UK fuel duty cut is regressive policy that benefits the wealthy, study finds
- Chancellor’s 5p freeze will save £60 a year for well-off motorists compared with just £22 for lower earners

研究發現,英國削減燃油稅是一項有利于富人的倒退政策
——財政大臣凍結5便士的政策將為富裕駕車者每年節省60英鎊,而低收入者每年只節省22英鎊


(Critics of the fuel duty cut say it helps the rich who tend to own more vehicles while doing ‘little for the economy’.)

(對削減燃油稅持批評態度的人士說,這有助于那些傾向于擁有更多汽車的富人,而對經濟卻“沒有什么幫助”。)
新聞:

Retaining the fuel duty cut in the budget is a regressive policy that benefits the wealthiest in society, who will save £60 a year, while those who earn the least will save just £22, according to analysis.

分析顯示,在預算中保留燃油稅削減是一項退步政策,有利于社會上最富有的人,他們每年將節省60英鎊,而收入最低的人只能節省22英鎊。

Jeremy Hunt on Wednesday announced an extension of the 5p cut in fuel duty brought in during 2022, for which he has won plaudits across the rightwing press.

杰里米·亨特周三宣布,將延長2022年開始實施的5便士燃油稅削減計劃,他的這一決定贏得了右翼媒體的喝彩。

But the Social Market Foundation (SMF) thinktank found the freeze, expected to cost £5bn a year, is bad value for money and benefits the wealthiest in society who tend to own more cars, and drive less fuel-efficient vehicles such as SUVs.

但社會市場基金會智庫發現,這項預計每年花費50億英鎊的凍結措施性價比低,有利于社會上最富有的人,他們往往擁有更多的汽車,并駕駛越野車等燃油效率較低的汽車。

Combined, the fuel duty freeze, which has been in place since it was introduced as a temporary measure in 2011, and the 5p cut to fuel duty, have cost the Treasury £100bn since 2011, according to the SMF analysis.

根據社會市場基金會的分析,自2011年作為一項臨時措施推出以來,凍結燃油稅一直存在,再加上燃油稅下調5便士,自2011年以來,財政部已經損失了1000億英鎊。

The two tax cuts to fuel are expected to knock £27bn off Treasury coffers over five years. The Conservatives attacked Labour’s ditched £28bn green investment promise over the same period as ruinously expensive.

這兩項針對燃油的減稅措施預計將在5年內使英國國庫減少270億英鎊。保守黨抨擊工黨在同一時期拋棄的280億英鎊綠色投資承諾是“毀滅性的昂貴”。

Critics have said the fuel duty cut “helps the rich” while doing “little for the economy” as public transport worsens in quality.

批評人士表示,由于公共交通質量惡化,削減燃油稅“幫助了富人”,但“對經濟沒有什么幫助”。

In total, the SMF found the bottom fifth of earners would receive just 10% of the savings, compared with the top fifth who would pocket 24%.

總的來說,社會市場基金會發現收入最低的五分之一的人只會得到這筆節省的10%,而收入最高的五分之一的人會得到24%。

Chris Todd, the director of the campaign group Transport Action Network, said: “We need to increase investment in public transport to help level up and give people better access to jobs, healthcare and recreation. Instead, we’re seeing services slashed to subsidise cuts in fuel duty. These cuts mostly help the rich and do little for the economy. Those in need suffer most from poorer services and the higher levels of pollution that will follow.”

“交通行動網絡”活動組織的負責人克里斯·托德說:“我們需要增加對公共交通的投資,以幫助人們提升水平,讓人們更好地獲得工作、醫療和娛樂。但相反,我們看到服務被大幅削減,以補貼燃油稅的削減。這些削減主要是幫助富人,對經濟沒有什么幫助。那些有需要的人最容易受到更差的服務和隨之而來的更嚴重的污染的影響?!?/b>

Sarah McMonagle, the director of external affairs at Cycling UK, said: “Far too many of us are dependent on our car but that’s because the government has failed to invest long term in public transport, cycling and walking, to give more people affordable, safe and reliable alternatives to driving. The public needs integrated transport policies and long-term investment, not political rhetoric about standing up for drivers.”

英國自行車協會對外事務主管莎拉·麥克莫納格爾說:“我們中有太多人依賴自己的汽車,但這是因為政府沒有在公共交通、自行車和步行方面進行長期投資,沒有給更多的人提供負擔得起、安全可靠的替代駕車的選擇。公眾需要的是綜合交通政策和長期投資,而不是維護司機利益的政治說辭?!?/b>

The SMF has suggested more equitable and green ways to cut motoring costs, which would be investing in public transport, that “provide cheaper alternatives to driving for those who want to switch and decreases congestion for those who don’t”.

社會市場基金會提出了更公平、更環保的方式來降低駕駛成本——對公共交通的投資,“為那些想要轉換的人提供更便宜的選擇,并為那些不想要的人減少擁堵”。

The analysis found that for every 10% increase in public transport speed relative to driving, the average household saved £435 a year on transport costs.

分析發現,相對于開車,公共交通速度每提高10%,平均每個家庭每年就能節省435英鎊的交通成本。

Electric vehicle drivers spend almost half as much fuelling their car as the equivalent petrol or diesel model, and the SMF has calculated that if the initial price of an electric vehicle was the same, households would save an average of £900 annually. The thinktank suggests the government should instead spend the money used to cut fuel duty to build charge points and help lower-income households afford electric vehicles.

電動汽車司機的充電費用幾乎是同等汽油或柴油車型的一半,社會市場基金會計算出,如果電動汽車的初始價格相同,家庭平均每年將節省900英鎊。該智庫建議,政府應該把削減燃油稅的錢用于建設充電站,幫助低收入家庭買得起電動汽車。

Gideon Salutin, a senior researcher at the SMF, said: “Listening to the rhetoric around fuel duty, you would think freezes provide immediate relief for low-income households and working-class commuters. But those are the households that tend to drive less, own fewer cars and travel more efficiently.

社會市場基金會高級研究員吉迪恩·薩魯丁表示:“聽了有關燃油稅的言論,你會認為燃油稅凍結會立即緩解低收入家庭和工薪階層通勤者的壓力。但這些家庭往往開車更少,擁有的汽車更少,出行效率更高。

“By constraining fuel duty, the government is wasting billions of pounds every year while robbing low-income households of cheaper options like public transport and EVs. These could pull millions out of poverty, but instead we’re wasting billions on unjust cuts.”

“通過限制燃油稅,政府每年浪費數十億英鎊,同時剝奪了低收入家庭更便宜的選擇,比如公共交通和電動汽車。這能使數百萬人擺脫貧困,但我們卻在不公正的削減上浪費了數十億美元?!?br />