-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green car tax
- Thread starter Jenni
- Start date
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Something like that was bound to happen.
The more EV's there are on the roads, the higher the taxes will be. In the end, it will either be such direct EV taxes or the state will put higher taxation on electricity. Or both - to make sure no one is omitted.
Sad but inevitable the way states/countries work.
Taxing electricity for EV use makes no sense. The grid cannot differentiate whether power is used by your Model S or your microwave, so a tax would have to be levied on all kWh which would negatively impact non-EV owners. Right now Arizona offers reduced registration fees for EVs, but I'm certain that situation will reverse as more EVs displace gasoline cars.
Here come the EV Police telling me where I can legally plug in my vehicle? I don't think so…
Well, I think it's unlikely that they will institute a new mechanism. More likely they will do what Washington St does - $100/yr. I think this is reasonable though expect it to go higher when we reach something like 25% EV penetration.
The simple fact is it takes money to keep the roads in decent shape. Just because we are driving green vehicles doesn't mean we should be exempt from paying for road usage. n'est ce pas?
The simple fact is it takes money to keep the roads in decent shape. Just because we are driving green vehicles doesn't mean we should be exempt from paying for road usage. n'est ce pas?
No it isn't. There should never be a fixed fee for something when the cost depends on amount of use and what's using it.
Take $100.
Divide by 0.559 and multiply by 50. That's your Prius equivalent miles. It's 8, 944 miles. Now consider that gasoline and diesel have a significant externality that fuel raxes don't pay for. You didn't pay sakes tax on your EV but you pay sales tax when you spend your savings on anything else. Do you pay any per kWh tax on electricity?
OK now what tax breaks do WA give Boeing for providing a benefit to the state?
I really wouldn't mind paying per mile with a combination of volume and weight fees. I'd pay more than I do now because my cars are both better than average. But if that ever happens I'd like fuel taxes to pay for the costs of fuel dependency and toxic exhaust gases (emissions be damned).
These fixed fees are lazy, cowardly and unfair.
Last edited:
I'm waiting for step 1 to complete. Were you going to do it via PayPal?
@Itsnot... I don't disagree on paying a use tax that is proportional to actual distance driven but given that there is no current mechanism to do that, I don't find the 100/yr particularly objectionable. It's not perfect but I don't find it unfair either.
By the way, WA has a sales tax holiday on EVs so breaks there already. Oh, yeah, and the Feds are giving 7500 tax credit. So, $100 is way cheap for me.
I'm not sure why people are getting knickers in a twist over this sort of thing. I, for one, want the potholes fixed and bridges repaired.
By the way, WA has a sales tax holiday on EVs so breaks there already. Oh, yeah, and the Feds are giving 7500 tax credit. So, $100 is way cheap for me.
I'm not sure why people are getting knickers in a twist over this sort of thing. I, for one, want the potholes fixed and bridges repaired.
jeffro01
Active Member
I hate to break it to you all but, gas taxes are the primary source for transportation projects such as building new roads, rehabilitating existing ones, etc... As people buy less gas whether due to better fuel economy or no longer needing to buy gas at all, that revenue has got to be replaced from somewhere. We all use the road so we all should be responsible for helping to fund it. As of right now the best anyone has been able to get implemented is a flat fee type tax to cover the lost gas tax revenue. One of better solutions would be a per mileage charge but that would require the gov't to track your mileage which isn't going to be politically popular. Either way something will have to be done.
Jeff
Jeff
Electric700
Active Member
What they're considering for Oregon should be much lower than $500 if you drive about 15,000 miles yearly. It would probably be closer to $200 for that state. I don't think these fees should be required this year since EVs are still only a small fraction of overall vehicle sales. Perhaps in three years, after more people have hopefully opted for an EV, then this should be reinvestigated. More information here:
Electric vehicle user fee considered | With gas taxes shrinking, Oregon needs a new source of funding for roads
Electric vehicle user fee considered | With gas taxes shrinking, Oregon needs a new source of funding for roads
Yes, that's what I was trying to say. A lot of people don't get that if you want services, you need to be prepared to pay for them. The objections to HOW the tax is levied are valid but too often they're just a smoke screen for anti-taxation. I personally have a problem with a lot of what the government spends my taxes on but when it comes to roads and other infrastructure costs, I am very supportive. Cheaping out on maintenance leads to potholes, bridges falling down and such. I think tracking mileage and charging by weight class will wind up being the most common solution. It will not be popular but it's the fairest.
Why not tax EVERY car & light personal-use truck a flat fee regardless of propulsion, perhaps based on value, rather than weight, at time of registration or re-registration? Some states use this mechanism already but I doubt they use the funds for transportation needs. Eliminate the gas tax at the same time? Okay by me, even though I drive less than 8,000 miles a year in my ICE and get pretty good fuel mileage as well. Note: I should have my MS in a little over 6 months and even those minimal gas taxes will disappear. My out-of-state rental property taxes pay for schools I don't use, parks I've never visited, government offices I will never enter. Mostly true for my residential property too. So be it. That's why we citizens have pooled funds. Of course I would like assurance these revenues would go to transportation/infrastructure expenses and not just into the general fund -and- a separate mechanism developed for assessing heavy commercial vehicles at a much higher rate. Yes, I realize those would drop to the bottom line of product costs and I'm willing to accept that tradeoff. IMHO, they do the most damage and they should pay the most to repair/replace.
Its makes no sense to have a special tax on fuel efficient vehicles at the same time that you're trying to encourage fuel efficient vehicles.
Gas tax is (or should be) a punitive tax to discourage gas guzzlers. EVs don't use gas should rightfully not pay gas tax.
Offering tax incentives while at the same time having special taxes makes no sense and shows how overly complex our tax system becomes when taxes are piled on top of taxes without remembering the true intent.
If the intent is to pay for road maintenance, the tax should be proportionate to the about of damage caused. The heavier the vehicle (trucks), the more miles driven (trucks), the more damage occurs. They should also be taxed based on their damage to the environment, i.e. pollution generated. Fuel inefficient trucks should be heavily taxed. Gas guzzling SUVs should be heavily taxes. Zero emission vehicles should only contribute based on mileage and weight.
This is really a right wing "conservative" attempt to undermine electric vehicles and anything having to do with conservation and somehow make it sound plausible. In NC they're trying to tax EVs and hybrids, ostensibly because they are fuel efficient. Its a regressive tax. Less tax fuel efficient vehicles more than gas guzzling SUVs.
Gas tax is (or should be) a punitive tax to discourage gas guzzlers. EVs don't use gas should rightfully not pay gas tax.
Offering tax incentives while at the same time having special taxes makes no sense and shows how overly complex our tax system becomes when taxes are piled on top of taxes without remembering the true intent.
If the intent is to pay for road maintenance, the tax should be proportionate to the about of damage caused. The heavier the vehicle (trucks), the more miles driven (trucks), the more damage occurs. They should also be taxed based on their damage to the environment, i.e. pollution generated. Fuel inefficient trucks should be heavily taxed. Gas guzzling SUVs should be heavily taxes. Zero emission vehicles should only contribute based on mileage and weight.
This is really a right wing "conservative" attempt to undermine electric vehicles and anything having to do with conservation and somehow make it sound plausible. In NC they're trying to tax EVs and hybrids, ostensibly because they are fuel efficient. Its a regressive tax. Less tax fuel efficient vehicles more than gas guzzling SUVs.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you dm33. The system doesn't know how to deal with EVs but it will get worked out. For now gas tax is how roads are funded in most states and until they make a pivot, EV "use" taxes will be clumsy, at best. I don't buy the "should tax less because we don't damage the environment" argument. That's a slippery slope you're headed down. It's a very divisive approach to turn the gas tax into an environmental damage tax. And, frankly, you use roads and should pay to keep them in good shape. EV purchases are encouraged other ways - federal tax credit for one and other benes in different states.
I have read a lot on this thread about the clumsiness of mileage-based taxes. I disagree, and for two important reasons:
1. For me, use taxes are the absolute fairest possible system for a government to institute. Tolls are one klutzy and expensive way, but apportioned use taxes are far more equitable.
Therefore,
2. As a part of each state's annual vehicle inspection - now required in almost all cases primarily for emissions testing, but also for safety (and this also is true for commercial trucks) - each vehicle should have its odometer read to determine how many miles were driven in the prior time period (ie, 12 months). The fee would then be a function of a particular vehicle's weight plus the miles driven. Extremely fair, other than that a vehicle would pay in its own state whatever miles it drove in another state. MOST of that would wash - just as the gas tax now paid in state A is thus irrespective of the fact that some of that fuel may be consumed on another state's roads. There is absolutely nothing clumsy in any way, shape or form about such a program - would add another 21.8 seconds to such an annual inspection. So to speak.
Now, what about states' existing fuel taxes, and any double taxation that thereupon would ensue to ICEs subjected to both gas tax and this use tax?
A state (and there are federal excise taxes on fuels, too) would have the option of eliminating that tax, or it could take the carrot-and-stick approach and thus provide an incentive for its residents to consider more strongly a shift toward less fuel-consumptive vehicles....and you know where I'm going there.
1. For me, use taxes are the absolute fairest possible system for a government to institute. Tolls are one klutzy and expensive way, but apportioned use taxes are far more equitable.
Therefore,
2. As a part of each state's annual vehicle inspection - now required in almost all cases primarily for emissions testing, but also for safety (and this also is true for commercial trucks) - each vehicle should have its odometer read to determine how many miles were driven in the prior time period (ie, 12 months). The fee would then be a function of a particular vehicle's weight plus the miles driven. Extremely fair, other than that a vehicle would pay in its own state whatever miles it drove in another state. MOST of that would wash - just as the gas tax now paid in state A is thus irrespective of the fact that some of that fuel may be consumed on another state's roads. There is absolutely nothing clumsy in any way, shape or form about such a program - would add another 21.8 seconds to such an annual inspection. So to speak.
Now, what about states' existing fuel taxes, and any double taxation that thereupon would ensue to ICEs subjected to both gas tax and this use tax?
A state (and there are federal excise taxes on fuels, too) would have the option of eliminating that tax, or it could take the carrot-and-stick approach and thus provide an incentive for its residents to consider more strongly a shift toward less fuel-consumptive vehicles....and you know where I'm going there.
Considering the fact that transport trucks do 1000X more damage to the roads than automobiles...
I realize you said "MOST", but Florida would likely be an pretty extreme outlier. Florida relies heavily on tourists and their purchases, including gasoline in rental cars. Presumably most of those rental cars are registered in FL and thus pay fees for that. Obviously those who choose to drive their personal autos would not pay registration fees and would escape under a fee-at-registration tax. That said, the Florida Turnpike, leading from the west coast (I-75) to Orlando area, is a toll road and would continue to pick up those dollars.
Perhaps it really is time to think of a national system tied to our transportation structure to fund improvements. I doubt that will happen in my lifetime however.
Similar threads
