Re: $4b transport plan to ease petrol heat

[mauried@tpg.com.au (Maurie Daly)]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:12:25 GMT, "Dave Proctor"
<daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>"Taliesin Walker" <taliesin@chariot.net.au> wrote in message
>39eed891.3297715@news.chariot.net.au">news:39eed891.3297715@news.chariot.net.au...
>> >I heard the PM on the ABC recently defending the Govts refusal to cut
>> >the excise on petrol or even reduce the rate of indexation,and his
>> >response was that this revenue is needed to pay pensions.
>> >I thought fuel excise was to pay for roads .
>>
>> Even if all the petrol excise revenue was spent on roads, cutting the
>> excise would either mean that we spend less on roads, or cut back in
>> other areas of spending.  Howard has a point.
>
>Why? The excise is a percentage of the price of the fuel, the excise could
>be capped at a certain level and it would not affect government revenues.
>
>Dave
>
>
If the Govt needs more revenue or cant do without the excise of petrol
then it should obtain the extra revenue in a fair way,rather than
heavily taxing one commodity (petrol is the highest taxed commodity in
the country).
If fuel taxes are to be used as general revenue measures,then ALL FUEL
should be equally taxed ,not just petrol.
The aviation industry ,for example pays a mere 1.8 c /litre excise on
aviation kerosene, hardly fair to motorists.

MD