Re: $4b transport plan to ease petrol heat

["Chris Downs" <cvdowns@ozemail.com.au>]

I'm all for the government being fair on motorists - but not before
motorists are fair on pedestrian - probably never.

Chris

Maurie Daly <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
39efacb7.9052413@can-news.tpg.com.au">news:39efacb7.9052413@can-news.tpg.com.au...
> 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
>