New California transportation plan and taxes go into effect in 2018

[ecarfan]

See What Californians need to know about the state's $52-billion transportation plan

I’m glad that gas taxes and vehicle fees are being raised next year to pay for transportation infrastructure improvements and maintance and also glad to see that EVs are going to be charged $100/year to make up for the fact that EV owners don’t pay gasoline taxes. We have to pay for our roads somehow, and EV owners use the roads.

Of course there are other possible taxation schemes that could be employed to achieve the same results. But this is the program we have for now.

Discuss. Politely.

 

[AEdennis]

See What Californians need to know about the state's $52-billion transportation plan

I’m glad that gas taxes and vehicle fees are being raised next year to pay for transportation infrastructure improvements and maintance and also glad to see that EVs are going to be charged $100/year to make up for the fact that EV owners don’t pay gasoline taxes. We have to pay for our roads somehow, and EV owners use the roads.

Of course there are other possible taxation schemes that could be employed to achieve the same results. But this is the program we have for now.

Discuss. Politely.

As for EVs, I think a per mile tax would be more fair... (and I have over 93k miles on a 4 year old S)... With GPS and the like we can boil down how many miles were on California roads and how many elsewhere. This information and service could even be a "revenue" source for Tesla... (I understand, privacy, et. al. but this could be an "opt-in") to motivate participation an "actual miles" method for this I would propose the charge for non-participants be significantly higher... (Also hope that the revenue from such be RESTRICTED to only repair and improve the roads...)

 

[AudubonB]

This Q comes from someone who does not have to go in for annual inspections of either the Emissions or Safety kind:

While I can understand EV owners' sentiment about being delighted not to have to undergo annual inspections, would it not only be fair, but also democratic (in that EVs would have to share that "Spend Time Going To Inspection" annoyance with ICEs) to have to perform same, at which time only an odometer reading (plus whatever Safety stuff a state could mandate, ICE or EV) would occur?
That way, the 50,000-miler and the 1,000-miler would pay their appropriate road-use fee.

Adenosine (Autocorrection of AEdennis ) writes something similar while I was forging this.

 

[dmode]

See What Californians need to know about the state's $52-billion transportation plan

I’m glad that gas taxes and vehicle fees are being raised next year to pay for transportation infrastructure improvements and maintance and also glad to see that EVs are going to be charged $100/year to make up for the fact that EV owners don’t pay gasoline taxes. We have to pay for our roads somehow, and EV owners use the roads.

Of course there are other possible taxation schemes that could be employed to achieve the same results. But this is the program we have for now.

Discuss. Politely.

I thought the gas tax is already in effect since November. Maybe I was wrong, as I keep seeing $2.70 gas and wondering why the prices haven't gone up. I am also seeing a lot of repaving going on. And the new pavements look great, like the one on 880 in Hayward.

 

[cpa]

As I see it, a mileage-based fee is the most equitable. Unfortunately today most cars on the road cannot report whether the mileage is in-state or out-of-state.

I participated in the Road Test Pilot Program last year. It was a disaster. I agreed to have the monitor tap into the Tesla information to track my mileage. About halfway through the test, somehow my information got lost. Moreover, when I reported about 1,100 miles that I had driven out-of-state, the pretend reimbursement/credit for the scrip that was used to pay per mile was not allowed. There was some rule that the miles driven out-of-state had to reach an $18.00 equivalent before a credit would have been generated.

I think the mileage-based fee should be calculated based on the vehicle's curbside weight, computed to the nearer mill. So, a 3,200-pound auto would pay slightly less than a Hummer.

I respectfully disagree with our friend, Audobon, about having an annual inspection. This would be another money grab that serves absolutely no purpose other that to inconvenience us to report to an "authorized" station to have them look at the odometer. We have no safety inspection in California, only the biannual smog inspection. Perhaps other states have different programs.

If an odometer reading would be appropriate, I see no reason not to photograph the odometer in our vehicles to submit with the annual/biannual registration fee. The base fee could be calculated on a 10,000 miles per year (or some other figure, close to the median.) Arrearages or surpluses could be assessed or credited upon renewal.

But this still does not solve the mileage issues for miles driven out-of-state.

 

[Uncle Paul]

The biggest problem with these new taxes is that they are a Fraud.

For many years the gasoline tax money that was supposed to be allocated for road maintenance has been siphoned off to be spent of pet legislative projects and to buy votes. They let the roads and infrastructure decay on purpose and now claim an emergency situation that mandates additional taxes.

The new taxes will also be re allocated to more pet programs, and the extra taxes will provide the money for that.

A huge amount of the new taxes will be immediately borrowed against to provide for the slow speed diesel railway through Sacramento and neighboring cities. Very little will be spent on road improvements.

 

[LosAltosChuck]

Jerry Brown could get all the money he needs merely by cancelling the high speed train to nowhere project.

 

[mspohr]

See What Californians need to know about the state's $52-billion transportation plan

I’m glad that gas taxes and vehicle fees are being raised next year to pay for transportation infrastructure improvements and maintance and also glad to see that EVs are going to be charged $100/year to make up for the fact that EV owners don’t pay gasoline taxes. We have to pay for our roads somehow, and EV owners use the roads.

Of course there are other possible taxation schemes that could be employed to achieve the same results. But this is the program we have for now.

Discuss. Politely.

I think car taxes should take into account the fact that ICE fuel is heavily subsidized both in production and in getting a free ride for the pollution they create. There should be a carbon tax on ICE fuel.

 

[mspohr]

The biggest problem with these new taxes is that they are a Fraud.

For many years the gasoline tax money that was supposed to be allocated for road maintenance has been siphoned off to be spent of pet legislative projects and to buy votes. They let the roads and infrastructure decay on purpose and now claim an emergency situation that mandates additional taxes.

The new taxes will also be re allocated to more pet programs, and the extra taxes will provide the money for that.

A huge amount of the new taxes will be immediately borrowed against to provide for the slow speed diesel railway through Sacramento and neighboring cities. Very little will be spent on road improvements.

I hear this charge often. However, every time I have looked at the CalTrans budget, every cent they collect goes to roads and in addition, there are substantial additional funds from the General Fund to help pay for roads.
Do you have any documents which show road funds being spent on "pet legislative projects" or "buying votes"?

 

[thecloud]

According to the DMV, the new fee will actually be $175, not $100. It's based on the valuation of the vehicle.

Previously: California Owners and DMV

 

[miimura]

The VLF portion of California vehicle registration, since it was proportional to the value of the vehicle, was tax deductible. Will the new fee, based on the value of the vehicle also be tax deductible?

 

[AudubonB]

My take on the in-state/out-of-state issue is that, at the state-revenue level, it's too niggling to matter. Sure it matters for the two gas stations on either side of a state line where there are vast differences in fuel taxes. But probably never big enough to try to sort out.

Also, as far as Uncle Paul is concerned, just about every tax is a fraud. Money is fungible, regardless of whether some funds are supposedly going to capital accounts or wherever.

Take, for example, lotteries that supposedly help some state's education budget. Hahaha. All that means is that $X that would otherwise have gone from the general budget into schools gets purposed elsewhere. Same with road, etc., taxes.

 

[TaoJones]

Makes zero sense to penalize EVs in the manner they've dreamed up. Zero.

We already pay more than our fair share of registration fees. Add up what you pay for a new Model S over 7 years - whether 1 car or 2 during that time. Then compare that to your buddy's Volvo S40 or some other chariot nearer the new car average cost - which in the States is in the mid-$30Ks.

A weight-based tax, er, fee, would make more sense as correlated with actual road damage.

Instead, the State giveth with one hand ($2500 rebate), and takes it away with the other - now at a rate accelerated by the $100-$175 latest fee.

Better yet would be to leave EVs alone and to raise the tax, sorry, the registration fees, for ICEs. No political will for that, evidently. Easier to promulgate shallow thinking and the canard that "oh, they should pay their fair share too". Not. Helpful.

So there are at least 2 better ideas than what we ended up with from the geniuses at the State level:

1. Weight-based fee management - yes, Ss and Xs would pay more but least it would be proportionate and more fair.
2. More registration fees for ICEs, which would provide a more consistent incentive (aggregated) to switch to an ICE.

Instead, we get what we got. Which, the way I look at it, is just another reason to domicile in any number of other states. See South Dakota, Idaho, Texas, and Florida, to name 4. Note I said "domicile", which has a different context than "live". No offense to any of the states listed.

 

[David99]

I totally agree that gasoline taxes have in the past not been used to build and maintain roads. California has the highest car registration fees, highest gasoline taxes and many other taxes are also very high. Yet the roads are terrible compared to other states that have much lower taxes. The money has not been used as it was supposed to and won't be with yet another increase in taxes.
I have no problem with $100 per year for an EV to make up the losses in gasoline taxes. California has given me $2500 for buying a Tesla. That money is good for the EV tax for the next 25 years.

 

[skitown]

Instead, we get what we got. Which, the way I look at it, is just another reason to domicile in any number of other states. See South Dakota, Idaho, Texas, and Florida, to name 4. Note I said "domicile", which has a different context than "live". No offense to any of the states listed.

Except in good, old Idaho with zero incentives, we pay $140 per year for an EV on top of normal registration fees. (If memory serves). Personally, I too would prefer to be billed based on weight. I would also like to see it cost more to run studded tires.

 

[T34ME]

The biggest problem with these new taxes is that they are a Fraud.

For many years the gasoline tax money that was supposed to be allocated for road maintenance has been siphoned off to be spent of pet legislative projects and to buy votes.

Can you tell me where you got that information?

The new taxes will also be re allocated to more pet programs, and the extra taxes will provide the money for that.

Again, can you justify that conclusion with facts?

A huge amount of the new taxes will be immediately borrowed against to provide for the slow speed diesel railway through Sacramento and neighboring cities. Very little will be spent on road improvements.

You are positing a lot of conclusions with no backup justification. Can you please tell us where you are getting your information so we can research it?

 

[thecloud]

Interesting way to look at it: California gives you a check for $2500 up front, but you have to pay back that amount in the form of an EV tax over the next 14 years (since it's $175 per year, not $100.) If you put the $2500 into some investment that pays a yearly 7% dividend (well, slightly more since it would be taxable income), you'd get to keep the $2500.

 

[EinSV]

This Q comes from someone who does not have to go in for annual inspections of either the Emissions or Safety kind:

While I can understand EV owners' sentiment about being delighted not to have to undergo annual inspections, would it not only be fair, but also democratic (in that EVs would have to share that "Spend Time Going To Inspection" annoyance with ICEs) to have to perform same, at which time only an odometer reading (plus whatever Safety stuff a state could mandate, ICE or EV) would occur?
<snip>

Audie, the purpose of California's "Smog Check" is to check tailpipe emissions to make sure they are up to snuff. This system is designed to combat the small percentage of vehicles that spew out a disproportionately high percentage of noxious compounds. This system was put in place to address a serious environmental and health issue from ICE engines. In the words of the good state of California:

1. What is the Smog Check Program?​

The Smog Check Program is an important part of the State's efforts to improve the air we breathe. Smog Check inspections are designed to identify vehicles with excess emissions so they can be properly repaired. The Program has greatly reduced air pollution created by millions of cars in California.​

Since EVs pose no similar public health and environmental threat, requiring a time-consuming, unnecessary bureaucratic step so ICE owners don't feel bad about their polluting vehicles is not only wrong, but downright un-American. Plus, requiring a pointless state inspection would take away one of the true pleasures of EV ownership in California -- smiling while passing those pesky Smog Check stations.

 

[David99]

BTW, I suggested this before. Tax tires. This directly accounts for road usage and damages to roads. If you drive careful and less you pay less. Big rigs that cause a higher amount of road damage have to pay much more as they have more wheels and need more tires.

 

[cpa]

The VLF portion of California vehicle registration, since it was proportional to the value of the vehicle, was tax deductible. Will the new fee, based on the value of the vehicle also be tax deductible?

Internal Revenue Code Section 164(b)(1) defines a personal property tax as an ad valorem tax.

The new legislation did not change this code section.

I would suspect that we will have to parse our registration renewals for the amount that will be deductible.