Netherlands to charge road tax by the kilometre

[volvodspec]

problem with the dutch government is that every idea that they might get better of money or vote wise, they will go at it like a bunch of hungry sharks.

long term is totally not what they think of, for example last week when a journalist asked traffic minister Eurlings what his new plan about a new highway near Utrecht will solve for the next few decades he answered that he is only planning for this and the next half decade, after that it's someone elses problem.

ok, you're the minister of traffic. you want to tax so much that eventually people run out of money and can't afford to drive their cars anymore, you don't make public transport more attractive so eventually they just stay at home. but at the same time you approve plans for making a few highways double as wide. i seem to get lost at that last point, because if you want people out of their cars; why the hell would you create more tarmac for cars to drive on???

even iff al the green nitwit idea's are pushed through and everybody in europe drives a hybrid or electric car, what difference will it make against the unstopped polluting in india, china and the rest of the world? it's still the same air we breathe..

if they arrange a meeting for the green "worldchanging" people and a pair of scientists who actually know what they are talking about, we instantly know where the hippies went... ok, i'm sorry. as you all can read, i am definatly not a believer of global warming and al the mother nature drama that the government is busy with to me they don't give a sh*t about climate, all they can think of if how much funds thay can raise.

[trabitom99]

even iff al the green nitwit idea's are pushed through and everybody in europe drives a hybrid or electric car, what difference will it make against the unstopped polluting in india, china and the rest of the world? it's still the same air we breathe..

if they arrange a meeting for the green "worldchanging" people and a pair of scientists who actually know what they are talking about, we instantly know where the hippies went... ok, i'm sorry. as you all can read, i am definatly not a believer of global warming and al the mother nature drama that the government is busy with to me they don't give a sh*t about climate, all they can think of if how much funds thay can raise.

Argh, I'd been holding back in that last thread on global warming, and I really don't want this thread to go the same way but ...

You must make a difference between politicians jumping on the "green bandwagon" and using green issues as an excuse to extract more money from people, and green issues as such. I can't see how people can say there is no GW - so all those people recording melting glaciers and receding polar ice levels are liers then? The only serious argument I can see is how much mankind is affecting this or not. As far as I can make out, you've got - industry and George Bush type politicians (although even he has changed his tune lately) arguing one side of things but a whole lot more people arguing the other side. Sure, you've got a lot of "eco-crazies" around who use any excuse for car-bashing and to go tree-hugging, but they're not the majority and don't really have much political say.

Cheers

Tom

[volvodspec]

i'm sorry, you're right Tom, there is a big difference.

but i do feel that the wrong people are making the critical calls at the moment. politicians are good at hearing a story from one side and then see how they can raise funds by it.

you don't ask a dentist to fix a car engine but a car mechanic.
you don't ask a car mechanic to build a house but a contractor
you don't ask a lawyer to bake bread but a baker

therefore i think that what the government is doing atm is asking a green minded person what to do about the climate problem while they should talk to a real impartial scientist, that is interested in actual facts rather than what people think that is happening.

who knows, maybe there is a man made global warming due to cars polluting, but why isn't this because of all the forrests going down all over the world?
why are they so blind to focus on one or a few small populated parts of the world, wich is due to current laws actually a quite clean piece of the world and try making it spotless; at the same time they seem to forget about the dirty neighbours not caring one bit about the enviroment..

i dare to bet that if they first create some emission reduction plans in china, india and such country's; to match what europe was at 5 years ago the global warming wouldn't be a problem anymore because nature can handle it by then.

it's a shame we can't have this discussion in dutch, all that english costs me a lot of time to write down

[nvdw]

You must make a difference between politicians jumping on the "green bandwagon" and using green issues as an excuse to extract more money from people, and green issues as such (...) Sure, you've got a lot of "eco-crazies" around who use any excuse for car-bashing and to go tree-hugging, but they're not the majority and don't really have much political say.

Well, apparently they do, even if they don't know it yet!

Point is, if you are cereal (sic) about adressing global warming, energy conservation or whatever you like to call it, just be honest and ban cars altogether. It's like anti-smoking laws; we tax the hell out of these people on the basis that smoking is bad for one's health, but it's still allowed. Duties on cigarettes and driving and owning a car are revenues that simply can't be missed. We are being taxed for over a year now on products' packaging, thinly disguised as a 'green' tax because 'ultimately', it should move us consumers away from products that are wrapped to the bone in plastic in favor of those that aren't. Well like I have a choice. I would gladly buy my milk in glass bottles if that was available but unfortunately, I can't. The butcher gives me more slices of plastic than slices of ham nowadays. Because of laws that were designed to protect me as a consumer I will be spared of unhealthy packaging methods, but on the other hand I am now getting taxed because of them.

And it's the same with a distance-based road tax. Of course it will put a stop to some extent to the ludicrous practice of having a plumber travel 200 miles to fix your toilet because he's ten quid cheaper than the bloke around your door, but again, a lot of people will get taxed for decisions made for them by earlier administrations. For decades the government has drifted offices and workers apart by encouraging the expansion of selected rural villages to lighten the burden on the much-too-crowded cities. These people account for millions of miles of travel each day. And if you choose to move closer to office, you'll get taxed for buying that house. Lots of households have a double income, meaning that moving towards one's office may constitute a longer trip to work for the other. And as with most political issues, this new road tax is designed to appeal to the people scoffing at those who make a proper living: the promise being made is that people who drive more, pay more. That sounds fully plausible but in the end, people who drive 30.000 miles a year do so because of their jobs. Any road tax they have to pay ends up as an extra cost for the product they provide, which will be charged to the customer. In other words, lots of products will end up getting more expensive.

The road tax also deprives the individual provinces (ie counties) of their share of the current taxation of car ownership, which constitutes a huge share of their own income. All those provinces have now been given the green light to fill that gap with their own form of tax. According to what I've heard of it, it will simply become an extra tax on all the inhabitants of all the respective provinces. The car ownership tax will disappear on paper, but we'll just pay for it by other means. Means we have no influence on because we just happen to live in a province. And what about the (huge) registration tax on new cars that's supposed to be replaced by the road tax? It is being replaced already, by a CO2-based tax which has been designed so efficiently that the consumer price of an average new car doesn't change one bit.

According to the government's own estimates, car use will drop by 15% when the road tax is fully introduced. Well I gladly hope it will be even more than that, just for the sole purpose of creating a gigantic budget deficit. Why? Because it paves the way for a new tax, a tax so unfair that it finally gets the message through that just taxing your way out of problems DOESN'T HELP ONE BIT.

[/rant]

[jtbo]

What shrinking polar ice?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/tes ... 12&sy=2009

Yes area is less, but thickness is much more throughout whole area which more than makes up that area of thin ice.

But really it does not matter what one thinks of GW, politicians are not going to do a darn thing about it, only they plan to make money out from it, all production and pollution is soon transferred to China, India and other countries, where there is less tight rules about pollution of enviroment, then all they plan to do is making more taxation so they can transfer wealth to 3rd world, that is what Copenhagen treaty is all about.

Do you really believe GPS units in cars and taxation of traffic helps enviroment and alternatively does that help to get that -80% of CO2 which is government goal made by politics? No, they will buy CO2 credits from some other countries to make statistics look like there would been cut of co2 emissions, total stupidity, that is what Copenhagen meeting is all about.

I don't really care if GW exists or not, but I do care about propaganda we are receiving about it, not even half is true what papers tell about it. Politicians should be made to accept that and accept that even whole europe would commit suicide there would be no real change to climate as rest of world is too big already and with wealth transfer they will be even bigger in future and Europe will be at ruins economically, that is immediate problem, it does not matter what happens 100 years from now, if in 20 years we are back in dark times.

But it still amuses me how some still claim that polar bears are in trouble, when polar bear population is reaching it's all time high, with only one very small group having decrease in numbers.
Maybe it is same logic as with Antarctic, where underwater volcano caused ice to melt at one part of Antartic while overall it has grown 36% from 2007, clear melting that is

Climate sure is changing and it has been warming since small ice age, if it would not then we would had quite unbearable situation. Global temperature was +0.23C at october, at september it was +0.4xC by IPCC prediction it should of been already around +1C by now. It have been lot higher just recently, but even co2 has been rising temperature has not been following it way we are told it should.
And why IPCC boss is working for China as "climate advisor"? Why IPCC repetitiously makes up things that are then proved to be wrong, things that would cause politicians make decisions that drive industry to China? It should be known fact to everyone by now that temperature predictions of IPCC are largely based on bad data in science terms.

However monitoring where you drive and how you drive with GPS and taxing based to how much you drive is not going to help anything else than pockets of greed, I believe that is what we agree on politicians and that is something we should stop spreading. We could also demand real actions instead of taxes, which are just giving people hard time to live as they need to go to work, now it starts to become too expensive to go to work.

I'm afraid that current politicians are too incapable in economics that they fail to see reality, if car usage drops and they put up new tax, it only means that people are not getting by anymore and that will lead to major riots, maybe even some wars, it is amazing what hungry crowd can make.

Doctor usually does not put bandage over bandage if wound is bleeding, usually they stop to leak at source before any other measures of action are made. However now they are trying to put plaster over soaked plaster, that is not even a bandage and they are trying to convince us that it will fix climate which no scientists really knows how it works, but to get attention to problems that scientists like to get fixed they need to tell these end of world scenarios and forget to say they are not sure as in science there are not such thing as sure

[trabitom99]

This is getting to be a very interesting thread, thank you for all your comments. I'm particularly impressed as you're all conducting this in a foreign language! I can see that I'm going to get the reputation on V3M as being some kind of green activist the opposite is in fact true, but I do tend to try and see both sides of the arguments ...

I read in the paper this morning, that the distance = road tax thing for Dutch cars applies to journeys made abroad as well! So if you decide to go on a round-Europe trip in your car you'll be paying for every extra journey you make via your black box. I can really see why emotions are running high on this thing ... Oh, and that the installation will be free of charge, paid for by the Govt. Oh, fantastic ... Is there some kind of exemption for classics? I can't see a black box being wired up to a Model T Ford somehow.

And you're right, the Dutch and Finnish governments cooking up their own little emissions-cutting scheme won't make any difference at all world-wide. That's really why this kind of thing needs to be planned sensibly across the EU, along with harmonising fuel taxes in my opinion. If you take the EU as a whole, they're up there with the great emittors of greenhouse gases like the USA and China. So an EU-wide reduction would make a difference (if you believe man-made CO2 emission reduction makes a difference anyway ) But try and get every member state to agree on how much tax to charge is a very difficult thing ...

Germany's recent examples of bad policy in the name of "the environment" were
#1 the scrappage scheme (what a total resource waste)
#2 the "umwelt zones" against particulates, which include petrol cars which emit barely any particulates at all.

I'm with you nvdw on the fact that very few motorists actually "choose" to travel tens of thousands of kilometres a year. Mostly, the alternatives aren't there, and the job situation these days is such that we're expected by the state, and by employers, to be flexible and work in places hundreds of kms away from where we live.

Cheers

Tom

[nvdw]

I read in the paper this morning, that the distance = road tax thing for Dutch cars applies to journeys made abroad as well! So if you decide to go on a round-Europe trip in your car you'll be paying for every extra journey you make via your black box. I can really see why emotions are running high on this thing ... Oh, and that the installation will be free of charge, paid for by the Govt. Oh, fantastic ... Is there some kind of exemption for classics? I can't see a black box being wired up to a Model T Ford somehow.

No, all cars first registered before January 1st 1987 will be exempt from road tax, marking the end of the current rolling restriction of 25 years. My DAF won't need to be fitted with a black box, but I fear that won't take long. You see, all of this still has to go through parliament. I can already tell the whole scheme will be littered with surcharges and rebates as is seen fit. Me and my DAF will be seen as a primary example of a spoilt rich bastard and his festering heap of carbon monoxides not giving two farts about the fluffy bunnies whereas black muslim lesbians (copyright Clarkson) will be spared because the road tax will force them to the outskirts of society by preventing them to go to their knitting classes anymore. I'm not being completely serious here but you get the point.

For all I know we are not being charged by our own government for trips we make outside the country. There's even talk about so-called 'grey zones' in the border areas, probably because of GPS inaccuracy. However, Belgium has already taken interest in the whole scheme and I have the eerie feeling all the other EU countries will follow suit. I've been told by international lorry drivers their view through the windscreen is practically zero thanks to all the electronic toll devices and Autobahnvignette they need to have. Surely there's some international harmonization to be done... so we all get charged one way or another for driving in another country, whereas now it's practically free.

The only good point about the road tax is that all the revenue, after transaction costs are deducted of course, goes directly to an infrastructure fund. That's the promise at least - I don't think it takes that much time before that is reconsidered. The black muslim lesbians' knitting classes need to be paid for too you know

[jtbo]

They are showing interest to gps monitoring in Finland too, but it is not coming right now, however we will get speed cameras that will register every license plate and calculate average speeds, another idea that they did copy from UK.

Only problem is that when they copy such ideas from other countries, they add something to it to make it worse and here it is always 100% control, there is no common sense used, so it is far worse than in other countries where laws are not always such that are needed to be followed literally 100% of time (for example reporting multiple mobiles in UK).

EU is minor player in CO2, Russia alone is larger, USA is larger, China is about as large as Russia, USA and EU together and in 20 years it will be larger than whole world today, so even if we would all die, it would not really matter, there will be load of more CO2 to athmosphere no matter what, if we ditch our lifestyle to get CO2 production down we get only lower quality of life, nothing more.

Making light bulbs in europe did produce lot less CO2 as it was not coal plants to produce power to factories, but in China it is only coal power, so CO2 emissions from that are gigantic compared to what it where before.
Making solar panels in europe would mean that they are produced with very little CO2, in China coal plants are made to produce electricity and so again our politics do actually increase CO2 levels by vanishing industry to China. It is real problem with 'green' decisisions, that are not often mentioned, specially not AGW bandwagon. It has always been the same with green people, they don't see forest from the trees...

[trabitom99]

AFAIK the CO2 "ranking" is this:

China
USA
EU
Russia
India

China recently "overtook" the USA, the first three are quite close to one another ...

Cheers

Tom

[jtbo]

Stats that I have show that EU had 4,1MGg when USA had 6,9MGg, but that was few years ago, during those times EU had decreased emissions by 0,1MGg in 10 years, while USA had increased 0,8MGg.

MGg, Million Giga Grams? who knows, they sometimes use odd units, but as units are same to all of those it is rather easy to compare.

Finland was around 0,15MGg, from that all traffic were less than 1/3rd and private cars which are now mostly getting tax increase are again 1/3rd, that is no helping much.

It is no much different for NL, except there is 4-5 times bigger numbers, still ratios are pretty much same I believe, we have quite cold weather and quite long distances that increase our share, not much can be done to that.

Here even electric cars will produce CO2 as they need to burn fuel to not freeze passengers and to keep windows clear.

Sure numbers have changed as there are few years when I last time got some reliable data out from database (they are not giving data out so easily now, just their political reports that are claiming that all of sudden private cars are biggest factor, change did happen in one night), but I doubt that any country has moved really lot to any direction during these few years, more like all countries have developed quite evenly, except USA and China running away ever increasing speed.
Numbers from Russia are one of big question, how reliable those are? One must rememeber that it is country that used to prevent rain with dropping chemicals to clouds...

Edit: I see that Socialists have bigger share of seats in NL than Democracy and freedom party, this worrying trend has been going on quite some time all over europe and we are seeing now results of that, spydevices in cars, law changes that limit our freedom, all in name of safety and enviroment, that is real problem currently, imo.

[jtbo]

Maybe some political groups could read this and think about it once more?
http://www.nipccreport.org/aboutReport.html

Even Al Gore now admits that warming was not fully human made, so maybe there would be chance to think all aspects and not to run into poverty head first?

[jtbo]

Here is something in Dutch, CO2 rising, temperature falling, it becomes harder to believe claims that there is connection between two in a way that we are told to.
http://weblogs.nos.nl/klimaat/2009/11/1 ... jn-retour/

[nvdw]

Jani, I don't think the whole global warming thing needs to be discussed again in this thread; in fact I think a plethora of arguments can be found either for or against the road tax without even bothering with it. No offense meant, but I feel it's not helping the discussion. Neither is blaming socialists - ALL politicians love money, and gladly take it from whoever's still bothered to earn an honest living.

You see, the purpose of the road tax - let's assume for a moment that all the reasons to go through with it are valid - is part energy conservation (in lieu of 'reducing climate change'), part reducing traffic congestion. First, it levies tougher taxes on heavier and thirstier vehicles. Second, because of the 'rush hour' component involved in the road tax, it puts a surcharge on people travelling during peak hours. In the end, a 15% reduction of travel by car has been incalculated. The means to do so are individual black boxes that send their location through GPS in order to calculate the distance traveled, a chip providing the system with personal data in order to be able to match a given number of kilometers to a certain road user, and taxing that road user for those kilometers traveled. Those are the main, dry facts of the road tax.

The road tax is supposed to replace the current tax system that's been put on Dutch car users for years. Lots of it is tax on the basis of simply owning the car, not driving one (I'm not counting Fuel Duty Tax and VAT where applicable for that will still remain under road tax rule anyway).
- A buyer of a new car registered in the Netherlands is charged a 'tax on motor vehicles', basically a percentage of the price excluding VAT. That percentage is 40% nowadays, and deductions or surcharges are applicable according to the relative efficiency of a car (i.e. fuel consumption versus vehicle size). Low-emission vehicles (Toyota Prius, Citroen C1, Smart Fortwo) are exempt. It is going to be replaced gradually by a similar tax based on the CO2-emission of a car, starting next year. In the end, the new system is designed in such a way that the actual price including tax doesn't change all that much. However, it is promised that the 'showroom tax' is in part being replaced by the new road tax, even if obviously some sort of showroom tax still remains. And then again, people who already own a car will pay for that showroom tax again through the new charge.
- Every motor vehicle is liable for 'road vehicle tax', basically the UK Vehicle Excise Duty which is paid for at regular intervals during the vehicle's lifetime. It is in essence an older system based on vehicle weight - the more it weighs the more you pay. One part of the revenue flows back into the state treasury, whereas the other bit is awarded to the province (UK: county) where you live. Now, the promise here is that this ownership-based tax is put into the new road tax. Sounds all fair and square but the 12 provinces, deprived of one of their main means of income, have already announced a new tax that's simply being put on all the inhabitants. And since a majority of those inhabitants also have a car, they'll pay twice.

There are countless issues with this new system, apart from the question whether or not people get 'overcharged'. The basic principle is that people who drive less pay less, but as far as I can see it, I'll end up paying more, even if my mileage is 10.000 km a year (well under the Dutch average). Because my 340 hasn't gone through the new consumption measure cycle, it doesn't apply for the regular CO2-based road tax calculation (it wouldn't be that good anyway). Instead, the charge is calculated as a function of the vehicle weight (which isn't much) multiplied with an 'age factor' which has yet to be determined. And I don't think for one moment that age factor is going to turn out very nice for my trusty 1991 steed, being at least 21 years old when this whole scheme gets off the ground.

Another issue I have is the technical part of the stuff. Apart from the ramifications of having a dealer or certified garage fitting a black box in your car (you'd rather fit a radio in a way that YOU see fit now wouldn't you?) it works with GPS signals in the same way satnavs do. Those can be very inaccurate at times. Now I can see a system where your GPS location is plotted against a road map, so you won't be able to 'wander off' a road while driving through a tunnel, because like a satnav, it will simply assume you didn't leave the road so any distance travelled during the off-time can still be charged. But as satnavs show, it still can go horribly wrong. And I haven't even got to the nice bit of it yet: the possibility to appeal against the bill that ends up on your doormat. The government simply puts the burden of proof on you, and has such an infinite amount of trust in the black box that you apparently need to have it calibrated to show either the taxman or the judge that it has been way off, adding kilometers to your bill that you absolutely positively haven't driven.

What about the promise that all of the money earned on road tax will be spent on infrastructure? I bet it takes only a few years' time before it's just chucked on the rapidly dwindling main heap of money that is the state treasury. What about the promise that although the average road tax will be more than doubled within six years (from 3 to 6,7 cents) but after that, not once again? And why do we have to fill an infrastructure fund when all motorists have already paid for it, over and over again?

[jtbo]

Greed and money is not the worst, lost freedom is far worse, certainly there will be soon enough new usage for GPS systems when they are enough wide spread, speeding tickets come based on GPS, also here comes socialists into play that always are trying to make people to act one way so limitations to where and when you can drive start to apply, also constant monitoring where you have been driving, that is their dream come true here.

It is all related and every bit which is usable to fight against that gps spydevice should be used.

[jtbo]

In NL they probably make up that decrease in travelling with some additional tax, then we all get new climate taxes over those other taxes, in worst case that means 5.2 Billion euros each year from each nation, if pot is shared evenly, that is quite expensive for small countries, would mean alone some 1000 euros in here, can't remember how many tax payers here lives, but around 5 Million people in total, not all need to pay taxes, babies and such, so it can be more.

That is if Copenhagen meeting will choose worst suggestion. Everyone should try to plea to their politicians so that they would not sign that, artificially ruining economy and monitoring where people are driving starts to sound quite bad, imo.