If you want to tax pollution, tax fuel consumption or actual tailpipe emissions, not a broad class of vehicles.
Which emits more -- a small family SUV or a BMW M3?
Governments have taxed vehicles based on weight, width, engine displacement, etc. -- and the automakers adapt. It's very easy to game the system. Just tax vehicles on a model-by-model basis on the fuel they actually use, and on what they actually emit.
That's actually what's happening here, it's just that misleading (nationalist?) reporting has left that bit out.
The tax is based on "administrative horsepower", calculated from engine power + CO2 emissions per mile. That is then looked up in a tax table. See my comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21862516
That's what's being done, the tax is based on CO2 emissions [1]. And this tax is symbolic as the sales of cars exceeding 172g/km (the tax threshold) are only 1% ( 10 000 and 15 000 vehicles in France) of the cars sold each year [2]. Indeed most SUV won't be concerned (Even a fat and quite luxurious SUV like the Audi Q5 is under the threshold) , and based on what I read only affordable "sports" cars will be.
Much ado about greenwashing.
Often you will notice that regulation in EU countries, and the EU itself, are not thought through. Indeed a BMW M3 and many small cars can emit more emissions than SUVs. But I suspect this is more of an eny tax, as in Europe SUVs are not that common and are considered "luxury", despite small cars shrinking to the point where there is not enough headroom on the backseat.
> Under a law adopted by parliament this week, cars emitting carbon dioxide above a certain threshold will be subject to a 20,000 euros ($22,240) penalty in 2020
So that seems to be because they don't pollute as much
> In 2020, the central government will give as much as 6,000 euros toward the purchase of an electric car costing less than 45,000 euros.
This looks like an anti-Tesla threshold, all the while pushing people to go towards electric cars that either you buy but rent the battery, such as Renault Zoé, or with poor autonomy.
Be a lot better to just put an uniform excise tax on new vehicles based on expected C02 emissions. That would also tend to solve the problem of guys in yellow vests throwing stuff.
It's a tax based on number of grams of CO2/km for all vehicles so 3008/5008 are concerned too. The updated tax for 2020 starts at 110 g of CO2/km (previously 117 gCO/km, last year)
Where I live (the Netherlands) there is absolutely no need to drive a ridiculous Dodge Ram with a 6 liter engine that emits a bazillion kg co2.
However there's a worrying trend of people exploiting some tax loophole to drive them cheaply, with road taxes going down to the level of ordinary passenger vehicles.
I'd really like us to implement similar incentives to get these ridiculous things off the roads.
I'd like to see vehicle tax based on some combination of weight and emissions. Say £1 or €1 for every kilo over the weight of a, hmm, Smart Car? :) Now add an emissions component, enough to make a 1 litre engine and lightweight EVs really appealing.
There are emission-based vignette schemes (eco-taxes). Orthogonally, going above 3.5t is a steep increase in inconvenience and costs: you need a different license (C or above) which is more expensive and has to be renewed regularly and there many streets are forbidden.
Why not put all tax on the Fuel? Then you have everything in one tax, exactly the way you want it. Take the bike more often? Benefit immediately. Buy a lighter vehicle? Benefit immediately. Drive less wasteful? Benefit immediately. It seems like such a system would stimulate only good things.
I'd also want to have width factored in. Wider than strictly necessary vehicles make life worse for all road users, space is not infinite. Occasionally they even make life shorter and it's never the life of those inside those vehicles.
Well, the plan was always to eventually reduce the cash subsidy for electric vehicles. The subsidy was intended to help electric vehicle design and manufacturing to mature to the point that electric vehicles are a viable, affordable, and desirable option for a large number of actual consumers. This is happening. I see dozens of Teslas on the road every day (I live in Chicago, I'm not sure if my experience is typical, but I assume it is approximately representative of US autobuying trends).
So I guess I don't see it as a "we're out of money and need that income", rather I see it as a "now that the EV market has matured, we can take the training wheels off".
If your parent doing the school run a suv does make sense, and don't for get that pickups are used a lot by farmers and I suspect the Dutch farming lobby is just as powerfull as it is in the other eu states and the USA.
You don't need a vehicle that size unless you have more than two children, a perfectly normal 4-door car will do. And all the usual externalities of SUVs are worse at school: the high ride height makes it harder to see small children, and the large amount of space taken up makes the parking and traffic jam round the school worse.
No, the Dutch solution to the school run is a Bakfiets cargo bicycle until the kids are old enough to ride their own.
Dutch farming is very .. intense? Quite a lot of it is done in greenhouses. Sure, if you're in agriculture you can justify a larger vehicle. That's at most 5% of the population?
School run can also be done by school walking bus, bike, or actual bus.
I doubt many of us would mind quite so much the tiny few SUVs actually used by workers and farmers because they absolutely need such a beast. Mind, saying that my friend with the absurdly big crew cab Toyota pickup, uses the wife's regular size car when it's just them and the kids... The pickup is for transporting 1 tonne of kit around fields -- he actually detests them to drive. :)
School runs are done by bike in the Netherlands. In addition there are much more practical vehicles that farmers/builders/<insert_mobile_heavy_work_profession> use.
I used to do 800 kilometers trips for vacations with my family (2 adults, 3 kids) in a 1994 fiat punto every few years and I'm still alive, I'm pretty sure you can drive your kids to school in any vehicle as long as it has enough seats.
I believe it's more common for smallholding farmers in EU to rely on a small car runabout and a tractor, with more specialized equipment (possibly rented) for other work.
I'd expect intensive farmers use exclusively on specialized equipment.
Pity. I live in a remote part of France, shaped by hills, forests, and very devoid of public services. Most people don't have too much money, yet every third car you see is an SUV or 4WD, because they actually are quite useful in daily life. My neighbour drives a tiny but nimble Suzuki Vitara with which he does just everything, much of which no regular city car could do. Was he to buy that same car in two years, it'd cost almost twice as much because of those taxes. (damn even the baker drives his deliveries with a Vitara).
I see all the excesses around the SUVs, I agree there's a nuisance to be dealt with. But again the government rules with a large and blind PR hammer, and we'll quietly sit under the blow once more.
6000 Euro tax for a 15000 euro car. I'd call it significant enough and ridiculous enough to be more than mere propaganda. But you're right, the figures I had in the mind were for the Jimny, not the Vitara. Over 10000 tax for a car that's less than 20000 euro.
Reduce a complex equation to only two variables ? But that's no the point : expecting fairness isn't practical anyway. :) I'd bet the practical response will be people stretching their car's lifespans way beyond reasonable, pushing them to new extremes of decrepitude and unsafety. There's also no police anyway to keep that in check.
On the other hand, for the sporty versions of some midrange popular cars (Renault Mégane RS, Peugeot 308 GTi...) the pollution tax will amount to almost 50% of the MSRP.
I guess car enthusiasts on a budget will be more inclined to buy lighter cars, a segment where French manufacturers are basically non-existent (even if a Twin'Cup is really fun to drive).
Indeed. I’m clinging to my ‘08 Civic Type-R (MSRP was 30000, 25000 in stripped down version. The tax would be 80-95% of MSRP!) but will have to let it go within five years as level 2 Crit’Air will be entirely forbidden to operate in my city by 2025.
Peugeot 308 GTi has a "puissance administrative" of 16, right in the high end of the tax table. Presumably because it's a 250hp car. I'm sure that's fun but it's also a really excessive amount of power (and CO2)
Totally - but comments here claim make claims like the below. If accurate this is a straight win for France:
isoprophlex: “Yeah considering what you say there must clearly be political motivation. But contrast a 5008's 120 g/km with the average American gas guzzler doing 350+ g/km. All in all this is a good development imo.
That's pretty much how protectionism works in the EU: tax sectors where local manufacturers are weak, by means of "environment" protection taxes, "quality" standards and so on. Meanwhile, east Europe is full of used German cars which pollute heavily and are a danger to public safety. Governments in some countries tried limiting imports from that country, and they have been punished by the EU. But the EU has "high standards" when it comes to non EU vehicles.
The bullshit is that politicians continue to only take action against consumers when the real polluters, corporations and the military, continue to go unchecked because lobbying pays.
I don't know how to feel about the meme that governments should target big corporation rather than small consumers. On the one hand, I like it that it makes an environmental message easier to swallow for the masses, because they feel like they're not the ones who have to make an effort. On the other hand, it's quite disingenuous to pretend the outcome is different from simply reducing the amount of energy available to live a materially comfortable life for everyone.
> I don't know how to feel about the meme that governments should target big corporation rather than small consumers.
That's not what was stated. The objection is that hardly anything is done regarding big corporations.
E.g. only in 2020 shipping will have to use low sulphur fuel (max 0.50%). However, companies are allowed to install scrubbers. These devices allow for the environmental impact to continue. This as they take out the sulphur at the detection point, then dump the sulphur in e.g. the water. This is way cheaper than actually using low sulphur fuel. Interestingly enough, there is no availability of 0.50% sulphur fuel. There's 3.5% and 0.10%. They get to 0.50% by mixing the fuel! They've (International Maritime Organization) should've gone for 0.10% and not allowed any scrubbers.
Airline industry: Heavily subsidized, fuel has almost no tax on it. Taking a plane is often way cheaper than a train, while the environmental impact is quite in favour of the train.
As a car enthusiast I'm really hoping that we see governments adopting policies that drive manufacturers to provide low and zero carbon vehicles that cover the vast majority of use cases for conventional ICEs.
Hopefully if that happens then it will be possible to allow for motorsport and vintage cars to remain in use.
Readit News
Which emits more -- a small family SUV or a BMW M3?
Governments have taxed vehicles based on weight, width, engine displacement, etc. -- and the automakers adapt. It's very easy to game the system. Just tax vehicles on a model-by-model basis on the fuel they actually use, and on what they actually emit.
The tax is based on "administrative horsepower", calculated from engine power + CO2 emissions per mile. That is then looked up in a tax table. See my comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21862516
Tax rates 173g/km : 12.552€ 174g/km : 13.109€ 175g/km : 13.682€ 176g/km : 14.273€ 177g/km : 14.881€ 178g/km : 15.506€ 179g/km : 16.149€ 180g/km : 16.810€ 181g/km : 17.490€ 182g/km : 18.188€ 183g/km : 18.905€ 184g/km : 19.641€ 185g/km and more : 20.000€
[1]https://www.autoplus.fr/actualite/malus-CO2-plafond-taxe-bar...
[2] https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/automobile/le-sup...
Thus tax increase will impact far less than 1% if the sales. It's all PR, nothing concrete.
> Under a law adopted by parliament this week, cars emitting carbon dioxide above a certain threshold will be subject to a 20,000 euros ($22,240) penalty in 2020
So that seems to be because they don't pollute as much
But contrast a 5008's 120 g/km with the average American gas guzzler doing 350+ g/km. All in all this is a good development imo.
> In 2020, the central government will give as much as 6,000 euros toward the purchase of an electric car costing less than 45,000 euros.
This looks like an anti-Tesla threshold, all the while pushing people to go towards electric cars that either you buy but rent the battery, such as Renault Zoé, or with poor autonomy.
Besides, aren't Model 3 and the coming Cybertruck below that limit?
> ces véhicules ne sont construits ni en France, ni même par nos constructeurs nationaux
"those vehicles are neither built in France nor by our national automakers"
https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/automobile/le-sup...
Where I live (the Netherlands) there is absolutely no need to drive a ridiculous Dodge Ram with a 6 liter engine that emits a bazillion kg co2.
However there's a worrying trend of people exploiting some tax loophole to drive them cheaply, with road taxes going down to the level of ordinary passenger vehicles.
I'd really like us to implement similar incentives to get these ridiculous things off the roads.
[] https://www.iea.org/commentaries/growing-preference-for-suvs...
Edit: the tax of the article is based on engine power and CO2 emissions. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21862516 for calculations.
* A CO2 tax (banded by emissions)
* An NOx tax (banded by emissions)
* A weight tax
* A scrappage fee (fixed, by vehicle type)
* Then the usual 25% VAT
I may be missing something here (in particular, annual taxes), so if there are any Norwegians willing to chime in, feel free.
when there's no money left... there's no money left.
So I guess I don't see it as a "we're out of money and need that income", rather I see it as a "now that the EV market has matured, we can take the training wheels off".
No, the Dutch solution to the school run is a Bakfiets cargo bicycle until the kids are old enough to ride their own.
Dutch farming is very .. intense? Quite a lot of it is done in greenhouses. Sure, if you're in agriculture you can justify a larger vehicle. That's at most 5% of the population?
I doubt many of us would mind quite so much the tiny few SUVs actually used by workers and farmers because they absolutely need such a beast. Mind, saying that my friend with the absurdly big crew cab Toyota pickup, uses the wife's regular size car when it's just them and the kids... The pickup is for transporting 1 tonne of kit around fields -- he actually detests them to drive. :)
Just in case you don't know of the crocodile/walking bus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_bus
People completely lost touch with reality.
I'd expect intensive farmers use exclusively on specialized equipment.
(It's amazing how well Bloomberg's propaganda has worked here, hasn't it?)
Which amends http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/15/textes/2493.asp#D_Artic...
This adds a set of "bands" to the bottom of the table of tax based on "Puissance administrative", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_horsepower or https://www.french-property.com/guides/france/driving-in-fra...
Looks like a Toyota Land Cruiser is about 11-12: https://www.neowebcar.com/puissance-fiscale/toyota/land-crui...
isoprophlex: “Yeah considering what you say there must clearly be political motivation. But contrast a 5008's 120 g/km with the average American gas guzzler doing 350+ g/km. All in all this is a good development imo.
Do you have any references to the above two affirmations?
That's not what was stated. The objection is that hardly anything is done regarding big corporations.
E.g. only in 2020 shipping will have to use low sulphur fuel (max 0.50%). However, companies are allowed to install scrubbers. These devices allow for the environmental impact to continue. This as they take out the sulphur at the detection point, then dump the sulphur in e.g. the water. This is way cheaper than actually using low sulphur fuel. Interestingly enough, there is no availability of 0.50% sulphur fuel. There's 3.5% and 0.10%. They get to 0.50% by mixing the fuel! They've (International Maritime Organization) should've gone for 0.10% and not allowed any scrubbers.
Airline industry: Heavily subsidized, fuel has almost no tax on it. Taking a plane is often way cheaper than a train, while the environmental impact is quite in favour of the train.
Hopefully if that happens then it will be possible to allow for motorsport and vintage cars to remain in use.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2226280-measures-to-red...