[bikeqld] RACQ poll on fuel subsidy (fwd)

[Glen Fergus]

Sorry, not clear.  "Tax" isn't strictly correct.
It's actually an "excise".  That is, it is levied
not per dollar but per unit of product (eg as for
excise on beer, wine & spirits).  The Feds collect
the 8c per litre from the refiner (or importer).
They then give that to the state, who in
Queensland's case gives it straight back to the
retailer.  So theoretically it's zero sum.
How much you do or don't use of the stuff makes
no difference, and no actual subsidy is involved.
(Shh, don't tell anyone...)

This absurdity arose because the High Court deemed
state petrol excises to be unconstitutional, and the
(?Howard) government had to do a quick fix or the
states already levying them (ie most, but not Qld)
would have been caught seriously short.

Of course, you can argue that it would be more
efficient for the state to pocket the 8c and either
charge less somewhere else (eg lower rego), or
spend more somewhere deserving (eg on cycling
infrastructure!).  But that is a policy argument,
not one about removing some bogus "subsidy".

G.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Whittle [mailto:peter.whittle at qut.edu.au] 
> Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2009 2:25 PM
> To: Glen Fergus
> Subject: RE: [bikeqld] RACQ poll on fuel subsidy (fwd)
> 
> Thanks Greg - but I'm not sure how it mis-states it. 
> Presumably I pay the tax in proportion to my income (or other 
> tax streams) and if the tax is removed, Qld can put it into 
> other activities that I may benefit from, or even reduce my 
> tax. As a low-km driver, I get less of it back than a 
> profligate motorist. It is a subsidy, because it is paid 
> per-litre, even though indirectly or partially.
> 
> We're on the same side - hence the offline squabble ;) but if 
> I don't understand - I'd like to!
> 
> Pete