-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: If you were buying a TV today, which brand would you choose?
The Gauteng E-tolling Thread
- Thread starter LazyLion
- Start date
- Status
Kuhlkatz
Member
For the privilege of swimming on the freeway when it pi$$es down with rain?
So you can listen to your favourite music or radio show while you sit for two hours in traffic with all the other idiots that can't drive either?
To pay for JZ's fire pool, or a Jacuzzi (interior fire pool?) that was not part of the original security upgrade?
Flashy illumination of freeway sections when the standard lighting is switched off?
None of the original reasons that SANRAL gave has panned out so far, so I have no idea either.
supersunbird
Honorary Master
N1 north was bad going home as well, luckily not nearly as bad as in the morning though.
drnaphtali
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2005
- Messages
- 495
- Reaction score
- 6
What would happen if the first case is won by SANRAL?
What would also happen to those who owe those MASSIVE amounts of money, who gets frightened by this case and would like to suddenly comply, but simply cannot afford to pay that amount? Might they be exempted for that? Or maybe pay the reduced amount?
What would also happen to those who owe those MASSIVE amounts of money, who gets frightened by this case and would like to suddenly comply, but simply cannot afford to pay that amount? Might they be exempted for that? Or maybe pay the reduced amount?
http://businesstech.co.za/news/general/52674/why-e-tolls-are-ridiculous-economist/
A leading economist has again questioned the functionality of the e-toll system on Gauteng’s freeways, citing the province’s tax contribution which already supplements large portions of the country’s infrastructure.
It comes on the back of a third successive petrol hike of 39 cents, set for midnight on Tuesday (4 February), which is expected to put consumers under further pressure.
In an interview on SABC, Chris Hart, chief economist at Investment Solutions, called Sanral’s e-toll system ridiculous.
“It’s such a concentrated tax – and that’s why people are rejecting it, because it means that infrastructure is paid for by the general taxes in other provinces, but in the province that actually carries the tax base, you have got to pay for it separately. This doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“And that’s why it doesn’t resonate,” Hart said of the public outcry following its implementation on December 6, 2013. “It’s a very concentrated cost on a tax base that is feeding other provinces.”
Gauteng’s contribution to South Africa’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is at approximately 34.5%, with KwaZulu-Natal second, contributing only 16.5% to the national economy.
“Gauteng’s contribution to the economy is critical, as it allows for the state to generate enough revenue to build schools, health facilities, roads and houses not only in Gauteng, but for the rest of South Africa,” the Gauteng Economic Development has said.
Moreover, nearly half (46.5%) of the country’s taxable personal income is generated by Gauteng residents, according to the SA Revenue Service.
The document shows individual taxpayers in the province earned 46.5% (R475.8 billion) of the country’s total R1 trillion aggregated taxable income in the 2012 tax year.
Gauteng is home to just under a quarter of the country’s population – 12.7 million people.
Transport Minister, Dipuo Peters has previously dismissed the idea of using a fuel levy to pay for the roads, saying that it would be unfair for people in Gauteng to expect people from around the country to pay for roads in the province.
“So we are saying, it is important that the user, the one who uses that particular road…must be the one who pays for it,” Peters said.
Albereth
Honorary Master
What would happen if the first case is lost by Scumral?
Heisenborg
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 21,517
- Reaction score
- 14,220
I just wish there were a case already!
if the 1st case is won by Sanral and the public still refuses to pay, will they make criminals out of thousands of us?
Will they lock their tax base up?
In a crime ridden country like SA where the real criminals are roaming the streets?
Will they lock their tax base up?
In a crime ridden country like SA where the real criminals are roaming the streets?
Yep, don't worry the other provinces will feel it to through inflation and when SA goes into recession again before the end of 2014.
MagicDude4Eva
Banned
TBH I don't get Sanral's comment of "Fuel levy is not sustainable" and the mention of that more cars have been added to the road and fuel-levy will not work in the long run due to hybrids not consuming fuel. Not quite sure if I am just as extremely clever as anyone else on MyBB, but to restate the obvious:
- A carbon emission tax is levied for new cars - where does this money go?
- Fuel levy is at R2.13 (petrol) / R1.98 (diesel) - where does this money go? (Remember, South Africa uses about 30bn litres of fuel per annum - you do the math)
- There is no hybrid car footprint in South Africa and even if every single fuel-injected car was to be replaced with a hybrid/electric car, there are means to tax this (electricity or other levies)
For me the biggest puzzle is the annual disappearance of over 50bn Rand of fuel-levy into the general fiscus. So it boils down to the government having mismanaged close to half a trillion Rand in a decade - imagine the 1st class road infrastructure we could have had if it was not for the misappropriation of taxes.
- A carbon emission tax is levied for new cars - where does this money go?
- Fuel levy is at R2.13 (petrol) / R1.98 (diesel) - where does this money go? (Remember, South Africa uses about 30bn litres of fuel per annum - you do the math)
- There is no hybrid car footprint in South Africa and even if every single fuel-injected car was to be replaced with a hybrid/electric car, there are means to tax this (electricity or other levies)
For me the biggest puzzle is the annual disappearance of over 50bn Rand of fuel-levy into the general fiscus. So it boils down to the government having mismanaged close to half a trillion Rand in a decade - imagine the 1st class road infrastructure we could have had if it was not for the misappropriation of taxes.
It was not misappropriated, it was used. Can unfortunately not discussed on what as its covered by the new secrecy bill....
PS: Stop moaning and be a stand-up and law abiding citizen and give us some more....
MagicDude4Eva
Banned
^^^^ Damn you bloody agent
MrGray
Honorary Master
So SANRAL seriously claims the fuel levy is not sustainable because cars are becoming more fuel efficient, therefore, there is less to levy per kilometre?? Do they think we are stupid or do they really not understand that it is a percentage that can just be modified if justified?
Nobody with half a brain would get their comment. The only way that you will support a system like this is if you gain from it financially.
I believe OUTA or the AA has already refuted their argument with indisputable facts.
The argument is that it adds massive risk to the funding side of things. When you're subscribing to debt over a period of decades, you need to be able to guarantee cash flow in order to mitigate risk. When you add a variable to the cash flow (we cannot forecast development in fuels) you add serious risk that becomes unappetising to investors. It's as simple as that.
But had they implemented a fuel levy approach, they'd have been able to reduce the funding "duration" and offset the risk somewhat...
How on earth is the e-tolling revenue more predictable than a fuel levy which is unavoidable? Even if people agree to pay for it it will still rollercoaster up and down constantly as people forget and or don't have money to pay etc. Whereas the amount of fuel consumed per month is considerably more constant.
It's the risk on the funding side of things that's important to consider. In addition, should they change cash flows of their existing debt from direct payment to fuel-levy, it would probably trigger a default on their debt, so they'd need to renegotiate all of their debt deals with their creditors, and I highly doubt they'd be willing to accept additional risk at the same coupon rate. Again, it would probably require funding the deal from scratch to be honest.
They've truly cocked this up. They cannot realistically go and fundamentally change the prospectususes of their debt deals without triggering an automatic default...
Vehicles have to use the highways irrespective. This is evident based on current usage even after implementation. They can forecast those numbers very easily. Forecasting development in fuel systems over the course of 30 years is not possible, and adding this component into a DCM deal adds considerable risk.
I'm not supporting their decision. I'm simply telling you the reality of the fixed income market, which is one I've worked in for years...
supersunbird
Honorary Master
What about variables like fuel prices increasing and thus people minimizing trips and less cars due to public transport systems or economic depression and and and?
- Status