“没有可行的替代方案”：议员们说，英国必须实行里程收费
‘No viable alternative’: UK must introduce road pricing, MPs say
译文简介
“感觉每次我到达人生的某个阶段，读学位、买房子、买车，他们就会决定在我做之前或之后毁掉它。”——《卫报》报道。
正文翻译
‘No viable alternative’: UK must introduce road pricing, MPs say
-Transport committee concludes that drop in fuel-duty revenues from shift to electric requires urgent action
“没有可行的替代方案”：议员们说，英国必须实行里程收费
——运输委员会的结论是，需要采取紧急行动应对由于转向电力而导致的燃油税收入下降
-Transport committee concludes that drop in fuel-duty revenues from shift to electric requires urgent action
“没有可行的替代方案”：议员们说，英国必须实行里程收费
——运输委员会的结论是，需要采取紧急行动应对由于转向电力而导致的燃油税收入下降
(The UK faces an under-resourced and congested future if motoring taxation is not reformed, MPs say.)
（议员们表示，如果不改革汽车税收，英国将面临资源不足和拥堵的未来。）
新闻：
Motorists will have to pay by the mile to make up a £35bn tax shortfall that will arise from the shift to electric vehicles, MPs have warned, calling on the government to act urgently to bring in a national road pricing scheme.
英国国会议员们警告称，驾车者将必须按英里付费，以弥补因转向电动汽车而产生的350亿英镑的（燃油）税收缺口。他们呼吁政府立即采取行动，引入一项全国道路收费计划。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
英国国会议员们警告称，驾车者将必须按英里付费，以弥补因转向电动汽车而产生的350亿英镑的（燃油）税收缺口。他们呼吁政府立即采取行动，引入一项全国道路收费计划。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The cross-party Commons transport sext committee said it saw “no viable alternative” to road pricing and work should start immediately on creating a replacement for fuel duty before it dwindled away with the transition.
跨党派的下议院交通特别委员会表示，它认为道路收费“没有可行的替代方案”，应立即着手创建一种替代燃油税的方案，以免燃油税随着用能转向过渡而逐渐减少。
跨党派的下议院交通特别委员会表示，它认为道路收费“没有可行的替代方案”，应立即着手创建一种替代燃油税的方案，以免燃油税随着用能转向过渡而逐渐减少。
Without urgent reform of motoring taxation, the UK would face an under-resourced and congested future, the committee said. New petrol and diesel vehicles will be banned from sale from 2030, as part of the governments 2050 net zero plans, losing the Treasury roughly £28bn in fuel duty and £7bn in vehicle excise duty, under current tax rules.
该委员会表示，如果不立即对汽车税收进行改革，英国将面临资源不足和拥堵的未来。从2030年起，新的汽油和柴油汽车将被禁止销售，这是政府2050年碳中和计划的一部分，根据现行税收规则，财政部将损失约280亿英镑的燃油税和70亿英镑的汽车消费税。
该委员会表示，如果不立即对汽车税收进行改革，英国将面临资源不足和拥堵的未来。从2030年起，新的汽油和柴油汽车将被禁止销售，这是政府2050年碳中和计划的一部分，根据现行税收规则，财政部将损失约280亿英镑的燃油税和70亿英镑的汽车消费税。
With the exception of the Green party, few have consistently called for road pricing, after an attempt in 2007 by Labour to implement a scheme met with an enormous public backlash. The mayor of London,Sadiq Khan, last month said the capital should move to a smart road pricing scheme but claimed the technology was not ready to introduce it before the end of his current term in office.
除了绿党，很少有人坚持要求道路收费，2007年，工党试图实施一项计划，但遭到了公众的强烈反对。伦敦市长萨迪克·汗上月表示，伦敦应该推行智能道路收费计划，但他表示，在他当前任期结束前，这项技术还没有准备好引入该计划。
除了绿党，很少有人坚持要求道路收费，2007年，工党试图实施一项计划，但遭到了公众的强烈反对。伦敦市长萨迪克·汗上月表示，伦敦应该推行智能道路收费计划，但他表示，在他当前任期结束前，这项技术还没有准备好引入该计划。
Recognising the political difficulty, in its report published on Friday, the committee said new charges should entirely replace fuel duty and vehicle excise duty and be “revenue neutral”, with most motorists paying the same or less than they do now.
该委员会在上周五发布的报告中意识到这一政治困难，表示新收费应完全取代燃油税和汽车消费税，实现“税收平衡”，多数驾车者支付的费用与目前持平或更低。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
该委员会在上周五发布的报告中意识到这一政治困难，表示新收费应完全取代燃油税和汽车消费税，实现“税收平衡”，多数驾车者支付的费用与目前持平或更低。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The MPs said the government should consider the impact on vulnerable groups and those in rural areas, and ensure that any data captured be subject to “rigorous governance and oversight” to protect privacy.
议员们表示，政府应该考虑对弱势群体和农村地区的影响，并确保捕获的任何数据都受到“严格的管理和监督”，以保护隐私。
议员们表示，政府应该考虑对弱势群体和农村地区的影响，并确保捕获的任何数据都受到“严格的管理和监督”，以保护隐私。
It should also incentivise people to continue to use public transport, walk or cycle, the committee said, with driving set to become an ever cheaper option once an electric vehicle is bought.
委员会表示，这还应该鼓励人们在一旦购买电动汽车，开车将成为一个越来越便宜的选择的情况下，继续使用公共交通工具、步行或骑自行车。
委员会表示，这还应该鼓励人们在一旦购买电动汽车，开车将成为一个越来越便宜的选择的情况下，继续使用公共交通工具、步行或骑自行车。
Drivers of electric vehicles should pay to maintain and use the roads, the MPs said, like petrol and diesel drivers do – although incentives to purchase cleaner vehicles must remain.
议员们表示，电动汽车的司机也应该像汽油和柴油司机一样，为道路的维护和使用付费，尽管购买清洁汽车的激励措施必须保留。
议员们表示，电动汽车的司机也应该像汽油和柴油司机一样，为道路的维护和使用付费，尽管购买清洁汽车的激励措施必须保留。
The report calls on the Treasury and Department for Transport to set up an arm’s length body to draw up a scheme by the end of 2022.
该报告呼吁财政部和交通部成立一个独立的机构，在2022年底之前制定出一项计划。
该报告呼吁财政部和交通部成立一个独立的机构，在2022年底之前制定出一项计划。
Committee chair Huw Merriman said it was “time for an honest conversation on motoring taxes” with the uptake of zero-emission vehicles ahead of official government forecasts.
委员会主席休·梅里曼表示，随着零排放汽车早于政府官方预测的普及，现在是“就机动车税进行坦诚对话的时候了”。
委员会主席休·梅里曼表示，随着零排放汽车早于政府官方预测的普及，现在是“就机动车税进行坦诚对话的时候了”。
He said that he believed the public would support a scheme despite previous opposition: “It’s important to emphasise that motorists won’t pay more. The difference between now and then is that the revenue – for roads, schools and hospitals – is ticking down to zero, unless we put 5p on to income tax. This issue can’t be dodged. We have to change policy.”
他说他相信公众会支持这项计划，尽管之前有人反对：“重要的是要强调，驾车者不会支付更多的钱。现在和过去的不同之处在于，道路、学校和医院的税收正在减少到零，除非我们征收5便士的所得税。这个问题不能回避。我们必须改变政策。”
他说他相信公众会支持这项计划，尽管之前有人反对：“重要的是要强调，驾车者不会支付更多的钱。现在和过去的不同之处在于，道路、学校和医院的税收正在减少到零，除非我们征收5便士的所得税。这个问题不能回避。我们必须改变政策。”
Merriman said that the technology now existed to deliver a national scheme that priced up a journey based on the road, time and type of vehicle, offering better prices at less congested times.
梅里曼说，现在的技术可以提供一个全国性的方案，根据道路、时间和车辆类型来为旅程定价，在不那么拥挤的时间提供更低的收费标准。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
梅里曼说，现在的技术可以提供一个全国性的方案，根据道路、时间和车辆类型来为旅程定价，在不那么拥挤的时间提供更低的收费标准。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Motoring thinktank the RAC Foundation backed the call for road pricing but warned against “the temptation to create an over-complex system that’s expensive to run” – suggesting charges could be calculated and collected alongside vehicle insurance premiums.
汽车智库“英国皇家飞行俱乐部基金会”支持道路收费的呼吁，但警告反对“创建一个过于复杂、运行成本昂贵的系统的诱惑”——建议收费可以与车辆保险费一起计算和收取。
汽车智库“英国皇家飞行俱乐部基金会”支持道路收费的呼吁，但警告反对“创建一个过于复杂、运行成本昂贵的系统的诱惑”——建议收费可以与车辆保险费一起计算和收取。
Steve Gooding, director of the foundation, said: “Drivers choosing to go electric deserve to know what is coming next – particularly if the promise of cheap per-mile running costs is set to be undermined by a future tax change. If the Treasury is thinking it can leave this issue for another day but still recoup their losses from electric vehicles they risk a furious backlash.”
该基金会的负责人史蒂夫·古丁说：“选择电动汽车的司机应该知道接下来会发生什么——尤其是如果每英里行驶成本低廉的承诺被未来的税收改革所破坏的话。如果财政部想把这个问题留待日后解决，但仍从电动汽车上弥补他们的税收损失，那么他们可能会遭到强烈反对。”
该基金会的负责人史蒂夫·古丁说：“选择电动汽车的司机应该知道接下来会发生什么——尤其是如果每英里行驶成本低廉的承诺被未来的税收改革所破坏的话。如果财政部想把这个问题留待日后解决，但仍从电动汽车上弥补他们的税收损失，那么他们可能会遭到强烈反对。”
The Policy Exchange thinktank, issuing its own report, said road pricing could be “good for drivers” by easing congestion, and should be implemented through location-tracking technology in cars, backed up by automatic numberplate recognition.
智库“政策交流”发布了自己的报告，称道路收费可以通过缓解拥堵“对司机有利”，应该通过汽车定位跟踪技术来实施，并辅以自动车牌识别。
智库“政策交流”发布了自己的报告，称道路收费可以通过缓解拥堵“对司机有利”，应该通过汽车定位跟踪技术来实施，并辅以自动车牌识别。
评论翻译
很赞 ( 0 )
收藏
So while electric vehicles were a luxury item, no tax. When they start becoming available to middle and low income earners, find a way to tax them.
Sounds about right.
因此，尽管电动汽车是奢侈品，但无需缴税。当它们开始向中低收入者开放时，就想办法对它们征税。
听起来蛮合理的，是吧。
Incorrect, actually.
It's not a conspiracy to help the rich and screw the poor.
It's the acceptance that a tax cut to change people's behaviour has been successful, and the loss of revenue needs to be regained.
Taxation has 2 purposes:
1、Raise money for the government
2、Influence behaviour.
The "influence behaviour" part could be raising taxes on things you want people to do LESS of (smoking, alcohol, sugar tax on drinks) or reducing taxes on things you want people to do MORE of (driving vehicles that pollute less)
The problem is when the "cut taxes to influence good behaviour" works too well.
The Government loses revenue.
Here's a recent example that applied purely to petrol/diesel cars - zero road tax for cars that emitted 100g/km of CO2 or less. That was introduced to encourage people to switch to smaller cars or hybrids, and to encourage manufacturers to adapt their cars. And it worked! People switched, manufacturers improved their vehicles, lots of people now had cars that emitted 100g/km of CO2... and revenue went down. So a correction was needed to offset the lost revenue and now all new fossil-fuel cars have a minimum road tax of £140.
And this new proposal is the same thing, but on a larger scale. Because come 2040 ALL new cars will be zero-emission. It won't be a matter of choice any more. And the amount of duty that comes from fossil fuel sales will drop.
That's all it is. You've successfully influenced (or legislated) a "good" behaviour and now you need to make up for the revenue shortfall somehow.
It's not a conspiracy, it's just maths.
实际上，不是你想的那样。
这不是一个帮助富人压榨穷人的阴谋。
它是一种认可，即通过减税来改变人们的行为已经取得了成功，税收损失需要重新弥补。
税收有两个目的：
1、为政府筹款
2、影响行为。
“影响行为”部分可以是对你希望人们少做的事情（烟、酒、对饮料征收糖税）增税，或者对你希望人们多做的事情（驾驶污染较少的车辆）减税。
问题在于“通过减税来影响良好行为”的效果太好了。
但政府失去了收入。
这里有一个最近的例子，完全适用于汽油/柴油汽车——对每公里排放100克或更少二氧化碳的汽车免征道路税。这是为了鼓励人们转向小型汽车或混合动力汽车，并鼓励制造商改装他们的汽车。并且它成功了！人们改变了，制造商改进了他们的汽车，很多人现在的汽车排放100克/公里的二氧化碳…政府收入下降了。因此需要进行调整以弥补损失的收入，现在所有新的化石燃料汽车的最低道路税为140英镑。
这个新提案也是一样的，只是规模更大。因为到2040年，所有的新车都将是零排放的。这不再是选择要不要的问题了。来自化石燃料销售的关税将会下降。
就是这样。你已经成功地影响（或立法）了一种“良好”行为，现在你需要以某种方式弥补收入不足。
这不是阴谋，只是数学问题。
The problem is what about people who live in rural areas and have to use a car to get to work? Some could be travelling 60 miles per work day if not more.
For some the public transport isn't an option as it takes much longer than a private vehicle. Any sort of pay by mile system is a massive rip off and completely unfair on those who have no real option for public transport. Where I live if you want to go North to the big cities for work you have no public transport. The infrastructure isn't there for it for some reason even though it is one of the major cities in the UK.
问题是那些住在农村地区，不得不开车上班的人怎么办呢？有些人可能每天要跑60英里，如果不是更多的话。
对于一些人来说，公共交通不是个选择，因为它比私人交通工具花费的时间长得多。任何形式的里程付费体系都是一种巨大的剥削，对那些没有真正公共交通出行选择的人来说是完全不公平的。在我住的地方，如果你想去北方的大城市工作，那里没有公共交通途径。尽管它是英国的主要城市之一，但由于某种原因，它的基础设施并不完善。
But if the taxation of the 120 miles driven is the same or even less than it would have worked out at with fossil fuels?
Your overall cost for those 120 miles would still be a lot less.
As long as they do it that way, and they didn’t track me I can’t think of a problem.
但是，如果行驶120英里的税收与使用化石燃料时一样，甚至更少呢？
这120英里的总花费仍然会少很多。
只要他们这么做，并且不跟踪我的轨迹，我想不出有什么问题。
I don't know why they even bother pretending they need any believable cover to reach into our pockets and take whatever they want.
The article talks about how without this change there will be a 'heavily congested future'. I'm in Notts - the future is now, bitches. The roads here are completely unusable both in terms of how busy they always are and how bad of a condition they're in. Maybe, rather than taxing the shit out of people with dinky little electric cars, you could tax the folks doing the school run in their 18 tonne Range Rovers ripping up the bloody road surfaces..? It's very well documented that large cars do massively disproportionate damage to road surfaces, and by applying such road pricing to everyone you're not disincentivising people from buying the vehicles that damage our environment and road infrastructure the most...
我不明白他们为什么要假装需要某种堂而皇之的掩护来把手伸进我们的口袋，拿走他们想要的东西。
这篇文章说道如果不发起这一改变，将会有一个“严重拥挤的未来”。我在诺丁汉郡，你们口中的“（拥挤的）未来”就是现在的情况，贱人们。这里的道路完全不能使用，因为它们总是非常繁忙，而且它们的路况非常糟糕。也许，与其对那些开着小电动汽车的人使劲征税，更应该向那些开着他们18吨重的路虎去学校的人征税？有充分的证据表明，大型汽车对路面造成了不成比例的损害，对所有人（不加区分地）实施这样的道路收费，并不会阻止人们购买那些对我们的环境和道路基础设施破坏最大的汽车……
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I agree with what you've said, but a lot electric cars are nearly heavy as the big SUVs - a tesla weights ~2.1 tonnes, a land rover discovery, also 2.1 tonnes. A Nissan leaf weighs 1.6 tonnes, a BMW M3 only weighs 1.5 tonnes.
But no matter the cause, there's a load of wear and tear on the roads that is currently not being paid for. And unless you up income tax (which punishes those that have ditched cars completely), then a vehicle tax of some sort is needed. A mileage tax modified by a vehicle weight seems the fairest way.
Those big range rovers will pay the mileage tax and all have to pay fuel duty, essentially charging them twice.
我赞同你的说法，但很多电动汽车几乎和大型SUV一样重——特斯拉的重量约为2.1吨，路虎发现的重量也为2.1吨。尼桑聆风重1.6吨，宝马M3只有1.5吨。
但不管原因是什么，道路上的大量磨损目前都没有得到补偿。除非你提高所得税（这将惩罚那些完全抛弃汽车的人），否则就需要征收某种形式的汽车税。根据车辆重量调整里程税似乎才是最公平的方式。
这些大揽胜们将支付里程税，所有人都必须支付燃油税，本质上就是对他们两次收费。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Wouldn't it make more sense to charge based on energy used by electric cars? Penalising bigger, heavier, more powerful cars would surely make more sense than just a flat rate per mile? People would then try to drive more 'eco' and drive more energy efficient cars - similar to how it is currently??
根据电动汽车使用的能源来充电不是更有意义吗？惩罚更大、更重、马力更大的汽车，肯定比只对每英里无差别收费更有意义？这样人们就会尝试驾驶更环保、更节能的汽车——就像现在这样，不是吗？？
Roads and parking are hideously expensive and it makes sense for drivers to bear the majority of the cost for that. But it would make sense, rather than trying to make up a shortfall in revenue, to use it as an opportunity to change behaviour. Make the first mile cost much higher to reduce short journeys that could be replaced with other means (and maybe provide an exception for those who are reliant on cars). Add a lone occupant penalty to push ride-sharing, or introduce carpool lanes. Discounts if you park at a park & ride. Massively increase the taxes on low-density and overground car parks.
路费和停车费贵得吓人，让司机承担其中的大部分费用是有道理的。但是，与其试图弥补政府收入的不足，不如把它作为一个改变行为的机会，这才是有意义的。提高第一英里的成本，以减少短途旅行，这些短途旅行可以被其他方式取代（也许可以为那些依赖汽车的人提供一个例外）。增加对单独乘坐者的处罚，以推动拼车，或引入拼车车道。如果你把车停在停车场，就会有折扣。大规模增加对低密度和地上停车场的税收。
So many of those schemes are available around the country just not everywhere. It needs a good push to get all towns and cities to a good level that means people don’t need to drive their cars in and around them. 66% of journeys are under 5 miles if that’s in towns and cities then really these journeys can be done by public and active travel.
很多这样的计划在全国都有，但不是所有地方都有。它需要一个良好的推动，使所有的城镇和城市达到一个良好的水平，这意味着人们不需要开车进入和到达周边。66%的旅程都在5英里以下，如果是在城镇和城市，那么这些旅程真的可以通过公共交通和运动方式来完成。
Oh come on. I'm 26 and just considering buying my first car. Petrol of course, because I don't have the money for electric. I want a car because city public transport takes double or more time than a car journey and national rail is painfully expensive and shite.
This government continues to absolutely milk my generation for money for things that used to cost very little, or nothing. It feels like every time I reach a life stage, doing a degree, buying a house, buying a car, they decide to ruin it right before I do it or promptly after.
Surely the right decision here is to increase taxation on expensive, powerful, luxury vehicles to encourage choosing an electric or a tiny 1.1L city car.
Use the taxation to improve public transport and for God's sake invest in rail services outside of London for once.
But nah, they'll just continue to reem the young and the poor for everything they're worth while building a lovely horde of gold to sit on and do fuck all with. Please, let me start my life and stop making everything so hard.
哦，拜托。我26岁，正考虑买我的第一辆车。当然是汽油车，因为我没钱买电动的。我想要一辆车，因为城市公共交通比开车要花两倍甚至更多的出行时间，而国家铁路票价又非常昂贵。
这届政府继续压榨我们这代人，让我们为过去花费很少，甚至分文不花的东西交钱。感觉每次我到达人生的某个阶段，读学位、买房子、买车，他们就会决定在我做之前或之后毁掉它。
当然，正确的决定是对昂贵、强大、豪华的汽车增税，以鼓励人们选择电动汽车或1.1L的小型城市车。
利用税收来改善公共交通，并且看在上帝的份上，再投资一次伦敦以外的铁路服务吧。
但不，他们只会继续竭尽所能地剥削年轻人和穷人，同时建立一个可爱的黄金阶层坐在上面，cao着所有人。拜托，让我开始我的生活吧，别让一切都那么艰难行不行。
This government continues to absolutely milk my generation for money
I agree that the Government is fucking over the younger generation, but I don't think that making motoring more expensive is an example of that.
Older people are much more likely to drive cars and older motorists are likely to drive a lot more than younger motorists.
You even mention that you haven't owned a car yet. If the cost of driving was shifted from car owners to general taxation, you would have been paying to subsidise drivers for the past few years. That's not exactly helping inter-generational inequality!
You're right that the Government should use taxes to improve public transport. In fact, I'd go further and suggest that increasing taxes on driving and spending that money on public transport would do a lot more to help young people than subsidising drivers would!
“这届政府继续压榨我们这代人，让我们为过去花费很少，甚至分文不花的东西交钱”
我同意政府是在cao年轻一代，但我不认为让汽车更贵是一个例子。
年长的人更有可能开车，而年长的驾车者比年轻的驾车者开车的次数更多。
你甚至提到你还没有车。如果将驾驶成本从车主身上转移到一般税收上，那么在过去几年里，你本该一直在为补贴司机买单。这并不是在帮助代际不平等！
你说得对，政府应该用税收来改善公共交通。事实上，我想更进一步，建议增加驾驶税，把钱花在公共交通上，这比补贴司机更能帮助年轻人！
The main issue here is that once again we have a tax system becoming regressive.
The people driving the most mike's tend to be the least well off -jn particular road pricing is going to hit the blue collared commuting workers while the WFH richer white collared types will pay less.
While the old system had many flaws at least you could choose a vehicle with a lower rate of tax if you so wished. The most expensive, high performance vehicles paid the most.
While of course reducing the number of vehicles on the roads helps with the plan to cut carbon emissions, the burden is being unfairly shared. Instead of creating a new tax system why not simply increase Income Tax to cover the difference. More efficient and definitely more progressive.
这里的主要问题是，我们的税收体系再次变得倒退了。
开车最多的人往往是最不富裕的人，特别是道路收费将影响蓝领通勤工人，而富裕的白领阶层将支付更少。
虽然旧的税收体系有很多缺陷，但至少你可以选择一辆税率较低的汽车，如果你愿意的话。最昂贵的高性能汽车付出的税收也最大。
当然，减少道路上的车辆数量有助于减少碳排放，但这一负担却被不公平地分担。与其创建一个新的税收体系，为什么不简单地增加所得税来弥补差额呢？这更有效率，更进步。
I travel 5 miles to work in the city center, then I travel 4 miles to my second job, then 9 miles home. Total drive time is about 45 mins daily. On public transport the first journey alone would be 45 minutes. I can only imagine the costs being similar on a bus. Then there's standing in the cold, wet, and snow, busses knocking, being late, and ofcourse it's not 24 hours in my city busses stop at 11.30pm, and don't start until 6ish. Who said there's no viable alternative? What MPs are saying this? Why?
我要跑5英里去市中心上班，然后再跑4英里去我的第二份工作场所，然后再跑9英里回家。每天的总驾驶时间约为45分钟。如果坐公共交通，第一次的旅行就将是45分钟。我只能想象坐公交车的费用（和开车的油费）差不多。然后是站在寒冷、潮湿、下雪、公交车的晃动中，迟到，而且当然不是24小时都有班次，在我的城市公交车最后一班在晚上11:30，直到早上6点左右才开始发出第一班。谁说没有其他可行的选择？哪个议员这么说的？为什么？
Sorry but wasn’t the selling point of electric vehicles the fact that you pay less because you save on fuel and therefore fuel duty.
Why isn’t the government taxing companies that can afford it?
抱歉，但这可不是电动汽车的卖点——因为你可以省下燃料和燃油税，所以你付的钱更少才是。
政府干吗不去对负担得起的公司征税呢？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Why isn’t the government taxing companies that can afford it?
Because the same companies lobby bribe the government to not have to pay any tax, plus the UK is the worlds leading country for offshore Tax Havens and various ways for the wealthy to avoid paying any tax / as little tax as possible... it's one of the many reasons for the timing of Brexit as the EU was going to crack down on EU countries that operated tax havens.
“政府干吗不去对负担得起的公司征税呢？”
因为同样是这些公司为了不用交税而游说和贿赂政府，再加上英国是世界上离岸避税天堂和各种避税方式的领先国家，富人可以尽可能少交税。这是脱欧时机选取的众多原因之一，因为欧盟打算打击运营避税天堂的欧盟国家了。
What a pile of horseshit, because motorist are moving to a non-environmentally damaging form of travel and the government can't make money out of it then they suggest this? don't these clowns realise that electricity is taxed?
真是一派胡言，因为驾车者正在转向一种对环境无害的旅行方式，而政府无法从中赚钱，他们就建议这样做？这些小丑们难道不知道（电动汽车充的）电已经交过税了吗？
Maybe the alternative is to tax Facebook, Google et al at the same percentages of income as individual households have to do. It might mean that road taxes could be abolished altogether.
也许另一种选择是对Facebook和谷歌等实体征税，税率与每个家庭的收入税比例相同。这也许就意味着道路税可以被完全废除了。
All depends oh how it's done, I suspect it will be via black boxes that track your mileage and, conveniently for the state surveillance, happen to track everywhere you go and how fast you travel.
These already exist in many insurance policies for younger drives as a means for them to get cheaper insurance costs with monitored driving, so the government already has a system that's been in use for a few years and has a proven record of being able to track people and I can see the government loving the idea of having full tracking of exactly where everyone goes to and how fast everyone is going in their vehicles.
Will be promoted as well as an aid to cut accidents by cutting speeding / dangerous driving by everyone being tracked.... More surveillance for the general population :(
这取决于这种里程税是如何实践的，我猜它将通过黑匣子跟踪你的里程，方便国家监控，并“碰巧”跟踪你去的任何地方和你开车的速度。
这些已经存在于许多年轻驾驶员的保单条款中了，作为一种手段，他们可以在监控驾驶的情况下获得更便宜的保险费用，所以政府已经有了一个现成的系统，这个系统已经被使用了好几年，并且已经证明了它能够跟踪人们，而我觉得政府很喜欢这个想法，可以全程跟踪每个人去哪里，每个人开车的速度有多快。
这个税收体系将被推广，并通过减少每个被跟踪的人的超速/危险驾驶来帮助减少事故……以及对一般人群进行更多的监测 :(
Should have happened years ago.
Make it 20p per mile for Ice and hybrids, 10p for ev and they'd get my vote.
几年前就该这么做了。
燃油和混合动力车每英里收20便士，电动车每英里10便士，如此就会得到我的投票。