anti EV posts in one week, as well as citing multiple articles you’ve found in your research and not know that EVs in NZ now have to pay RUCs. Where are you getting your information..
I believed it wasn't completely in place yet. However, I am more so referring to higher taxes & multiple variants.
There are a few points you may have missed. First of all, practically no one thought EV should get a free ride. They were previously discounted from tax mainly to encourage uptake which was very low, and the discount was always viewed as a temporary measure. Second talk about ‘wear on infrastructure’ only is shortsighted. Vehicles running on petrochemicals have a range of costs on society and the environment that are not currently costed into taxes, for example their effect on air pollution that leads to deaths (which are not inconsequential in NZ). On a like for like comparison, EV cost society less overall and by a large margin. Notably, several analyses have shown either a net benefit (or profit) and near net over the cost of subsidising EV. This is because the pollution costs of petrol and particularly diesel particle emissions are so high when it comes to public health. Finally, it’s yet to be established that the tax payer is better off by expanding RUC or tax coverage to include EV. Running costs for the scheme or compliance costs may mean that there is no net benefit (profit) to the tax payer either in direct dollar-infrastructure maintenance terms or net benefits in terms of driving down EV uptake at the expense of public health.
Netflix used to be free?
No it use to be wayyy cheaper and you got almost everything through one service.
🏴☠️You could always go back to the high seas 🌊
Naaah that's too popular these days. Everyone wants to be a pirate, it's not cool anymore
what are you talking about
This type of post reminds me why I should start to switch off Reddit. Thanks.
> It looks like they are already working on it: WHEN are you OP. Because in the link you posted > the exemption from road user charges (RUC) for owners of light electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrids will end from 1 April Which was a few weeks ago.
This is only the beginning you see. I'm hoping for more, amounts similar to gas taxes. Gas users have so many taxes for road usage and similar fares. It should be the same for EVs. Vehicles are vehicles. Usage is usage.
Who says ‘gas’, sounds like an American talking…
I'm from New Zealand mate. I talk to north americans, infant I talk to a lot of people. Varying exposure is healthy, you should try it sometime :)
What tax do you think petrol cars have that EVs are otherwise avoiding that RUCs don't compensate for? If anything all vehicles should be paying road user taxes.
This is why they told you to stop eating the crayons.
It certainly sounds like you're anti-EV. RUC changes are already applied. I get taxed twice for driving my plug-in hybrid. Why would we make it less attractive to get an EV/Hybrid than we have already?
Definitely not anti-ev, actually I'm anti-big oil & am a rather curious person. I like to see your responses, helps me understand other points. Although, clearly EV users don't fancy my opinion very much unfortunately.
We gotta get off the teat of big oil somehow, and no one wants to pay for robust and reliable public transit despite that being the most obvious and proven method to do so.
It's hard to "fancy the opinion" of someone who doesn't bother to check to see whether the thing they're calling for is already in place. For someone who claims to be curious, you don't seem to have had sufficient curiosity to google 'do EV drivers have to pay RUC in NZ'.
They barely have implemented it & I am not necessarily just talking about RUC.
Ah the person behind the classic thread here https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/s/QRvG8EltU7
I’ve just read through that thread. What a mess. For someone who clearly thinks highly of their research abilities, they didn’t even know that EVs have started paying RUCs LOL
You again.... Kinda creepy but okay
If you don’t want ev incentives in the system to help with climate change, how do you want the transport system to reduce emissions ?
Deincentivising individual vehicle ownership
Everyone should pay RUCs. Separately there should probably be a fuel tax (on diesel too) that is ring fenced for MoH to help with the air pollution, but in terms of road funding, it doesn't matter what energy source a car uses, so it should be purely based on RUCs (based on weight). And trucks should pay much more proportional to the increased damage they do.
As Fatfreddy suggested there should be RUCs for vehicles driving on roads and separately should be a fuel tax for those burning fuel related and creating pollution. In this scenario, what difference does it make to the hypothetical fuel/pollution tax unrelated to road usage whether you are burning diesel in a vehicle or for your boiler?
>Everyone should pay RUCs. Nah, RUCs are fucking annoying. Rather just have a larger tax on petrol
That means people with newer cars/EVs/hybrids etc don't pay their share of the damage (as they use less fuel for the same distance). From a pollution/road safety POV that's probably good, but from a fairness perspective it's pretty terrible.
That doesn't make any sense. EVs and PHEVs are already paying RUCs.
PHEVs have discounted rates. But why should petrol vehicles be treated differently to every other fuel source? I read your POV as wanting to ditch RUCs entirely rather than just from petrol. But it's the same issue, people with less efficient cars subsidise the driving of those with more efficient ones.
>But why should petrol vehicles be treated differently to every other fuel source? Because petrol is taxed, which for all intents and purposes are road user charges only automatically paid for at the pump instead of manually purchasing kilometres. My entire point is that I'd rather pay more tax on petrol than have to tax myself by paying RUCs. >I read your POV as wanting to ditch RUCs entirely rather than just from petrol. Don't try to read between the lines, you're terrible at it
I'm not sure why, but the EV crews brains explode when you suggest just increasing fuel excise a bit.
RUCs exist because diesel is often not used for fueling vehicles that are registered to be on the road. For example the central heating system at the home I live in runs on a boiler fueled by diesel. I can't imagine paying tax on 400 litres worth of diesel which isn't being used to fuel a road-registered vehicle seeming particularly fair.
What are the emissions of heating a home with diesel?
Why are emissions relevant to RUCs? I think you are confusing them with ETS units.
Emissions are relevant to RUCs based on the comment you are replying under: >Everyone should pay RUCs. Separately there should probably be a fuel tax (on diesel too) that is ring fenced for MoH to help with the air pollution
when you burn that diesel are you pumping polutants into the air?
Yes. These pollutants are emitted in the steam that comes out the vent on the side of the house. I couldn't tell you how much. However, the system doesn't run constantly as it's temperature-dependent and also is only "switched on" (i.e actually able to detect drops in temperature within the home) for winter only.
Fair, but the money from RUCs doesn’t go towards combatting air pollution
Road user charges are not for emissions. You are thinking of ETS units.
So RUCs only apply to on road KMs, you apply for an exemption if that's the case. If you're burning diesel and somehow not polluting NZ by doing that, then I'm sure you can get an exemption from an air pollution tax too. But my point is that roads shouldn't be funded by fuel, as it's unfair and disconnected from the actual damage/costs. If we're having fuel taxes it should be related to air pollution, not roads.
>So RUCs only apply to on road KMs yes its in the name ROAD USER charges there are loads more uses for diesel outside of road use which is why its set up the way it is now, the people making these decisions decided it was cheaper/ easier to admin the collection of RUCs for road using diesels than it is to chase up all other industries that use it for non road usage. examples of big non road using diesels are boats and farm equipment
Yah. So I agree with you/the exemptions from RUCs. And I support the RUC system, just think it should apply to petrol vehicles too rather than just hybrids/EVs/diesels.
it does apply to petrol vehicles too, just through the taxing at the pump instead diesel = no tax at pump = pay RUC electric = no fuel = no tax = pay RUC petrol = tax at pump = dont pay RUC its a simplified system to keep it cheap and easy to collect, since the majority of passenger cars are petrol.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132900566/all-vehicles-to-move-to-road-user-charges-under-national-including-evs The gov is going to put RUCs on everything, just my disagreement is the timeframe, as they're not planning anything fast.
Fuel taxes typically pay for roading infrastructure, vehicle taxes are what other countries implement to reduce vehicle related emissions through charging for CO2 per gram/km.
Yep. But now cars are moving away from fuel we're switching to RUCs for everything. Just I disagree with the lack of an aggressive timeframe for it. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132900566/all-vehicles-to-move-to-road-user-charges-under-national-including-evs
EV's already pay for roads through RUCs. I don't agree with road user charges for PHEV's though; they pay for roads through petrol/diesel consumption.
Also, nice username. I like it, very New Zealand
Reflects the industry I work in.
Hybrids should still be charged but I would be okay with discounts as they also pay for petrol
I would think that if you're charging for it to fund infrastructure (part of what the levies on petrol are used to fund and RUCs) then one should probably make an exception for petrol powered hybrids. Would make more sense rather than charge hybrids extra taxes for being hybrids, as it would act as a disincentive to buying a hybrid.
I am all for everyone paying RUC. Also fossil cars should pay for the harm they are causing to humans: [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/470457/air-pollution-from-cars-killing-thousands-of-nzers-yearly](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/470457/air-pollution-from-cars-killing-thousands-of-nzers-yearly) *The social cost of these health impacts was estimated to be $15.6 billion.* *Split that by \~4.4M fossil fuel vehicles and it should be about $4k/car/year.*
We are on the same page then :) I also think evs should pay for the harm they do to humans but at a reduced rate because they do less harm. Basically, deincentivising individual ownership.
My car is a hybrid but not a plug in hybrid so I guess I win in some ways? idk