The issue of how motoring taxes should change as we decarbonise the economy has been dodged for too long. Car salesmen need to get real
I f you want a document to give you sleepless nights, the Office for Budget Responsibilitys biennial Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report is a go-to publication. This is the one that looks to the horizon and covers everything from demographic trends to state pension promises to the climate crisis.
The headline finding in this Julys version was a true jaw-dropper. The UKs public finances are on an unsustainable long-term trajectory because government debt would rise to a remarkable 270% of GDP by the early 2070s C up from almost 100% today C if current policies were left unchanged.
The if nothing changes qualification is important because some of the risks to the public finances are so blindingly obvious C and have been for ages C that it is astonishing successive governments have ignored them. One is the certainty that government income from fuel duty will dwindle to next to nothing once were all driving electric vehicles.
The July document spelled out the arithmetic. From expected revenues of 0524.4bn from fuel duty in 2024-25, a halving is projected by the 2030s and receipts will be close to zero by 2050. This is an average 0515.5bn a year lost in fuel duty receipts, driven by the assumption all new cars and vans will be zero-emission by 2035 and new HGVs [heavy goods vehicles] by 2040, said the OBR.
The sums, to state the obvious, are huge. Indeed, fuel duty alone accounts for three-quarters of the revenues that will be lost to government arising from decarbonising the economy. Something plainly has to change on motoring taxes.
And here C finally C is a proposal. Rachel Reeves is considering using this months budget to announce plans for a pay-per-mile tax for electric vehicles from 2028. A charge of 3p a mile for EVs, on top of other road taxes, would offset falling revenue from petrol and diesel cars.
Crucially, from a transition perspective, the numbers would still be loaded in favour of EVs. The suggested rate would work out at an average of 05250 a year, a lot less than the average 05600 that petrol and diesel drivers pay in fuel tax, which can itself be considered a pay-per-mile charge. Enforcement remains an unanswered practical problem if Reevess system will rely on EV drivers estimating their mileage themselves. But the principle is sound: the Treasury cannot afford to let motoring taxes disappear.
Naturally, the idea provoked howls from predictable quarters. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said that at such a pivotal moment in the UKs transition towards EVs, it would be the wrong measure.
The car salesmen need to get real. It is their sort of not the right time thinking that has made the problem of evaporating fuel duties so urgent. It would have been better to start reform incrementally half a decade ago, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies was urging at the time. From its 2019 report : The government needs to rethink how it taxes motoring. It should start now, before the revenue disappears and expectations of low-tax motoring become ingrained. Quite. The issue has been dodged for too long.
Reevess proposal is too blunt to tackle the costs of congestion, the other problem identified by the IFS, but its better than letting the pressure on Treasury receipts build and build.
If the UK cant rejig motoring taxes to keep up with changes in technology, it hasnt a hope of easing bigger headaches in the OBRs book of scary projections, such as rising pension and healthcare costs. Reeves should implement her pay-per-mile idea. Most EV drivers, one suspects, will see the fairness.
关于经济脱碳进程中如何调整汽车税的问题已被回避太久。汽车销售商们需要认清现实
若想找一份让人夜不能寐的文件，英国预算责任办公室（Office for Budget Responsibility）发布的两年期《财政风险与可持续性报告》堪称首选。这份报告着眼长远，涵盖从人口趋势、国家养老金承诺到气候危机等方方面面。
今年7月报告中的核心发现令人瞠目结舌。英国公共财政正走向不可持续的长期轨道——如果现行政策保持不变，到2070年代初，政府债务占GDP比重将从目前的近100%飙升至惊人的270%。
“如果一切照旧”这一限定条件至关重要，因为某些公共财政风险早已显而易见——且长期存在——而历届政府却对此视而不见，着实令人震惊。其中一个必然趋势是：当所有人都开始驾驶电动汽车时，政府从燃油税中获得的收入将锐减至近乎为零。
7月发布的文件详细列出了数据测算结果。预计2024-25年度燃油税收入为244亿英镑，到2030年代将减半，至2050年收入将趋近于零。英国预算责任办公室（OBR）表示："按照2035年所有新轿车和厢式货车实现零排放、2040年新重型货车实现零排放的假设，燃油税收入平均每年将减少155亿英镑。"
显而易见的是，这笔金额十分庞大。事实上，仅燃油税一项就占到了因经济脱碳而导致政府税收损失的75%。显然，机动车税收制度必须做出改变。
终于，一项提案浮出水面。蕾切尔·里夫斯正考虑在本月公布的预算中宣布一项计划：自2028年起对电动汽车征收按里程计费的道路税。除其他道路税费外，电动汽车每英里加收3便士的费用，将用以抵消燃油车税收下降带来的收入缺口。
关键从转型角度看，数据仍将明显偏向电动车。建议的费率折合年均约250英镑，远低于燃油车司机平均支付的600英镑燃油税（后者本身可视为按里程收费）。若里夫斯的系统依赖电动车车主自行估算里程，执行层面仍存在未解决的实际问题。但原则是合理的：英国财政部不可能放任汽车税收流失。
不出所料，这一提议立即招致某些方面的强烈反对。英国汽车制造商和贸易商协会表示，在英国向电动汽车转型的关键时刻，此举将是"错误的决策"。
汽车销售商们需要认清现实。正是他们那种“时机未到”的思维，使得燃油税流失问题变得如此紧迫。如果五年前就听从财政研究所的建议逐步启动改革，情况会好得多。该机构在2019年的报告中指出：“政府需要重新审视汽车税费政策。必须立即行动，否则等税收枯竭、低税驾驶成为常态就为时已晚。”确实如此，这个问题已被回避得太久了。
里夫斯的提案虽过于简单粗暴，难以解决英国财政研究所（IFS）指出的交通拥堵成本问题，但总比任由财政税收压力不断累积要好。
如果英国无法调整汽车税制以适应技术变革，那么根据预算责任办公室（OBR）令人担忧的预测，该国将无望缓解养老金和医疗成本上升等更棘手的问题。里夫斯应推行其按里程收费的方案。人们猜测，多数电动车驾驶者会认为这一方案是公平的。
全部评论 （0）