Our community is divided over Rachel Reeves’s proposed 3p-per-mile EV tax. While some called it a fair replacement for lost fuel duty, others warned it could risk slowing the transition to electric vehicles

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    21 days ago

    A flat “per mile” is a bad way to measure road consumption for a vehicle. The more accurate measure is weight of the vehicle+mileage. A heavier vehicle will do more damage to roads. There is at least some correlation on petrol/diesel because a larger vehicle will have to consume more fuel to move a heavier vehicle.

    However, if there is a flat 3p tax per mile irrespective of the weight of the vehicle, then smaller/lighter EVs will be paying disproportionately more of the cost of road damage than larger EVs.

    • TWeaK@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      Yeah but a city mile is different to a motorway mile. You could do loads more motorway miles, cause fewer issues to the road and pay more tax than the city driver that’s constantly stopping and starting and torquing the road up.

    • Zdvarko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      Should also take into account the age of the combustion engine vehicle as it is more likely to be leaking oil which breaks down asphalt

    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      Could it be simplified rather than just per mile? Instead give allowances in vehicle tax. Low medium and high usage kind of thing.

    • chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      If you want it to be proportional to road damage it needs to scale with the 4th power of vehicle weight and then multiplied per mile. That would make EVs a proper trade off (since they tend to be heavier).