Edit: And the rich are more likely to be able to afford electric vehicles and appliances
_and_ they of course are more likely to be able to take a hit to their finances and an upsurge in costs.
The difference between going to the movies less and having to weigh getting all the food you need or all the toiletries you need is obviously quite large.
The question is whether there exist alternative solutions that help the poor a lot more by not wasting so much helping the rich (or especially in this case - those buying and selling fossil fuels, industries we'd prefer to be slowing down rather than encouraging with tax breaks).
Eg if the same money "spent" on this tax break had instead been a invested in raising the minimum income tax ceiling, benefits, and pensions (by equivalent amounts), it would presumably have gotten more money into the pockets of those most hurt by fuel inflation, which was the claimed goal of the change, but done less to benefit the fossil fuel industry and those who don't really need tax breaks.
Or to go more extreme you could add an untaxed fuel ration (there is a shortage after all), paid for by higher taxes on extreme usage, thus reducing overuse and increasing affordability at the same time. But that's practically communism, so can't possibly be done (to be fair, it'd be very expensive to implement, so not sure it's a serious suggestion).
> Policymakers have mostly responded to the shock with broad-based price-suppressing measures, including subsidies, tax reductions, and price controls.
> Going forward, the policy emphasis should shift rapidly towards allowing price signals to operate more freely and providing income relief to the vulnerable.
The neoliberal coalition partner blocked its extension though, so now ppl are back to paying 60-150€ per month for transit.
I'm all for using fuel taxes to subsidize clean energy and electrical cars though
A ton of other reasons where added transport costs add to increased life expenditures. It's not about the private car