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.

I agree with you Frank.Kevin Rudd's office is run by two 28 yr olds and according to the Australian,in total chaos.The script reads like a Get Smart spoof.He has got the the public service off side,and secret agent Kevin 737 is on a mission to save the planet from nuclear weaponry.

Kevin 737 has spent too much time in the cone of silence flying around the planet and the evil chaos is out to get him,only Kevin doesn't realise that it was that it was his own Dept who created Chaos in the cone of silence.

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of secret agent super Kev 737.Faster than a speeding bull$hit,more powerful than an introspective,able to leap to tall conclusions in a single bound!

Arjay that post do you want to be judged by it?
I can think of others who could have posted it but truly did not think you could.
Are you aware fuel tax has not changed under Rudd?
That we pay at the very same rates we did under Howard?
Are you not aware only a fraction of what we pay is spent on roads?
That indeed much is funneled into other things.
What section of the country's wellbeing would suffer funding cuts in your tax less plan?
I think you however highlight a conservative fault, complaining about ALP policy's they would not change themselves if in power.
Hugely uninformed that post.
Please inform us how you would fill the black hole no tax on fuel would give us who suffers first?

I know you had high hopes belly, but its now time to face the facts. The man is a twit.
He has had his mouth in gear & running, ever since elected. If he ever engages his brain, I'm afraid you will find its a 1950s two stroke motor mower power unit, & pretty useless for larger tasks.

Working out what to do, & how to do it, is way beyond this bloke. Hard times are a-coming, & this bloke is all at sea, without a rudder, [sorry about that]. Bad as they may be, fuel taxes will be the least of our worries, with this dill in charge.

Belly,
'Are you aware fuel tax has not changed under Rudd?
That we pay at the very same rates we did under Howard?
Are you not aware only a fraction of what we pay is spent on roads?
That indeed much is funneled into other things.'

So why did we change government? None of the above has changed (ie business as usual).
Age-discrimination in military superannuation pensions hasn't changed.
Wayne Swan won't even reply to my correspondence on that over the last six months (at least Costello's department replied even if to refuse to fix it).

I think that you were justified in having high hopes for Rudd before he was elected but, now that he has failed us, don't be an apologist for him. He's just a Mr Nobody - as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike or a chocolate fireplace.

Hasbeen has Rudd's character to a 'T'.

"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.

But it can't be done efficiently. You cannot charge people a higher toll if they've got a bootfull of steel, or if they put their foot down and brake too much. But you will get that in a fuel tax.

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

The people who use the biggest, most expensive roads should generally be paying less, not more. That's because the most expensive roads have the highest traffic and are thus used most efficiently. The roads that really cost the most on a per use basis are the small rural roads. Again, taxes will internalise this far better than tolls.

"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.

Pollution is pollution regardless of when it is emitted. We breathe 24 hours a day.

"Maybe in future we could electronically tag cars and automatically charge them according to where and when they travel – great for economic efficiency

It is less economically efficient than fuel taxes. Fuel taxes require no extra infrastructure. Tag systems require massive investments in infrastructure and bureaucracy.

"Are you not aware only a fraction of what we pay is spent on roads?
That indeed much is funneled into other things.

Can you back this up Belly?

"So why did we change government? None of the above has changed (ie business as usual).

I'm hoping Rudd will put up the price of fuel and electricity.

Well if the ones bashing Rudd support the Liberal party they will not receive any sympathy from me. After the Liberals contempt for Australians imprisoned and tortured overseas by our allies and their support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, they are no better. This constant oscillation between the major parties that are almost identical is asinine because they are now so similar it makes little difference whom we elect.

Belly the Ruddster has run out of puff and yet his honeymoon period has just ended.He should not have kept the subsidy for for LPG conversions since this would have taken the pressure off "working families",but no,vindictive Kev just terminates any good policies left by the Coalition to prove a point.The man is a fool.He does not listen to common sense.Mark Latham thinks likewise.The Cliche Kid will destroy Aust just like Carr and Iemma have done to NSW.

Steel, although I bashed Rudd, I have no love for the other side.

Like you, I also see both parties as 'almost identical '.

In fact I haven't seen a politician in recent years that I wouldn't scrape off the sole of my shoe with a stick. They are all filth. They are money-grabbing, uncaring, selfish, greedy oxygen thieves.

Freediver you jest surely?
Sit down and add up the tax you pay annually on fuel just you.
Consider one single interstate transport truck and how much it uses.
Such trucks can travel 5.000 klm a week.
Yes I can back it up even you can if you look we pay many bills with fuel tax moneys.
And yes like it or not a huge hole in our economy would be formed if we did not tax fuel.
We however pay too much tax on our fuel.
All party's have overlooked the impacts of high priced fuel.
NONE are fair dinkum about enforcing better economy from our cars , exploring for new fuels.
Like NSW and poker machines our ivory tower dwelling Polly's are addicted to tax, so is our economy.
However the thought Rudd is finished? come laugh with me its a great grin.
Typical of a conservative movement that has not yet come to terms with its self destruction.
Only they could think it.
The polls read the polls if we held an election today.
Right now.
Rudd would win an even bigger margin.
As I leave for work I feel warm and comfortable , not a warm jumper in this 2 below morning.
The so very wrong thought conservatives just have to wait, not work for a return to power is hugely funny.

"Yes I can back it up even you can if you look we pay many bills with fuel tax moneys.

Then back it up. That sounds more like an uneducated guess to me. Yes we pay a lot of fuel tax. Did you also realise that roads cost a lot of money?

"Such trucks can travel 5.000 klm a week.

What's your point here?

"All party's have overlooked the impacts of high priced fuel.

No they haven't. They have considered it and put the high taxes on because it makes sense. Lowering fuel taxes may win a few votes, but it is bad for the economy.

"NONE are fair dinkum about enforcing better economy from our cars , exploring for new fuels.

Yes they are. The most economically efficient way to improve economy is to hike up fuel taxes. There are plenty of vehicles around that are far more economical than the average aussie vehicle, even for the same carrying capacity. People should be free to choose a gas guzzler, so long as they pay for the impact. Mandatory efficiency standards are a dumb idea from an economic perspective.

freediver>"The most economically efficient way to improve economy is to hike up fuel taxes."

Yes because price inflation and high taxation is a good thing for millions of Australians (sarcasm).

You don't ahve to icnrease the total tax burden. There are plenty of arbitrary taxes which can (and should) be reduced to compensate. This will also offset the inflationary impacts.

There is almost universal consensus among economists that this is the way to go. Any other scheme also has costs. It's just that they are hidden.

Freediver
You say “pollution is pollution”, but this is not quite right. Air concentrations and vehicle speeds matter, so the social harm inflicted by yet another vehicle joining an already-congested peak-hour urban road is greater than the lone driver on a freeway at midnight or a remote country road.

A proper user pays system that recovered costs from drivers would indeed have drivers on the most efficient roads paying less than others. Long, under-used and over-engineered regional roads cost a lot to build and maintain, but are politically favoured precisely because the people who benefit from them don’t carry the cost of building an maintaining them.

"You say “pollution is pollution”, but this is not quite right. Air concentrations and vehicle speeds matter, so the social harm inflicted by yet another vehicle joining an already-congested peak-hour urban road is greater than the lone driver on a freeway at midnight or a remote country road.

Fuel taxes with capture this, because fuel consumption (and thus tax incurred) will be higher when you drive during peak hour. They will capture it far more effectively than an arbitrary 'peak hour tax' with arbitrary boundaries and arbitrary start and finish times.

"A proper user pays system that recovered costs from drivers would indeed have drivers on the most efficient roads paying less than others. Long, under-used and over-engineered regional roads cost a lot to build and maintain, but are politically favoured precisely because the people who benefit from them don’t carry the cost of building an maintaining them.

A fuel tax will capture that also. A long trip on a country raod will incur far more tax than a short trip in the city.

A fuel tax will capture all of these things in a way that tolls could not even come close to. It will do so without any extra infrastructure. It will charge people according to how much they use the roads, not how many tolls they pass through.

freediver, What is the point of increasing one tax and offsetting it with a reduction in others? People will have more money to use to buy fuel...which will negate the consumption.

Or are you for example proposing the reduction of taxes which only a few wealthy people pay and making fuel costs higher so the rest of Australia pays more tax on behalf of the wealthy, who start to pay no taxes?

"freediver, What is the point of increasing one tax and offsetting it with a reduction in others?

The point is to change patterns of consumption.

"People will have more money to use to buy fuel...which will negate the consumption.

It will reduce consumption. They will not have more money, they will have roughly the same amount, because one tax goes up and one goes down. The extra money they get from the reduction in the other tax is not for the purpose of buying fuel. They can spend it on anything they like. Only an idiot would buy the same amount of fuel. If the price of fuel goes up and everything else goes down, fuel consumption will go down. Its about as basic as you can get in economics.

"Or are you for example proposing the reduction of taxes which only a few wealthy people pay and making fuel costs higher so the rest of Australia pays more tax on behalf of the wealthy, who start to pay no taxes?

No. In fact, if a consumption tax is designed to be avoided, it will most likely be carried disproportionately by the wealthy, because they will be less sensitive to it. In any case, the corresponding tax reduction *should* be designed so as to alter neither the total tax burden nor the distribution of wealth. In the short term this may not happen, but in the long term the total burden and it's relative distribution will always be adjusted independently of non-arbitrary taxes through normal political means.

There is one flaw in your "most basic economics". Fuel is a necessity (particularly in Australia-you must be a city dweller), even more so than most foods.

Free diver you are so crimson wrong! for my whole lifetime national roads groups have asked why is so little of fuel tax being returned to roads and you say an educated ques?
22 years building and fixing existing roads now union official looking after those that construct them how would I know anything about them?
My point? how many trucks travel our roads every week?
How much tax is paid by just one that uses so much fuel?
Both now and in my past job training never stopped, not so very long ago we spent less than half of what we spend now on roads, even now we do not spend as much as we take in surely you do understand that?
And do you understand Australia is not just its city's?
That some school children this morning and again tonight travel more each way to school than some city folk travel in a month?
That farm fuel bills are crippling those who pay them?
No silly story's about trains carrying our freight please the lines do not exist in most places.
Fuel tax's do you Freediver know how much tax we each pay for one single unit of fuel?
Do you know how much fuel this country uses each week?
If you are right and I am wrong why is the Pacific highway in parts still a death trap and goat track?
I truly honestly can not believe an adult is not aware we do not spend all fuel tax on roads.

TAX,TAX,TAX!......that is all we seem to hear! It is all just a slick way of making money for nothing, and we are rapidly reaching the situation where we will soon be one of the most expensive countries in the world to live in!

Nobody needs to be paying Fuel Tax, simply because we could and should be all driving Hydrogen powered vehicles, which when equipped with their own Hydrogen producing cell run on water, ( with no pollution )!

Why are we NOT doing this now you ask?......simply because the big money makers out there,....the Oil Companies, the Refineries, the fuel Distibutors and most of all the Governments, do NOT want a power source that is derived from the garden tap!.....( at least not yet, until the current Fuel/Oil cow has been milked dry!)

Without any shadow of a doubt we will see the miracle of self-contained Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles sometime in the future, but not until the rapidly increasingly valued water reaches cost levels which will be close to the cost levels of the fossil fuels that we are now
using ( and getting increasingly angry about!)

The Automobile industry has the expertize to build a self-contained
Hydrogen powered vehicle which will run on water, but as usual prefers not to.....and you don`t have to put too much thought into the reasons why! This revolutionary power source is being denied from the population because nobody can make money (after the initial purchase price and ongoing road fees) from a vehicle that can filled from the garden tap!......remember what has happened to all the genuine fuel-saving devices and innovations in the years gone by?....all gobbled up and hidden away by the self interest groups who simply refused to accept less profit, in the long term helping to continue the ever-increasing problem of pollution, whilst maintaining their own profits and in the Governments case maintaining a relatively fail safe Fuel Tax Revenue base!

Where have all the honest people in this world disappeared to?....there certainly aren`t many skulking around the corridors of power in this country!

Sorry, that stupid post limit got me again. Bring it up on OzPolitic if you don't want to have to wait a few days to finish this.

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

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168051896

"Fuel is a necessity... even more so than most foods.

Wrong. Food is a necessity. Fossil fuels are not. We got by without them in the past and we can again in the future. Lets think about this rationally. We could not completely eliminate food. We would starve. We could completely eliminate fossil fuels. We would just replace them with more expensive renewable alternatives. The cost would be high, but not as high as not being able to eat.

Furthermore, we consume far more fuel than we need to. We basically waste a lot of it. We drive very inefficient vehicles, simply because the price of fuel has gone down relative to other things we spend our money on. We transport our goods long distances using less efficient, more costly emthods.

Finally, the issue of taxing to internalise the cost of roads has has nothing to do with whether something is a necessity. We need food, but only a communist thinks we should have it provided by the government. You pay for your food. You should pay for your roads to, and taxing fuel is the best way to charge people for roads. The fact that you 'need' something has never been an excuse to get it for free. In fact, our 'need' for fuel is a better reason to increase taxes, to stop people wasting it all before it starts to run out on us.

"Free diver you are so crimson wrong!

No, I am right. You are wrong.

"national roads groups have asked why is so little of fuel tax being returned to roads and you say an educated ques?

Are you the one who said you could back this up?

"22 years building and fixing .... how would I know anything about them?

You don't seem to have any idea of budgetary allocations across all areas of government. But why would you, just because of your job?

It seems pointless in some ways to talk about fuel tax when we could easily minimise our dependency on oil within a relatively short period of time. We have enormous gas reserves in this country - why are we selling it off at 4c a litre and then buying oil for a much higher price. Is it cynical to think 'vested interests'? Perhaps the current taxes on fuel could be diverted to improving public transport, building a better rail system, more bikepaths etc.

While acknowledging the good intentions behind reducing or eliminating fuel taxes, once you tax something it is very hard to get rid of it. If taxes are removed private interests will just raise the prices on the assumption that the punters are used to paying a particular price for a particular product. They make more profit - we lose tax dollars that would have gone to infrastrucutre and are still just as disadvantaged.

"My point? how many trucks travel our roads every week?
How much tax is paid by just one that uses so much fuel?

You still haven't made a point here.

"Both now and in my past job training never stopped, not so very long ago we spent less than half of what we spend now on roads, even now we do not spend as much as we take in surely you do understand that?

I understand what you are saying. I also understand that you cannot back it up, even though you claim ot be able to.

"And do you understand Australia is not just its city's?

Duh.

"That farm fuel bills are crippling those who pay them?
No silly story's about trains carrying our freight please the lines do not exist in most places.

Do you understand how capitalism works? Doing it tough is not a valid excuse for subsidies.

Cuphandle:

"Why are we NOT doing this now you ask?......simply because the big money makers out there,....the Oil Companies, the Refineries, the fuel Distibutors and most of all the Governments, do NOT want a power source that is derived from the garden tap!.....( at least not yet, until the current Fuel/Oil cow has been milked dry!)

No. It's because there are far cheaper ways to reduce emissions. They can only be accessed via price signals, not through direct government interference. We are not a communist country and should not try to become one every time a change is needed.

pelican:

"why are we selling it off at 4c a litre and then buying oil for a much higher price.

Is the price really higher? It's the energy content, not the colume that matters.

"If taxes are removed private interests will just raise the prices on the assumption that the punters are used to paying a particular price for a particular product.

Not true. Market forces would prevent such an arbitrary price increase. However, consumption would go up so the price drop would be less than the tax.

Freediver how many gallons of fuel do we use annually in Australia?
How much tax is paid on each gallon?
How much did we spend on roads in the same period?
My education while with the RTA told me roads and the money we spend on them have been a battle ground for 45 years maybe more.
In NSW a Labor state government introduced a 3 cents a litre extra tax for 3 years to build roads.
It was often said it was not spent on roads, the federal government now collects it after a court upheld a challenge.
The man who was to become the Hawk minister for roads traveled my highways full length meeting cameras road crews and me on the trip.
he told us we spent then less than half that fuel tax on roads.
We now spend very much more but nothing like all fuel tax on roads surely you know that?
General review gets fuel tax too.
IF government spent 10% of fuel tax on developing or funding the development of new cars we could without much effort get double current distances from the same fuel inputs.
I wounder Freediver did you once have another site? one I once posted on?
I once posted on the site you promote now and hope it gets going for you

Belly and Freediver

here are some numbers you may find of interest on government spending and fuel excise revenues (all in $ million - sorry, I haven't worked out how to get tables or tabs into these posts, so it looks a bit messy)

Spending:
Road transport ___ 11,031
Water transport __ 496
Rail transport ___ 5,415
Air transport ___ 171
Communications and other transport __ 3,153
Total ___ 20,267
Source: ABS Cat. 5512.0

Excise duty:
Petrol __ 7,128
Diesel __ 6,197
Other fuel products __ 803
Total __ 14,128
Source: 2007-08 budget papers

you can argue a case either way from these data - fuel excise is more than expenditure on roads but less than spending on all forms of transport.

My view is that when you take account of the indirect costs (greenhouse gases, pollution, accidents, land used for roads that could be used for someting else) as well as direct construction/maintenance costs, then cost recovery from transport the tax burden level on transport is probably a bit light compared to costs imposed, but the emissions trading scheme should redress the balance.

Does "Road transport" equal "roads"? I'm not so sure.

We have got bogged down but thanks for the info.
I know in the last few years we truly have increased spending on roads.
Mostly in QLD and NSW and then on the east coast state links, I still think we spend less that we tax.
In fact maybe this is why we can not reduce tax on fuel, we spend too much on other things.
As tax is a percentage of the total price it would increase with prices in dollar terms wouldn't it?
If so what would this years figure be?
And next?
An interesting number to know would be by how much if any are we decreasing our use of fuel?
The answer could tell us if high prices is impacting on things like greenhouse gases.
Small European diesel motors seem to offer about 40% increase in fuel economy just maybe we should tax non efficient motors out of existence?

"My education while with the RTA told me roads and the money we spend on them have been a battle ground for 45 years maybe more.

So what? Everything's a battle when you work for the government. You are missing the point.

"It was often said it was not spent on roads

Uhuh, that's your proof? Sme bloke down the pub told you?

"IF government spent 10% of fuel tax on developing or funding the development of new cars we could without much effort get double current distances from the same fuel inputs.

Yes, but no-one would buy them because fuel is so cheap. We already have cars that get double the efficiency.

Thanks Rhian. Where did you get those numbers from? Do they cover all levels of government?

"As tax is a percentage of the total price it would increase with prices in dollar terms wouldn't it?

The GST does. The excise does not.

freediver

"Not true. Market forces would prevent such an arbitrary price increase. However, consumption would go up so the price drop would be less than the tax."

I don't agree freediver. You only have to look at increases in rebates for services like childcare followed by fee increases by childcare centres. Where I live rainwater tanks went up as soon as the government granted a rebate for installation costs. I only know that because years ago when looking at installing one I did the usual quote run around and then waited a while - but not too long. The rebate came in and hey presto the tanks were suddenly disproportionately dearer.

That is the only thing I have against rebates as a rule, is that there is the risk of pushing the price up of the products or service involved.

Don't get me wrong I think fuel tax is just another arbitrary tax that should never have been implemented. Like any other of the myriad of hidden taxes we pay despite the mantra of the GST being the tax to end all other taxes.

Even our insurance policies include a emergency services levy, our bank accounts attract government taxes on money that has already been taxed on payday. We pay taxes or 'levies' at the local, State and Federal level. How many times are our incomes taxed? I wonder if anyone has devised a formula to reflect the 'real' amount of tax an average income earner pays.

Do we really need State governments? Surely Federal and local is enough. It works for New Zealand. Reduce the burden of bureaucracy and save money. No more need for ridiculous arbitrary taxes.

"I don't agree freediver. You only have to look at increases in rebates for services like childcare followed by fee increases by childcare centres. Where I live rainwater tanks went up as soon as the government granted a rebate for installation costs.

That's market forces for you. For starters, the media is exagerating price increases due to things like inflation in order to make a story. The price of tanks went up because of a shortage in some of the materials, not because manufacturers decided they wanted more profit. Even if the government is subsidising your tank, you will still shop around, which means those that are comapritively expensive will miss out on sales. You cannot increase the number of childcare centres overnight either. However, in the long run supply will increase also and the price will come down a bit.

However I agree with you that subsidies are a bad idea.

"I wonder if anyone has devised a formula to reflect the 'real' amount of tax an average income earner pays.

Sure, here it is:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177399964

"No more need for ridiculous arbitrary taxes.

Fuel tax is one of the few taxes that are not arbitrary. There is economic justification for it. The bulk of tax does not go to state governments. A lot does go to the services they provide, such as hospitals. You will still need hospitals (and arbitrary taxes) even if you get rid of state governments.

Hi

sorry, should have posted links, the expenditure data are for all levels of government, from ABS Cat. Table 31:

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/30A3BB70B09DBAB7CA25742B001A6293/$File/55120_2006-07.pdf

The revenue data from the Commonealth budget papers:

http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst5-04.htm
Both are 2006-07 data.

Steel: Road transport probably covers a few items as well as road construction and maintenance (e.g. planning and road safety campaigns) but these cost should also legitimately be slated home to drivers.

Thanks again Rhian. It's been a few years since I chased this up.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/30A3BB70B09DBAB7CA25742B001A6293/$File/55120_2006-07.pdf

In table 31, p 41, what do you think the $6 billion spent on fuel and energy covers?

Also, you quoted road trasport spending of $11 billion. This leaves out the $5 billion spent by local governments. See page 42.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst5-04.htm

The projected excise income indicates to me that fuel consumption is going down, but slowly.

Freediver
The budget papers suggest that expenditure on fuel covers mainly Fuel Tax Credits (I’d guess, mainly the diesel fuel and aviation rebates) and the Energy Grants (Cleaner Fuels) Scheme, also the fuel and energy aspects of climate change policies and Securing Australia’s Energy Future initiative.

The diesel fuel rebate is an interesting issue here – as most of the diesel is used on farms or remote mine sites then there’s an argument such users should not contribute to road costs, but they also escape any impost for the environmental costs of their activities.

You’re right – I missed the fact than the road funding only covered state and commonwealth, not local government. A lot of local government funding derives from grants and payments through the states, so I’m not sure if there might be some double counting here.

The author of this article probably criticises his Local Government for having Libraries which he doesn't use.The call is always made in self interest on taxes, I was in favour of GST so long as Income Tax was cancelled.That way everyone with enough money to spend it would pay Tax.Money is wasted by some Governments but the overriding fact is that they need tax to provide benefits for all.Thank your blessings fellow Aussies a dollar saved here will appreciate in time. Go and LIVE IN ZIMBABWE if you are not happy here!

About the GST.
Firstly, when I held that compulsory voting was unconstitutional I refused to vote (albeit being a candidate in the election) and after a 5-year legal battle I succeeded against the Commonwealth lawyers!
I have now taken up that the GST is unconstitutional and the ATO (Australian Taxation Commission) has responded that nevertheless they as an organ of the crown are bound to comply with the legislation. I responded that where it is unconstitutional they have no legal position to enforce unconstitutional legislation and refuse to even hand in tax returns or charge GST.
A large book distributor wrote to me to be required by legislation to withhold 48.5% if I didn’t provide an ABN number. I responded that if they are not willing to pay the total bill they get no books delivered. They have no indicated they will pay the entire bill I would forward to them, without deduction.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that any tax that would be applied to both “rail” and “post” would be unconstitutional as it cannot be applied to two items. The GST precisely does this, albeit unconstitutionally.
The Framers of the Constitution also made clear that Appropriation Bills and Taxation Bills were to be presented to the Parliament to compliment each other. As such no such thing as a 1936 tax act as the tax laws expired at the end of the financial year as to the Appropriation Bills for that year.
The ATO argued that in the O’Meara case the Court previously had rules the GST was constitutionally valid, so I made clear the court never considered what the Framers of the Constitution had stated and as like compulsory voting the Commonwealth found it was wrong, and if it took me to court and lost it would have to repay all GST to all people. I doubt they want to risk that as the ATO lawyer already acknowledged that I had considerable knowledge about the constitution, as did the lawyers for the Federal Government having lost the 5-year litigation against me.
Stand up for your rights!

"Firstly, when I held that compulsory voting was unconstitutional I refused to vote (albeit being a candidate in the election) and after a 5-year legal battle I succeeded against the Commonwealth lawyers!

Can you please link to more info about the case?

Diploman, you state that you were in favour of the GST as long as income tax was done away with. Well, that hasn't happened.

Have you bought your ticket for Zimbabwe yet?