$1b electric car infrastructure deal

[Mr.T]

"Mauried" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:4903ea20.105625203@news.tpg.com.au...

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:44:59 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.26.02.35.38.745374@woa.com.au...
And don't forget the subsidised road costs as well.

Please explain?
The total government revenue from motorists *FAR* exceeds expenditure,
and
has done so for many decades.

Since 1985 actually, when Keating changed the rules with what could be
done with fuel excise.

But as I said the "total government revenue from motorists" (of which the
fuel excise is only a part), was far higher than the total expenditure
*long* before then.
(that doesn't include the general taxation that motorists pay of course,
only those related to motoring, including taxation, fees, surcharges,
duties, levies, fines etc. etc. etc.)
Soon we can add carbon credits as well :-(

Fuel excise is now simply a revenue measure which can be used for any
Government purposes.

As is, and was, all consolidated revenue in any case.

MrT.

 

[terryc]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:54:52 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

All of these funds were sourced from ratepayers

EXACTLY ! MORE TAXES.

Lol, they generall claim it is a fee for services provided, like
rubbish collection,
that road to your door/driveway,
rain water drainage,
stray dog control,
etc, etc, etc

Graham

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
newsan.2008.10.29.11.38.27.462469@woa.com.au...

What is obvious is that you have no clue about the real cost of roads and
will believe piffle

No, I already said I don't believe your piffle.

MrT.