Road pricing, pay-as-you-go, peak hour tax: These are different terms used by political parties for car mileage charges. In the coalition agreement, the outgoing cabinet finally decided to implement some form of road user charge from 2030. However, after the fall of the cabinet, the plan was declared controversial. The new party plans are again very far apart, so there is a choice in this regard.
Most of the supporters are parties on the left, most of the opponents are parties on the right; but there are exceptions such as VVD, SP and Bij1. What do the parties want and can their plans be implemented?
Road pricing, also known by the less political name “pay as you go,” has been seen as a solution to congestion and emissions for decades. Both traffic congestion and emissions from mobility have increased in the Netherlands. ANWB research also shows that almost 70 percent of Dutch people believe that usage-based payment is fairer than ownership-based payment.
The Mobility Alliance, formed by 25 mobility parties such as ANWB, Bovag and various public transport parties, finds it a shame that pay per use is being discussed again. Allianz has long advocated pay-per-use to keep the Netherlands “accessible and clean”.
How does it work?
The idea is simple: The more kilometers you travel, the more you have to pay. In exchange for this mileage tax, existing vehicle taxes would be eliminated. Vehicle owners also pay purchase tax (BPM) and fuel (consumption tax).
Implementation is more complex because what is important and how is it recorded? Ideas range from cabinets in the car to displaying mileage on the TÜV.
Proponents of a mileage tax often base their arguments on climate and traffic congestion. D66: “What you pay depends on the amount of CO2 emissions, the time you drive and the region you are in. For example, areas where people are more car-dependent receive discounts. In this way, we reduce traffic congestion and provide cleaner air.
GroenLinks-PvdA wants “the polluter to pay”, while the Animal Welfare Party definitely wants less car traffic. ChristenUnie and Volt also advocate a price per kilometer that varies according to environmental characteristics, time and place.
Parties say privacy must be guaranteed: It should not be known where and when all cars are used. It’s not entirely clear how to control all of this while preserving privacy.
SGP describes this first and foremost as a solution to the muddying of Dutch roads. VVD also supports this but rejects the professional traffic tax. “The tariff does not depend on the time and place you drive.”
The latter is exactly the argument used by opponents. CDA, BBB and NSC are clearly focused on voters in the area. “Everyone living in the village has fewer alternatives when it comes to cars than those in the city. That’s why we are against it,” says CDA. The party was once again the only party in the current coalition to oppose the plans.
Bij1 focuses its program on disabled people who need a car. The party believes that the costs of climate change should not be borne by citizens. SP believes that “people who pursue high costs are not social.”
Denk introduces itself as a car party. “Dekk does not want any road toll.” PVV, JA21 and the Democracy Forum are also completely against this. “After all, we already pay extremely high excise taxes and VAT on fuel per kilometer travelled,” says JA21.
What the parties have not taken into account is the tax gap that could arise as more and more cars (currently more than 7 percent of the fleet) become electric, leading to a progressive decline in revenue from fuel excise duty. Last year, the state collected approximately 7 billion euros from this tax. In addition, many parties are calling for lower fuel taxes, which would lead to even lower revenues.
Source: NOS
Roy Brown is a renowned economist and author at The Nation View. He has a deep understanding of the global economy and its intricacies. He writes about a wide range of economic topics, including monetary policy, fiscal policy, international trade, and labor markets.
