I'm sure it contributes, but I think the key reason it's more politically feasible is because it doesn't hit as many (especially poorer) Europeans as hard (EDIT: I meant to imply here there are a lot fewer miles driven).
Looking up the statistics on miles driven, the gap isn't as big as I expected, though, so I'm probably not giving the tax as much credit as it deserves.
If you want to tax the crap out of vehicles (like Denmark) then it makes sense to give some relief to people who just need to get around as opposed to people who can afford a 50k+ car.
Cars taking up physically less space could be taxed less (or, my preference, large SUVs taxed more).
Norway essentially does this. Taxes are based on engine size and (I believe) weight. The relative price difference between a large SUV and a small, low horsepower, hatchback is much greater than in most other countries. However based on casual observations in and around Oslo, it doesn't seem to have a huge effect on the size of cars people drive.
The real effect is the 'everybody' owns a Tesla since they are exempt for many taxes and thus cost literally half the price of an equivalently performing petrol powered car.
you'd think so, but it probably doesn't make much of a difference. The london driving tax was supposed to make a difference, and I don't think it did much - there's not enough good alternatives.
It's just not high enough. I find it pretty unfair that I pay the same amount of tax on my familiecar that I use for 10.000 km a year as someone who drives is 100 km per day.
I had a citroen C1 once, because the government canceled road tax on such very efficient, small cars. Sadly his law lasted only a couple of years (and it messes a lot with the market value of these cars!). But is was nice that I only paid insurance as long as I didn't drive it. In Poland there is not even a tax on cars, so it is already only in the fuel. It can be pretty nice there to have multiple cars, a big one when you need it, a small one to use a lot. You could even circulate the big one among family, but as it is now in the Netherlands, nobody want to be the owner of the big car.
> more cash is spent in social services paid by fuel taxes
That might be the case in Europe, but it's not true of the US. Here fuel taxes only cover about 50% of the cost of roads with the rest coming from the general fund.
Poorer countries in Europe tax fuel more. If you raise fuel tax, people will find ways to buy less fuel. Generally this means more efficient (often smaller) cars, and perhaps prioritizing living more near to jobs etc.
The main problem is that fuel tax should be increased slowly so people can change their consumption accordingly.
Personally I'm sad to see this lowered as I think it set up good incentives.
High taxation in general, plus high car taxation, means that taxes will be allocated towards alternative transportation options. In Denmark this has meant bicycle infrastructure and culture which has been shown to make humans both happier and healthier. Not to mention that older cars means a lighter touch on the earth (heavy metals, fuel, etc).
Taxation is a good way to apply pressure, and I think we often overlook the power that high taxation has for good policy. Instead we get lower taxation and 'let the market decide' which often results in a more wealth inequality and worse pollution among other things.
A lot of places have looked at taxation by miles travelled, and that would address a lot of those. For places with high fuel taxes today this is particularly attractive with the transition towards electric cars.
My thoughts are that large, and therefore complex, political structures have a harder time converting the right idea to something that can be implemented practically.
Sweden, where the OP example comes from, is a relatively small political entity. 10 million people represented by 349 members of parliament, who are elected through a proportional representation system.
We have high gasoline taxes. Actually a carbondioxide tax and an energy tax. It also attracts VAT. In 2016 the petrol (95) price was 13,02 SEK / litre ($1.50) of what 8,64 SEK ($0.99) was taxes.
However, in Stockholm it wasn't enough to combat emissions and congestion. So rather than penalising all car travel across the relatively sparsely populated country, it seemed to make sense to have a toll at the city borders.
It wouldn't be cheaper to drive if your government properly taxed the petrol and road usage to help pay for and offset the environmental damage your transportation choice caused, would it?
And I doubt raising the tax rate on fuel would do much at all, in America at least. Gas prices have gone up significantly over the last few decades and we drive more and more.
EDIT:
Can't reply because of HN time restrictions on long threads, but I think the reduction on driving is more due to cities and housing centers within cities getting denser - even Houston is doing that, and we've traditionally been very spread out. We still are, but it's improving.
True of course, but hard to factor in. If you move from rural America where a car is required the gas tax burden is going to drop substantially if you move to Amsterdam where nobody has cars, even if the gas tax is 3X higher. I definitely see your point, it's not easy to directly translate.
Looking up the statistics on miles driven, the gap isn't as big as I expected, though, so I'm probably not giving the tax as much credit as it deserves.
reply