There should probably be a baseline 'road access tax' that is there regardless of if the car is used or not. Assuming you drive the car out of the garage and onto public roads almost by definition (unless you have a collector car which never is driven on public roads). The use tax would be on top of that and based on mileage. Depending entirely on a use tax as cars become more efficient and electrified seems a bad way to do things. The use tax for EVs would have to be based on mileage of course.
-
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
@AudubonB, I didn't say that mileage base tax is clumsy but rather folding EVs into existing use tax systems (i.e. gas tax) is. Once a state moves to a true road use tax then we'll see rational and, just maybe, fair taxation for transportation infrastructure.
It's because EV owners showed up the stupidity of the current system and instead of attemptig to fix it they threw their hands in the air. If fixed feesmare such a great idea they'd have scrapped the fuel tax a long time ago. Odometer readings. Simple, much fairer than fixed fees, fairer than economy-based charging.
That's rich!
I just thought this was strange so I wanted to see what others had to say on the matter. Thanks for all the great posts, I somehow agreed with all of them.
As another poster pointed out, the tax layers conflict. I'm not anti-tax at all. But I just paid a lot to the state in taxes to register a much more expensive car than I would normally buy. And I will pay a local property tax, based on car value, too, in my state. I'm taxed some amount on the fuel I do use, electricity. I'm more than making up for the gas taxes I no longer pay, which were minuscule in my state for my tiny commute in my ICE. But, as others said, there is no reason to believe these other car-related taxes will actually fund infrastructure.
I guess I had 3 concerns: 1) the legislative effort to collect the paltry $64 makes me think this was purely an anti-green statement in a state ranking near last for providing green incentives 2) the flat nature of it doesn't take into account my decision to live close to work and telework half my days, or carpool some days. I never paid $32 for my hybrid to recoup lost gas taxes and those who downsized to smaller ICE vehicles aren't being penalized, even though these cars en masse have cost states far more in lost gas tax revenue. 3) there is no accounting for cumulatively lower pollution abatement or health care costs incurred by the state thanks to those who waste less.
Perhaps higher gas taxes would be one solution to encourage better car purchases. Or electricity fees to encourage efficiency and tax my use. The fairest, as you all pointed out, is a mileage fee, but many prefer to pay incrementally at the pump than in a painful yearly lump sum. And it would seem to penalize those most who may not be able to afford a house closer to town.
It's all very clumsy.
I for one am happy to pay my $64 to drive the coolest car in the world, but was not thrilled by the mixed message it sends.
Thanks!
My posts may not be reproduced.
Odometer readings as a tax reference are not necessarily fair. My Smartcar weighs 1600 lbs - my Tesla MS weighs approx 4700 lbs. Do they wear on the road per mile equally?
Each method proposed so far has it's downside. And no, I do not have a solution.
My proposal accounts for your concern: your annual inspection would show that Bill's 1600 lb car that traveled 31,560 miles gets charged $X; John's 5200 lb car that traveled 14,567 miles gets charged $Y, and Joan's Peterbilt, weighing in at 19,400 lbs and traveling 119,000 miles gets charged $Z. Again, the interstate discrepancy - especially for long-haul trucks - is the only problem here, but even presently states have determined ways to allocate such amongst commercial truckers.
arondaniel
Il Sessanta Caricato
"The good news is they use less gas," Virginia Transportation Secretary Sean Connaughton says of hybrid and electric vehicles. "The bad news is they have the same impact as a regular gasoline-powered car, yet provide little or no money for highway maintenance."
My beautiful backward state.
No balls to impose a real use tax. No clue about what an incentive is, and no clue about negative externalities.
My beautiful backward state.
No balls to impose a real use tax. No clue about what an incentive is, and no clue about negative externalities.
Merrill
Merrill
I have already posted something on this, living in California and driving on the roads in this state which are some of the worst in the country, taxing EV's because we are not buying gas and contributing is to road repair is ludicrous. I am not opposed to helping maintain the roads, we know that the money collected is not going where it should. So the gas tax is outdated. You have a country the says let's get off of fossil fuel, go green. Solar, wind, geothermal etc. Then lets tax those who do this. We already pay more taxes in California for just about everything and the energy companies are trying hard to figure a way to get more money from those who go solar. Yet in there advertisement they want you to think they are promoting alternate forms of energy, what a joke. End rant.
jeffro01
Active Member
Exactly what did he say that was untrue? What did I miss? How is that backwards?
Jeff
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Congrats, you have just found out the inner workings of the German tax system :wink:
- - - Updated - - -
But that's exactly what is matter of fact here, which is one of the reasons why almost 60% of our gas price is taxes (mineral oil tax, eco-tax, VAT - hell there is even VAT on the mineral oil and eco tax, so tax on tax!
Someone in politics has yet to explain to me what the "value-added" part of mineral oil tax and eco tax is).
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
Same here. Of the around 40 billion Euros in mineral oil tax (which is supposed to be used to fund the road infrastructure) only a little more than 10% is actually used to maintain our roads. The rest goes into the general funds for everything from social transfers to agriculture subsidies to everything else the country has to pay for.
And the net freight truck toll that is levied and which amounts to about 4 billion Euros in 2012 is supposed to also only fund road maintenance. It was supposed to be an additional source of funding but now it was revealed that the state has reduced the amount of mineral oil tax funds used for road maintenance by the exact amount of freight truck toll funds used so the net effect of the truck toll is exactly zero.
Californians pay gas taxes to maintain their roads, yet California roads are among the poorest in the nation. Cracks and potholes everywhere. Driving anywhere in California is like an obstacle course. I live in Arizona, our gas costs less than it does in California, and our roads are excellent. I can't believe Arizona can do a better job of maintaining roads than her far more economically powerful neighbor.
arondaniel
Il Sessanta Caricato
Backwards because lowering the gas tax encourages more highway destruction while lowering funds to fix them. Backwards because 15,000 miles in an 18 wheeler will do a bit more damage than driving a Prius 2.7 miles to buy organic broccoli but the state will tax them the same. Backwards because the Chesapeake bay bridge tunnel (private & pay) is building another tunnel nobody needs, while everyone else sits in 5 mile backups at the HRBT.
The incentive is backwards because the state should be encouraging ZEV, although i doubt $64 will stop many people. The statement is clueless because it ignores pollution and endless war and energy independence, which every president since Nixon says we need.
Overall, I think the state has no balls because they won't just put EZ-pass on the HRBT/MMBT. If they did that, problem solved. Like I said, CBBT has more money, literally, than they know what to do with.
-A
jeffro01
Active Member
You have to think in context. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but I'd guess there are several thousands, if not several hundreds of thousands of miles of roads not to mention millions more in population. CA's gas tax is no where near high enough to not only maintain the existing infrastructure as it stands but to also expand it to accommodate increases in traffic. Admittedly though, even if money wasn't the issue CA is their own worst enemy when it comes to infrastructure projects due to all the special interests involved such as the environmentalists, anti-cars people, anti-urban expansion people, the mountains of studies required, etc...
Jeff
- - - Updated - - -
Based on what was posted I didn't get the impression that anyone was trying to lower the gas tax. Obviously I don't know the politics of the state so I can't comment on the rest of your post. Either way, the fact doesn't change, as less gas is bought, less gas tax revenue is generated meaning less money for maintenance and improvements. States are scrambling to keep up with this decline and are trying to come up with ways to replace the revenue. It's only "fair" that EVs\Hybrids are treated equably regarding their contribution to the costs of maintaining and improving the infrastructure.
Jeff
that's exactly the issue in virginia - they are lowering the gas tax (ostensibly used to pay for road maintenance), and at the same time instituting an "EV" tax. So if they are shifting road maintenance costs away from being paid by gas taxes, and into a sales tax, then anyone owning an EV is going to be - in effect - paying for this twice. It's ass backwards, but that's VA for you.
It would be great if they could just get to something that would tax you based on miles driven combined with weight of the car, which would be a true usage based tax, but i'm not holding my breath.
Separate the issues. Charging an EV "road maintenance" tax is a fair and reasonable approach if the goal is to have EV drivers "pay their fair share." We can argue about the how the tax is calculated and levied but the goal makes sense. Don't tie this to the reduction in gas tax; that doesn't negate the "pay their fair share" argument. The gas tax still exists.
The other issue being discussed is national priorities, subsidizing the gas and oil industry, etc. This is a completely different topic of discussion and views will be all over the map.
Whoa there, cupcakes!!!!Please do not obfuscate the issue by promulgating half-truths. It does NOT help the cause!1. "Californians pay gas taxes to maintain their roads, yet California roads are among the poorest in the nation". ALL the states have such a gas tax. Differs in amount from state to state, but all have it. (BTW, we in Alaska have higher gasoline prices than you do in California, AND are the biggest relative exporter of oil of any state, AND our roads are in even worse shape. That begs the question, but it does provide some perspective there.)2. (North Carolina): " Backwards because 15,000 miles in an 18 wheeler will do a bit more damage than driving a Prius 2.7 miles to buy organic broccoli but the state will tax them the same." Extremely untrue. That 18-wheeler pays far, far more to the state in road taxes. It's frustrating to see this misinformation continue to be spread.
The 18-wheeler also does far, far more damage to the roads. And is far more efficient at moving the weight.
The prius weighs around 3000lbs (1.5 tons), and gets 60mpg. To put into crazy units, 90 miles per ton-gallon-of-gas.
A 18-wheeler weighs around 40 tons loaded, and gets ~10mpg. In the same crazy units, 400 miles per ton-gallon-of-gas. So, if the damage done to roads is linear with weight (it's not), the 18-wheeler pays 1/4 as much, because it's so much more efficient at hauling stuff and only buys 1/4 as much gas for the damage it does.
The prius weighs around 3000lbs (1.5 tons), and gets 60mpg. To put into crazy units, 90 miles per ton-gallon-of-gas.
A 18-wheeler weighs around 40 tons loaded, and gets ~10mpg. In the same crazy units, 400 miles per ton-gallon-of-gas. So, if the damage done to roads is linear with weight (it's not), the 18-wheeler pays 1/4 as much, because it's so much more efficient at hauling stuff and only buys 1/4 as much gas for the damage it does.
Continuing with this semi-OT discussion of gas tax, that semi trailer is typically moving some sort of product to market. They just don't drive around for the heck of it. In the end whether it's industrial or consumer freight, we consumers (aka tax payers) pay for the freight costs. No one operates at a net loss for very long. So be clear that whether or not the tax is lower per unit of damage from the truck, we pay for it. To say that "they should pay more tax" is really saying "they should pass higher tax costs on to us". Oh, yeah, they do, one way or another.
Similar threads
