To Replace Gas Taxes, Oregon and Utah Ask EVs To Pay For Road Use (arstechnica.com) 295
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: [T]he U.S. has traditionally paid for the upkeep of its roads via direct taxation of gasoline and diesel fuel, which means that as our fleet becomes more fuel-efficient, that revenue will drop in relation to the total number of vehicle miles traveled each year. As a result, some states are starting to grapple with the problem of how to get drivers to pay for the roads they use in cars that use less or even no gas per mile. At the start of this year, Utah has begun a pilot Road Usage Charge program, coupled to an increase in registration fees for alternative fuel vehicles. Assuming a state gas tax of 30c/gallon and 15,542 miles/year driven, Utah says it collects $777 a year from a 6mpg heavy truck, $311 from a pickup getting 15mpg, $187 from a 25mpg sedan, $93 from a 50mpg hybrid, and nothing from anyone driving a battery EV.
So in 2020, Utah is increasing vehicle registration fees. In 2019, registering a BEV in Utah would cost $60; in 2020 that will be $90, increasing to $120 in 2021. PHEV fees were $26 in 2019, increasing to $39 this year and $52 in 2021, and not-plug-in hybrid fees have gone from $10 to $15, increasing to $20 next year. An extra $30 a year -- or even $60 a year -- is pretty small in the grand scheme of things, particularly considering how much cheaper an EV is to run. But Utahns with EVs have an alternative. Instead of paying that flat fee, they can enroll in the pilot program that involves fitting a telematics device to the car. The device tracks the actual number of miles driven on Utah's roads. These are billed at a rate of 1.5c/mile, but only until the total equals whatever that year's registration fee for the vehicle would have been; participating in the pilot means you could pay less than you would otherwise, but Utah's Department of Transportation says that participants would not ever be charged more than that year's registration fee. The data will be collected by a contractor called Emovis, which operates toll roads around the U.S. As for Oregon -- another state working to solve this problem, the state is increasing its state gas tax by 2c/gallon, and like Utah, it's also increasing vehicle registration fees. "Now, fees for registering your car in Oregon will depend on how many miles per gallon your car gets; a two-year registration for something that gets below 19mpg will cost $122, rising to $132 for a vehicle between 20â"39mpg, then $152 for a vehicle that gets 40mpg or better, and $306 for a BEV," reports Ars Technica.
Thankfully, if you own a 40+mpg vehicle or a BEV, you can cut that two-year fee to $86 by enrolling in OReGO. However, you will need to fit your qualifying car with a telematics device to track the actual miles traveled on the state's roads. "Those are billed at 1.8c/mile -- Oregon evidently decided its roads are worth a little more than those in Utah -- but you can then get credited for any fuel tax you pay in the state," the report adds.
So in 2020, Utah is increasing vehicle registration fees. In 2019, registering a BEV in Utah would cost $60; in 2020 that will be $90, increasing to $120 in 2021. PHEV fees were $26 in 2019, increasing to $39 this year and $52 in 2021, and not-plug-in hybrid fees have gone from $10 to $15, increasing to $20 next year. An extra $30 a year -- or even $60 a year -- is pretty small in the grand scheme of things, particularly considering how much cheaper an EV is to run. But Utahns with EVs have an alternative. Instead of paying that flat fee, they can enroll in the pilot program that involves fitting a telematics device to the car. The device tracks the actual number of miles driven on Utah's roads. These are billed at a rate of 1.5c/mile, but only until the total equals whatever that year's registration fee for the vehicle would have been; participating in the pilot means you could pay less than you would otherwise, but Utah's Department of Transportation says that participants would not ever be charged more than that year's registration fee. The data will be collected by a contractor called Emovis, which operates toll roads around the U.S. As for Oregon -- another state working to solve this problem, the state is increasing its state gas tax by 2c/gallon, and like Utah, it's also increasing vehicle registration fees. "Now, fees for registering your car in Oregon will depend on how many miles per gallon your car gets; a two-year registration for something that gets below 19mpg will cost $122, rising to $132 for a vehicle between 20â"39mpg, then $152 for a vehicle that gets 40mpg or better, and $306 for a BEV," reports Ars Technica.
Thankfully, if you own a 40+mpg vehicle or a BEV, you can cut that two-year fee to $86 by enrolling in OReGO. However, you will need to fit your qualifying car with a telematics device to track the actual miles traveled on the state's roads. "Those are billed at 1.8c/mile -- Oregon evidently decided its roads are worth a little more than those in Utah -- but you can then get credited for any fuel tax you pay in the state," the report adds.
Road taxes should be based on vehicle weight (Score:5, Insightful)
Trucks destroy the roads more than anything else. Road taxes should be based on vehicle weight (and tire type) in my opinion.
Sometimes (Score:4, Interesting)
In some states they are taxed higher, in some they are taxed less. Depends on how involved the Teamsters union is involved in state politics. They generally don't like high truck taxes.
Re: Sometimes (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sometimes (Score:5, Insightful)
If you consume more than I, shouldn't you pay more for the damage generated by that consumption? The current state of affairs is that I am taxed for this based mostly on the miles I drive, yet my car is lighter than most vehicles and causes the least damage.
Re: Sometimes (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess where who ends up paying that added tax? I am asking you to use a bit of common sense when you answer it.
[spoiler] YOU when the products that truck brings in has higher cost to pay for said tax.
At least that would be allocating economic costs in a way that makes sense so that overall economic efficiency gets optimized.
Overall costs to consumers would likely fall, since: 1. Consumers aren't personally saddled with the share of road taxes caused by trucks, and 2. Businesses would shift more of their shipping to railroads due to higher trucking costs.
The markets would then find the correct balance between road damage costs and costs of to using a less convenient (but more damage-resistant) transportation method. The markets would no longer be distorted by the government's income redistribution from consumers to trucking companies.
Re: (Score:3)
What state has ever lowered taxes on anything of note?
Kansas.
Re: Sometimes (Score:5, Funny)
Kansas.
Now you are just making up states, and using 1980s rock bands to name them.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so give them a free ride, just so we don't pay a few cents more on a few products? Government handouts to truckers, no? If this was a private toll road (the kind dreamed about by anti-tax people), the owners of the road most definitely would charge trucks a heft price compared to EV drivers just to cover the costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sometimes (Score:2)
If you did that, truckers would go out of business, hence why you have disproportionate vehicle taxes. Also your property taxes and sales taxes pay for road maintenance, the problem for states and governments is that people are paying less money for everything and more and more of the economy is taken out of the tax-heavy, overspending states (pretty much the entire Internet business model) and migrating to places where businesses, tax payers and governments have more healthy relationships.
Re: (Score:3)
If you did that, truckers would go out of business
No they wouldn't, they'd make more money. Oh, over time, many of them would, because a fair amount of cargo would shift to railroads -- which is where, economically, it should be. But railroads have their own problems, mainly higher transportation delays. So what would really happen is that goods that need rapid transportation would stay on trucks, but the fees paid to truckers would be higher. When overall costs increase for a whole industry, the margin extractable as profit actually goes up. So there
Re: (Score:3)
Things that should be on trains are already on trains because the massive cost difference. We are barely subsidizing truckers but they are the driving force of the economy.
Nonsense. To a first-order approximation, every penny we spend on road maintenance should be paid by the trucking industry. That's a huge subsidy and an enormous distortion.
Increasing regulatory costs makes it so independent truckers can't survive
Also nonsense. There's nothing in higher per-mile fees that favors corporate truckers over independents. Both already have to report all their mileage.
Re: (Score:2)
So the equation that calculates total cost to road maintenance would include weight, but also include percentage of roads effected, as even those cul-de-sac's need repaving every 20 years.
Re: Sometimes (Score:2)
And none of those side roads are paid for via state and federal gas taxes. Those side roads are paid by county and city property and sales taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sometimes (Score:5, Interesting)
By far, this is true. Bicycles have no measurable effect on roads, passenger cars have very little, but heavy trucks have a lot. It's somewhat exponential. And generally, the heavy trucks doing most of the damage are run by people making the most money, while the OP tries to point out that those doing little to both the environment and roads should pay more taxes. Let's defend those destroying our infrastructure and not paying a fair share, while demonizing those helping the environment.
And this leads to a false assumption by the OP, when he says "[T]he U.S. has traditionally paid for the upkeep of its roads via direct taxation of gasoline and diesel fuel". Roads are, by far, not paid for by gasoline taxes. They should be, but are not. Mostly it's paid through other taxes, both local and federal.
The cost of roads has increased, but the federal gasoline taxes have not gone up in decades. This is because no legislator wants to be involved in a tax hike for necessary infrastructure, and this is also one more reason why we have bridges collapsing and people dying, literally, under the weight of an aging infrastructure.
Elsewhere in this thread I see idiots both not knowing what socialism is, and claiming taxation is theft, and all sorts of ridiculous propaganda. They're morons and liars. A society functions better when its citizen and infrastructure needs are met. It functions worst when we pander to the rich and punish those trying to help through early adoption, and even when we don't assign appropriate taxes for the damage caused.
It's just more data collection (Score:5, Interesting)
Trucks destroy the roads more than anything else. Road taxes should be based on vehicle weight (and tire type) in my opinion.
For about 100 years the amount of gasoline or diesel fuel consumed was a fairly accurate proxy for this. I'll see people argue it shouldn't be a linear relationship to fuel burned to the costs of repairs since burning more fuel per mile can mean more of a square, cube, or even fourth power, relationship to the damage to the road.
I have seen similar claims, one being that a light vehicle produces virtually no wear to the road surface and heavy trucks do virtually all the wear. If true then perhaps to keep the math simple the state taxation authority could just charge a flat rate for every light vehicle and then have something more complex for commercial traffic.
What I'm seeing is private companies and governments finding excuses to add more electronic surveillance to privately owned vehicles. They are effectively paying people to give up information on their driving habits, paying them with taxes they took from them in the first place. If you attach this tracking device to your car then you can get a lower rate on your road taxes, but the rate is artificially high to pay for all the additional equipment and labor.
This is just making the whole taxation process overly complex to encourage people to get tracked. They already have good data on how much people drive, where they go, how fast, etc. Now they are just boiling the frog on getting more detail and seeing how far they can push this until people complain. The government is handing this over to private contractors so they don't see the entire cost, and the private companies can sell this data to make up the difference. People not paying attention will like it because they will think that they will end up paying less. They don't pay less, there's a large cost in overhead from a complex system like this. Those tracking devices cost money. The wages for the people that collect the fees cost money. In the end not a lot actually goes to keeping the roads maintained but a lot of valuable private data was collected, and the taxpayers are getting duped into paying for the collection.
The government just keeps getting bigger, at some point it will collapse under it's own weight. Right?
Re: Road taxes should be based on vehicle weight (Score:2)
Oh shut up. One truck carries 45,000 1 lb meals, which are each bought at drive thrus by 200 lb people driving 3000 lb cars, clogging the roads with their massive inefficiencies. Once self driving comes to negate driver costs, everything will be delivered to everyone. It will literally be cheaper to transport your entire office cubicle home while you work than to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
The damage to roads goes up far more as weight goes up, so a hundred cars at 3000lb each does less damage than one truck at 45,000lb. One million kittens walking across my foot single file won't hurt, but one person stepping on my foot would.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect one million kittens walking across your foot would result in abrasion injuries (assuming it's done sequentially, not over one million years of course). Given that kittens have needle-like claws and are not that good at retracting them, the injuries might be pretty bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that there are many sources of "non-renewable" greenhouse gases outside of vehicles - such as home heating, natural gas and coal fired generating plants, backup generators, gas BBQs, that aspect would be better dealt with by a carbon tax (which would also apply to agricultural vehicles not used on public roads which get to use untaxed diesel at least in some states).
Re: (Score:2)
That's two different things. Road taxes are for paying for the roads. Carbon taxes are for paying for the carbon dioxide emissions.
There will not be any carbon taxes in the USA, nobody would be stupid enough to vote for it. Maybe, perhaps, there could be enough retiring senators and a lame duck POTUS to get it into law but that just means it will be repealed after the next election. That is assuming it's not ruled unconstitutional before then.
I've seen people propose a "revenue neutral" carbon tax to ma
Make it simple (Score:3)
Charge fee as follows:
Less than 4 wheels: $100/year
Under 7000 GVWR: $250/year
7000-12000 GVWR: $800/year
12001-20000 GVWR: $1200/year
20001-40000 GVWR: $2000/year
40001+ GVWR: $4000/year
Re: (Score:2)
However, I suggest it be based on miles driven instead of length of ownership.
Re: Make it simple (Score:2)
Yes, I pulled the numbers out of my ass. I was just demonstrating the concept.
As for miles drive ...as a low mileage driver, I say hooray! But as a sane person, I say no thanks. It is just adding complication. Where were the miles driven? If half your miles are driven out of state, why should you pay more to the state where your car is registered? And are you going to account for how many people are in the car? Surely if you cart around 3 people you should pay more than someone driving alone. Or if you ar
In some countries (Score:2)
Commercial vehicles pay road user charges per kilometre based on the weight of the vehicle, number of axels etc. They have to pay in advance in lots of 10,000kmi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those that consume more SHOULD pay more.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but why not then just tax the consumer directly at the point of sale?
Re: In some countries (Score:2)
They already do that for toll roads. I think it is a bad policy, you want to incentivize commercial transport which is fueling businesses, and efficient, not incentivize mass 80 mile commutes in junk cars creating traffic jams.
Wisconsin does worse than that already (Score:3)
The previous Republican administration in Wisconsin stuck a $100 surcharge on electric vehicles. Doesn't matter if you drive an EV with such limited range that you would be unlikely to get even 15K miles in a year. And if you drive a weird version like the range extended BMW, you can skip the tax.
And no special access to even the multi occupant on ramps.
it's AMAYYYYZING,,,,, (Score:3)
I think the only thing surprising here is how fast these states changed their tune regarding EV taxes. It would appear that the one thing that government is most proactive about is protecting their own budgets....?
As an Oregonian (Score:2)
I think this is a really stupid cash grab. Hell in my county there's a fucking bicycle tax. Oh, and a kayak/canoe tax.
But, we don't have a sales tax, nor do we base registration fees off of the value of the car (like AZ).
So while this is stupid, and just another example of Salem trying their version of 'do-gooderism' -- it could be (and will get) much, much worse.
A modest proposal (Score:2)
Road tax on vehicle fuels worked pretty well when the fuel use was roughly proportional to road use. (In some states it got broken by government diversion, along with bridge tolls, to things like buses, commuter trains, etc. but that's a separate issue.)
So why not use a separate meter and a separate rate, including energy and appropriate road-use tax (but excluding non-automotive energy use rate schemes), for charging EVs?
It could easily be collected on for-pay charging stations.
Residential rates might co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know a farmer who almost lost his business because he got caught using tractor fuel in his semis too many times. State Highway Patrol, in most states, will really stick it to semi drivers when they can. If they get pulled over for something small they're often fully inspected and that includes checking the fuel. The fines are hefty, which motivates the state to try and collect as many as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
They used to have roadblocks here in BC where they'd do a quick mechanical check on your vehicle including pulling a sample of your gas/diesel to make sure you weren't using purple gas. Must be close to 40 years since I've seen that type of check.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're overcomplicating things. The tax could just be on all electricity that's consumed. Then the tax could be very small and collect tons of revenue. Everyone's electric bill would be a couple bucks higher and since that fluctuates month to month for most people a lot of people wouldn't even realize it.
Re: (Score:2)
Residential rates might come out lower than for ordinary electricity use, giving an incentive for users to add an extra metering system for the vehicle charging outlets.
And what if I only use one meter for everything? The way I see it this would be easy to game the system.
1. If electricity for "home use" was cheaper than electricity for "car use" then I could just charge the car using "home" meter and save money.
2. If electricity for "car use" was cheaper (including the tax etc) than electricity for "home use" then I would just connect everything to the "car" meter and save money.
If device uses GPS then taxes are a smokescreen (Score:4, Insightful)
Every vehicle already has a mileage tracking device, it's called an odometer. The real goal is 24x7 tracking of people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: If device uses GPS then taxes are a smokescree (Score:4, Insightful)
But! At least we will finally have a properly measured and fairly assigned road usage tax! Yay!
Re: (Score:3)
No, because the odometer doesn't know on whose roads it is accumulating mileage. And also because a locale-keyed odometer wouldn't collect much personal info, so long as there weren't too many locales defined (e.g. states, or counties at most).
So long as the GPS trackers are optional then at least people can opt out of the government tracking their movements. With the trackers there's more overhead, potentially room for dispute if the GPS loses signal or can't differentiate between a private lane that is parallel to a public road. This is needlessly complicating the process, and no doubt to produce an excuse to track driver habits.
This is an unwarranted search, plain and simple. I don't care if it computes my taxes more accurately. In fact it
Vehicle yearly registration (Score:3, Interesting)
In my state, we have to get our cars inspected each year before we can renew our license plate registration. Part of the plate registration fee includes various taxes.
I say they just log the odometer reading each year to determine miles driven. Don't bother whining that some of those miles may not be driven within your home state. Get over it. It's the least invasive solution, which is also the most fair.
Then, they can give drivers a discount based on the fuel type. If you're driving a gasoline vehicle, they give a reduced tax since you most likely already paid taxes in fuel purchases. They could even reduce the fuel taxes at the pumps to account for the new tax.
The wrong incentive (Score:2)
"Now, fees for registering your car in Oregon will depend on how many miles per gallon your car gets; a two-year registration for something that gets below 19mpg will cost $122, rising to $132 for a vehicle between 20–39mpg, then $152 for a vehicle that gets 40mpg or better, and $306 for a BEV."
Right. Because punishing people for buying more fuel-efficient vehicles sends the correct message for the greater good of humanity.
Just double-tax non-EVs (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you like paying them so much, why don't you pay for the rest of us as well? We won't complain.
. . . what, can't afford it? Go earn more money then (and pay it all in tax).
Re: Taxes are good. (Score:4, Funny)
I pet you enjoy them so much that you do not pay more than you are required to.
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy paying taxes. Taxes pay for civilization. Civilization pays for schools and hospitals and teachers and all the other good things we need, and it gets the money to fund all of it from taxes. Since I am no longer contributing to gas tax revenue because I'm driving an electric vehicle I'm happy they've fixed the road tax scheme so I can resume my usual contributions.
I [b]et you enjoy them so much that you do not pay more than you are required to.
Nobody should pay more tax than they are required to. I have no problem paying my fair share of tax.
But if I need to pay more tax to make the government/economy/society viable, then I'm find doing that -- as long as others pay more tax in a progressive and fair way. We all need to share the burden. Anything else is unfair.
Funny thing about that (Score:2)
> taxes ... pays for schools and hospitals and teachers
And firefighters and libraries and police and parks.
Funny thing - all that stuff you like getting is from your local government. The vast majority of taxes go to the federal government. Maybe we're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not entirely wrong, but I'll clarify one point:
> In the case of Social Security you pay them and sometime later they give you back the money and you spend it on whatever.
It's actually:
You pay them a lot. They spend it. Then they tax your kids and send a little bit of your kid's money to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing - all that stuff you like getting is from your local government. The vast majority of taxes go to the federal government. Maybe we're doing it wrong.
While you're not wrong, I would probably take it in a different direction than you would. A lot of those federal funds get relocated back to the state. States like West Virginia are heavily subsidized by more populous and prosperous states. Kentucky just received a lot of pork because McConnell is running for reelection.
If we had a unitary system then there wouldn't be huge disparities between what states get how much. For instance, law enforcement funds would be allocated according to need (population, cri
Re: (Score:3)
You first pointed out that Washington directs money based on politics, not where I i is most needed or most effective. (Kentucky just received a lot of pork ...)
You then figure that if we sent Washington even more money, they'll stop being politicians and start making wise, fair, effective decisions.
I think those two ideas are in conflict, so you kinda have to choose one or the other. I think you were right the first time - politicians are, well, politicians, and they'll make decisions based on politics an
Re: (Score:2)
I think those two ideas are in conflict, so you kinda have to choose one or the other.
I don't really have to choose one of the two options as you laid them out. It's pretty simple. Under a unitary system a method for disbursing funds for things like law enforcement would require legislation that makes such arrangements—this would have to be agreed upon by the legislator, and the only way to do so would be to concoct some type of formula that would appease enough members of congress to enact it into law.
Under the current system, we pretend as if the states fund themselves when if they a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I pay enormous taxes in my state for terrible infrastructure along with blatant corruption and cronyism. I say give them less money until they can show responsibility. Do you give alcohol to a person with a drinking problem? No. Do you give money to a person with a spending problem?
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you should consider moving to another state since the folks in your state don't seem to be very responsible voters. Sometimes voting with your feet is the only practical option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EV Taxes (Score:5, Interesting)
Registration is, in addition, a much poorer proxy than the gas bill,
This can actually be argued. Research has shown that damage to the road by a vehicle depends on the 4th power of the weight. [denenapoints.com] So double the weight of the vehicle, the damage isn't doubled, or even quadrupled - it increases by a factor of 16!
This means that a semi does the damage of over 9k cars. In short, a car that is on a road designed to have a useful life with semis on it is committing a negligible amount of damage.
That leaves the only damage necessary for it to pay for to be the environmental damage, the damage done to the road over time by the environment itself. One can argue that that being a static charge makes much more sense. Such as how you could argue that your property taxes should pay for maintaining the access to your house, at least to the next major intersection(maybe something like 150% of the maintenance cost of the road section in front of your place, to cover roads that don't have a house or two along that section, or more expensive spots like bridges).
Re:EV Taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
Research has shown that damage to the road by a vehicle depends on the 4th power of the weight. .....a car that is on a road designed to have a useful life with semis on it is committing a negligible amount of damage. ... That leaves the only damage necessary for it to pay for to be the environmental damage ....
You have ignored the cost of operating the road. That involves signage, policing, and the capital cost (or rent of the space if you prefer). A road for lightweight cars would not cost zero, even neglecting the cost of its environmental deterioration. I would not count sweeping, hedge cutting and tree pruning as repairing "environmental damage" either as the road itself remains intact.
Re: (Score:2)
So what those states are saying is you will pay a penalty for not polluting the air people breathe, no matter how much or how little your drive. Watch all commercial users switch to electric and only pay a minor flat tax. Now if you do not drive much, I suggest in the most insane fashion imaginable you buy a old massive gas guzzler and have at it burning the air your neighbours are trying to breathe. Oregon the message you are sending, pollute more and pay less tax because our idiot politicians are the livi
Re: EV Taxes (Score:2)
It aint that bad. They want to collect road taxes based on how much people use the roads which corresponds to gas use historically. It is all going to toll roads anyway, I drive them all the time and the boost in quality is worth the price, which for public roads is the same just hidden in taxes anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in NZ we have a per-mile charge for diesel vehicles which is not collected at the pump (the taxes for petrol users is built into the pump price - diesel isn’t because it is also used in agricultural vehicles which don’t use the roads).
It’s called a Road Use Charge, and you buy RUC credits in blocks of 5000 increments on your existing mileage on the vehicle, and display the purchased credits in your front window.
They can be checked by a police officer, and if you are caught driving a d
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, each state has its own fuel/road use taxes and licensing but cars don't necessarily drive all the miles within the state they are registered. Hence, the scheme that works for NZ likely not work as well for many drivers in the US because each state isn't an island onto itself.
Although, it is true that drivers may consistently buy fuel in one state (such as the local gas station in the state they live in) and do much of their driving in a neighboring state (such as the one they work in) so there is
Re: (Score:2)
All I’m seeing here are more arguments which support the view that a US-style state system introduces significantly more problems than benefits....
Re: (Score:2)
Here in NZ we have a per-mile charge for diesel vehicles which is not collected at the pump (the taxes for petrol users is built into the pump price - diesel isnâ(TM)t because it is also used in agricultural vehicles which donâ(TM)t use the roads).
In my country this is a bit different. Agricultural users get to buy diesel tax-free after showing the required documents. The diesel is dyed a special color (red or green), and a cop can check the color of diesel in your tank. If you have the dyed diesel you get fined.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that is how it is in the UK - however, agriculture is significantly higher as an income source or self sustainment option here in NZ that the users of tax-free diesel are a much higher percentage than the system in the UK (red diesel), so it makes more sense to not have a dual fuel delivery system, but charge the use differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: EV Taxes (Score:2)
People pay for public schools whether they send their kids to them or not...or even if they do not have kids. Why? Because everyone benefits from an educated society.
Likewise, everyone benefits from a transportation system, even if they do not personally own a car.
Re:EV Taxes (Score:5, Informative)
I'm an EV driver. I'm also an engineer with a reasonable handle on mathematics and logic. So I say the state should tax based on total and axle weight, since the amount of damage a vehicle causes on the roads increase with the 4th power of the axle weight.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an EV driver. I'm also an engineer with a reasonable handle on mathematics and logic. So I say the state should tax based on total and axle weight, since the amount of damage a vehicle causes on the roads increase with the 4th power of the axle weight.
Well, there's also the type of tires. Studded snow tires, for example, can chew up the road at a horrendous rate.
But I'd go for your idea, as long as mileage driven was also factored in.
Re: (Score:2)
Studded snow tires, for example, can chew up the road at a horrendous rate.
Last I checked those were illegal on most public roads. They're definitely illegal in my state.
Re:EV Taxes (Score:5, Informative)
Last I checked those were illegal on most public roads. They're definitely illegal in my state.
In Washington state they're legal from November 1 to March 31 [wsdot.com].
In Oregon, it's the same period as Washington [oregon.gov].
In California, it's November 1 to April 30 [ca.gov].
In Maine, it's October 2 to April 30 [maine.gov].
Okay, I'm not gonna keep doing that for all 50 states... but it's pretty obvious they're not "illegal on most public roads".
Re: (Score:2)
with a reasonable handle on mathematics and logic.
I sorta doubt that seeing how your proposal does not reflect the miles that axle weight has actually traveled on the public roads.
Maybe you should check your math, or add "mileage" behind that "total" in your third sentence.
Re:EV Taxes (Score:4, Funny)
Re:EV Taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Me and my 600 pound motorcycle would love that. A Tesla model S is about 8 times the weight of my bike, they should pay 4000 times more than I do.
My and my Tesla Model S would also love that. A loaded semi tractor is about 20 times the weight of my car, so they should pay 160,000 times more than I do... and nearly 800 million times as much as you do. More than that, actually, because this should be assessed on a per-mile basis, and the typical semi tractor racks up a lot more miles than my car or your bike.
What these numbers actually mean is that if trucks paid their fair share of road maintenance, they'd basically pay for all of it. The road damage done by passenger vehicles of various sorts is insignificant in comparison. What that means is that taxpayers are providing an enormous subsidy to the trucking industry, and that we as a society are therefore incentivizing the use of less cost-efficient transportation means, and therefore all of us are paying more for cargo transportation than we should.
Rather than taxing EVs, we should tax tractor trailer rigs and properly allocate the road maintenance costs to them. This would raise the cost of goods transported by truck, which would incentivize the use of more-efficient rail transport wherever it makes sense, ultimately lowering the cost of transported goods. Eventually this would probably shift enough cargo off of the highways that passenger vehicles would constitute a sufficiently-large portion of the highway damage and we'd need to figure out how to collect the taxes on them.
But in the near term, it really should all be paid by truckers since they effectively do all of the damage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of road costs are due to road damage. You only need to make roads wider due to traffic congestion. That argues for at least some of the charges to be proportional to vehicle length.
Re: EV Taxes (Score:2)
Road costs include building them in the first place, cleaning, traffic lights, street lights, signage, weathr-related damage, and so on.
I can imagine that for a busy motorway, most of the maintenance costs are related to wear, but there are many more kilometers of lightly used roads.
Anyway, doesn't the US have a vehicle tax that increases with weight?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: EV Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I've never seen an EV driver who advocated socialism. Maybe you don't know what that word means? There are social democrats who are not socialists, there are those who want socialized programs like medicine or education who are not socialists, there are all sorts of liberals who are not socialists. Stop repeating made up far right talking points and start finding out what some of these words mean.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hilarious when EV drivers complain about paying tax for using the public roads then turn around and hold a sign that supports socialism.
Do you? And have you ever actually observed this pair of events that you find so hilarious? Or is it some rhetorical strawman?
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about?
Who's holding up a "socialist sign"?
I think he mistook Elon's doobie for a signboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's holding up a "socialist sign"?
A man made out of straw.
Re: EV Taxes (Score:2)
Definition of socialism (Score:2)
And, to be clear here, we should probably actually post a definition of socialism.
Google says: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Which seems close enough.
Roads, I guess, could be considered a means of distribution, owned by the government in the name of the community as a whole.
The EV owners may be protesting because they see themselves as front leaders f
Re:Definition of socialism (Score:5, Interesting)
While I am getting away with no paying my fair share of the road network, I am happy to. I do not want it taken out of the general fund though. Those who use the roads ( the owners of the vehicles) can pay for it. No socialism needed.
Re:Definition of socialism (Score:4, Insightful)
^^^ This, this, this! With these other schemes, we're just subsidizing the use of the roads for the heavier vehicles which cause the most damage to the roads in the shortest amount of time.
Re: EV Taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
A militia is a very different thing than a military, and the founders were pretty strongly opposed to the U.S. having a military. They're quite dangerous to the freedom of the country that employs them.
As for socialism - pretty much nothing being discussed in the U.S. today is socialism:
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management as well as the political theories and movements associated with them
Publicly funded schools, medical care, aid programs etc? Those don't remotely fit the bill, any more than a publicly funded military does. They're all just public services a government can supply.
As for the purpose of the U.S. government, let's take it directly from the preamble of the Constitution shall we?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
See "promote the general welfare", listed directly after "provide for the common defense"? That's where social programs fall. Well, along with under "establish Justice" (where's the justice in being so disadvantaged by birth or other happenstance that you have essentially no chance to compete with those whose potential is far less than yours?). Not to mention "ensure tranquility" - desperate people resort to desperate measures, and wealth inequality as extreme as we have now usually precedes widespread violence and social collapse.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Publicly funded schools, medical care, aid programs etc? Those don't remotely fit the bill, any more than a publicly funded military does. They're all just public services a government can supply."
But not the Federal government, because it says specifically in the Constitution anything not specifically listed in the document is "reserved to the States or the People." Education, medical care, and "aid programs etc" are NOT listed. But, that is apparently inconvenient, so it is IGNORED.
>"As for the
Re: (Score:2)
And - at least here in California - they can use the carpool lanes even though it may have a single person in the vehicle, because they are "special".
Didn't that end a couple of years ago? Granted, stupid people still have the stupid stickers on the back of their car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EV Taxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They do when you've got an urgent social need to jump-start an industry that's been long-floundering in the face of a staunchly defensive old guard.