We introduce a new microsimulation model built on household transport data to study the distributional effects of carbon-based fuel taxation of private road transport in Germany. Our data includes car-specific annual mileage, fuel efficiency, and the distinction between fuel types, allowing for a very detailed analysis. The model enables focusing on different household types as well as identifying effect heterogeneity across the income distribution. We compare the recent fuel tax scheme with three policy reform scenarios to empirically test several hypotheses regarding distributional effects of carbon pricing. We find that the legal status quo of the fuel tax has overall regressive effects, with the tax on petrol being regressive and the tax on diesel being progressive. A transformation of the current tax into a revenue-neutral carbon-harmonised fuel tax yields a progressive distributional effect, while an introduction of a new carbon tax on transport fuels is neither clearly regressive nor progressive. Combining both tax schemes also has non-regressive effects. On aggregate, the distributional effects are modest. Subgroup analyses, however, reveal that the individual burden can be substantial. In sum, our results suggest that policy makers face various options for pricing road transport greenhouse gas emissions without causing an overall disproportionate tax burden on low-income households.

我们引入了一种基于家庭交通数据的新微观模拟模型，以研究德国私人道路交通的碳燃料税的分配效应。我们的数据包括特定汽车的年行驶里程、燃油效率以及燃油类型之间的区别，可以进行非常详细的分析。该模型能够关注不同的家庭类型，并确定收入分配中的效应异质性。我们将最近的燃油税计划与三种政策改革方案进行比较，以实证检验有关碳定价分配效应的几个假设。我们发现，燃油税的法律现状具有整体的累退效应，汽油税是累退的，柴油税是累进的。将现行税收转变为收入中性的碳协调燃料税会产生累进的分配效应，而对运输燃料征收新的碳税既不是明显的累退也不是累进的。结合这两种税收计划也具有非累退效应。总的来说，分配效应是适度的。然而，亚组分析表明，个人负担可能很大。总之，我们的研究结果表明，政策制定者在为公路运输温室气体排放定价时面临各种选择，而不会对低收入家庭造成总体上不成比例的税收负担。总的来说，分配效应是适度的。然而，亚组分析表明，个人负担可能很大。总之，我们的研究结果表明，政策制定者在为公路运输温室气体排放定价时面临各种选择，而不会对低收入家庭造成总体上不成比例的税收负担。总的来说，分配效应是适度的。然而，亚组分析表明，个人负担可能很大。总之，我们的研究结果表明，政策制定者在为公路运输温室气体排放定价时面临各种选择，而不会对低收入家庭造成总体上不成比例的税收负担。