There is no more reason why the Government should tax fuel than that it should tax bread, carrots or circuses. It's an arbitrary tax, most of the money from which goes into the protection of the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Judging from the state of the Pacific Highway it's not going there!

The Rod Laver government, having smarmed it's way into power on the votes of working families has shut it's ears to their cries. It's developed a deaf ear very early on in its encumbancy.

Petrol's up, food's up - it costs $29.95 for a kilogram of crumbed cutlets for chrissakes! This government doesn't care that the Reserve Bank then puts up the price of money, punishing us twice for something we didn't do. It doesn't understand that higher prices for some goods reduces the ability of people to buy others. It doesn't understand that 'inflation' is being caused by a global economy and drought - influences outside of the control of those dreadful spendthrift working families.

I've got a very big amber light on that Swan. And I'll bet a tanner that Tanner is going to keep his head below the parapet for the next few months.

Only six month's gone and this Government's out of touch. Every time I see a photo of Kevin Rudd he's in a play school - instead of being at his desk.

For the first time in 40 years I didn't vote for the Labor Party because I knew this would happen. Latham, for all his faults summed Rudd up pretty well and he's maintained the form.

Don't ask what your Government can do for you.

Amongst other things, John Howard lost government because of some small symbolic things that he refused to do. This Government is going down the same track, only 11 years earlier.

Frank
Actually, there are lots of good reason to tax fuel more than bread or carrots. People who drive need roads to drive on, their vehicles emit pollution and they cause congestion and accidents. All of these impose costs on the wider community in ways that carrot-eating does not. If the costs that drivers impose cannot be recovered from them directly (e.g. through toll-roads or insurance premiums) then it is appropriate and fair to recover them indirectly, through fuel taxes, licence fees etc.

But this shouldn’t mean open slather – the taxes should be proportional to the costs imposed

I'd like to see where these fuel taxes go, because I agree with Frank_Blunt and I'm convinced at the moment they amount to theft for the most part. Remember you pay all sorts of other related taxes to road usage and vehicles.

"There is no more reason why the Government should tax fuel than that it should tax bread, carrots or circuses. It's an arbitrary tax, most of the money from which goes into the protection of the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Judging from the state of the Pacific Highway it's not going there!

There are very good reasons, and it is not an arbitrary tax. The tax on fuel does not even cover what the government spends on building and maintaining roads. Yet fuel consumption is the strongest predictor of road use and wear. Fuel taxes should be increased to cover the full roads budget, then increased to cover CO2 emissions, then increased to raise some revenue in the same way that other products do.

"it costs $29.95 for a kilogram of crumbed cutlets for chrissakes!

Only a fool would pay that much. I get rump and roo mince for $6/kg and chicken for a lot less.

"This government doesn't care that the Reserve Bank then puts up the price of money, punishing us twice for something we didn't do. It doesn't understand that higher prices for some goods reduces the ability of people to buy others. It doesn't understand that 'inflation' is being caused by a global economy and drought - influences outside of the control of those dreadful spendthrift working families.

Inflation is only partly caused by global commodities. The resernve bank understands this and takes it into account.

Rhian, fuel taxes are the most direct way to recover costs. Tolls are an indirect and inefficient method. You should pay for road use, regarldless of which roads you use.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html

We tax fuel for a lot of reasons.
Not just building roads or keeping them up to date.
In fact could we fund education, health, social security and much more without fuel tax?
If we did not tax fuel would we look for better or new fuels?
Why has the author not looked at the impacts on the environment if fuel was so cheap?
Our country has not many more tax payers than New York City, yet we are not doing too bad fuel is no simple problem to fix but this is no answer.
We should however spend more fuel tax on researching new fuels cheaper fuels.

Freediver
I agree with most of your comments, but would prefer direct charging to fuel taxes if it can be done efficiently, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, some roads are more costly to build and maintain than others – the drivers who impose the biggest costs should pay the most.

Second, direct charging allows other costs besides road maintenance to be captured, such as varying charges by time of day to deter congestion and/or excessive pollution. Toll roads are a fairly crude way to capture this, but better than fuel taxes. Maybe in future we could electronically tag cars and automatically charge them according to where and when they travel – great for economic efficiency, though I’m nervous about the big-brother-ish implications.