Saskatchewan To Roll Out $150 Annual Tax For Passenger Electric Vehicles (www.cbc.ca) 215
innocent_white_lamb writes: The Saskatchewan government will implement a new tax for passenger electric vehicles. The announcement was made Tuesday. The new $150 annual tax on passenger electric vehicles (EVs) will take effect Oct. 1, 2021. The government said the reason for this tax is that EVs do not contribute to highway maintenance through the provincial fuel tax. The new tax will be collected when the vehicle is registered. The province says it will continue to examine the future potential for expanding the EV tax to commercial vehicles and inter-jurisdictional trucking. The province will also consider options to apply a tax at EV charging stations.
Still cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)
$150 is still cheaper than about 3-4 tanks of gas (depending on the vehicle type/weight). And given that most buyers probably got EV incentives for saving on the purchase price in the first place, I think this is fair, given that right now drivers of gasoline vehicles are the only ones paying for road infrastructure being used by all vehicle types.
Ideally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Forgot to add that, ideally instead of a fuel tax or flat yearly fee, it would probably be considered more fair to charge the fee based on mileage driven since last license plate renewal - basically a usage “toll”.
But probably a lot of people would hate that idea, as it might cost them more than “other drivers”.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ideally... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed - I like your idea of also taking weight/tires into account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. And what does the most damage to the roads, but has the best fuel-to-weight ratio? Semis.
The large trucks do the lion's share of damage to the roads, yet the bulk of the tax has always been collected from personal vehicles. This is just more of the same, and it's kind-of bullshit.
Trucking is efficient, but not as efficient as rail. If we put a proportional tax on trucking for the damage trucks do to roads, that would likely push more rail freight. And that would not be a bad thing from both a road m
Re: (Score:3)
The large trucks do the lion's share of damage to the roads, yet the bulk of the tax has always been collected from personal vehicles. This is just more of the same, and it's kind-of bullshit.
True only for areas without significant freeze thaw cycles. that’s region specific and as such may only be locally true. I’m in Minnesota, and trucks never travel down my side street, yet is cracked with sinking spots and tons of potholes after only 10 years. My parents live in Florida and a similar trafficked side road was last surfaced in the 90’s and has only a few cracks that don’t affect ride quality or wear on the car - literally what one looks like in 3 years here. Add to
Re: (Score:3)
Not all miles driven are equal. A Honda Civic doesnt wear on the roads like a Ford Expedition.
It also doesn't have the same fuel economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Also a part of the gasoline tax is an incentive to purchase more fuel efficient cars. This works well in Europe where the gasoline tax is high, but in North America it doesn't do this as much (fuel efficient car sales go up when gas prices are high, but we revert to the old ways when the prices go back down). If a goal of the government is to encourage fuel efficiency then there should be some gasoline tax left (lump it in as a sin tax).
Re: Ideally... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A mileage tax might be regressive. Often cheaper homes are further away from jobs and amenities, so people who can't afford a more expensive one end up commuting further. So you would end up taxing them more for being poor in the first place.
Maybe some kind of fee based on the list price of the car when new, or accounting for the size and weight of the vehicle, or the energy consumption. Something that gives people an incentive to buy more efficient cars that damage the road surface less, while still giving
Re: (Score:2)
As I noted above, this is somewhat immaterial.
It's trucks that do the bulk of the damage to roads, and they're not taxed proportionally to that damage.
To really be fair there would need to be a year-end bill that would capture the maximum axle weight and multiply by the number of miles driven for all motor vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgot to add that, ideally instead of a fuel tax or flat yearly fee, it would probably be considered more fair to charge the fee based on mileage driven since last license plate renewal - basically a usage “toll”.
But probably a lot of people would hate that idea, as it might cost them more than “other drivers”.
The problem with this is commercial fleets. How does this work for long haul truckers for example? They only pay the state they are registered in? We stop them at the border and check mileage in and out of every state? We GPS track everyone? Also, if they are only paying to the state they are registered in, you better believe that the companies will go legally setup what they need to in order to register in the lowest cost state.
Re: (Score:3)
There are several issues with odometer-based taxing. For example, what happens for mileage not driven on public roads, such as a race track, private roads, off road use?
How can a state charge for miles driven in other states / provinces, or even countries? With a fuel tax, you at least have taxing authority over the sale in your jurisdiction. There is no source of information for where those odometer cranks came from without also adding some kind of tamper-proof GPS tracker to the vehicle, and you can ge
Re:Still cheaper (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the math - basically confirms that they're now going to charge what the average driver would pay via gas taxes; however I'd say that between the annual fee and gas tax, the tax seem more fair, as you basically pay per use (drive more = need more gas = pay more).
Ideally, a fee based on mileage traveled would be probably fairest (though there's some gotchas there too).
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, a fee based on mileage traveled would be probably fairest (though there's some gotchas there too).
You mean like fuel taxes? The more miles you drive the more fuel you consume, the heavier your vehicle the more wear it places on the roads and the more fuel it consumes.
This only breaks down when people start using a fuel that is not taxed for road use. There are such fuels, such as agricultural diesel and aviation fuel, use of them in road vehicles is generally illegal for this exact reason. Using electrical power in a car is a form of tax evasion that hasn't been addressed yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, a fee based on mileage traveled would be probably fairest (though there's some gotchas there too).
Using electrical power in a car is a form of tax evasion that hasn't been addressed yet.
That's why I propose the mileage-based fee (instead of any gas taxes); that way it's uniform for all vehicle types, even hybrids (which in theory, under this plan, could get 'double-dipped' from both the gas tax and the EV fee (though it'd probably be reduced) - because we all know governments love to tack on fees if they can!).
As others here said, the vehicle weight and/or number of axles or tires (or even tire size) could also be taken into account, as not all traveled mileage is equal).
Re: (Score:3)
Canada's a lot higher (like 1/3 to 1/2 of our gas price is taxes). An earlier back-of-envelope calc said closer to $1000 per vehicle per year, but it could be maybe half that. Not much less though.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No!
No, no, no!
It is absolutely critical we transition away from fossil-fuel powered vehicles. Not only should we not tax EVs, we should double the tax on gas-powered vehicles and use that money to fund massive tax credits on EVs.
In general, I agree; however unless prices of EVs become on par with equivalent gasoline vehicles, doing this would basically be taxing the poor; maybe taxing the 'higer end' (non-base model) vehicles might work better with that however.
Re: (Score:2)
That's going to happen -- just depends on economies of scale, plus the tech learning curve. Battery prices have already fallen massively, with plenty of scope for more.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxing the high end isn’t needed - they are still efficient and cleaner so there isn’t a need to penalize.
To clarify my earlier point: the 'higher end' non-base models of gasoline vehicles could be taxed - as in people that need a vehicle shouldn't get penalized just because they can't afford an EV; those that can afford the more 'luxury' gasoline models can handle the extra tax if they don't want to get an EV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Still cheaper (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking Saskatchewan, very pro-oil and it seems, very anti-green.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How about we take away fossil fuel subsidies instead. I wonder why so much outrage over EV subsidies and not much over fossil fuel subsidies? Maybe because right wingers love when subsidies go to companies who boots they love to lick, but hate it when it goes to the individual. After all corporate overlords are the only ones who should get subsidies.
Imagine if fossil fuel companies had to fund healthcare of everyone who had damages to lungs due to diesel particulates.
As a pro EVer since '06, the EV fandom is dumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is absolutely critical we transition away from fossil-fuel powered vehicles. Not only should we not tax EVs, we should double the tax on gas-powered vehicles and use that money to fund massive tax credits on EVs.
I don't think you understand the environmental impact of EVs correctly. They are not a panacea, nor are they a silver bullet. They are only about 20% more efficient than internal combustion engines when you consider their whole lifecycle.
The world isn't magic. EVs are not magic. The laws of thermodynamics still apply, you never get something for nothing, and charging a battery is a very wasteful process. Producing batteries are very wasteful, and batteries have a VERY shitty energy density especially when compared to gasoline.
EVs are great for city use. EVs are TERRIBLE for highway long distance use. What's more, this constant push for more range is toxic as fuck and does more harm than good to EV efficiency and to their environmental impact. Guess what Saskatchewan is like? It's mainly flat farmland with LOTS of distance between places. Not a place for EVs.
Toronto? Ottawa? Kingston? Montreal? Vancouver? These are all GREAT places for EVs where we should have HUGE incentives for EVs with smaller battery packs below 75kwh. Saskatchewan? No. That's dumb, and suggesting it is dumb.
It's utterly STUPID to lug around a 75kwh+ battery pack in the city doing 60km per day, in stop and go traffic, OR to use it on long trips all day, everyday. It's bad for the battery and constant deep cycles and quick charging harms it's efficiency and longevity.
You want to incentivize EVs? Incentivize the shit outta the ones with small battery packs with a range of 100km or less, and tax the shit outta the ones with the big battery packs. No one who should be using an EV (like city folk) needs it. It's there to make people feel "better", and to sell cars, but it's worse for the environment.
There will ALWAYS be a place and need for combustion engines. Period. To say otherwise shows ignorance and bias.
There is already progress in turning gasoline into an "electrolyte", as in, being able to turn exhaust emissions back into gasoline, and again, gasoline has a VERY high energy density that simply can not be beaten with any battery technology we have or will have in the near future.
If you REALLY want to help the environment, you should focus your efforts on rational, facts based arguments and decisions, not ones that blindly incentivize EVs for no reason even when they are the worse choice.
Focusing on large metropolises is the right thing to do, as 20% there makes a HUGE difference. Focusing on rural communities is what makes them hate us, because city folk are too ignorant to realize that life outside the city is VERY different.
Most city folk DEFINITELY should be using EVs but this whole idea that EVERYONE should use EVs and that EVs are the future and ICE cars are going to go extinct is just dumb.
I've been in the EV community much longer than most people, well before Tesla was in existence, and this blind rhetoric is fucking stupid and ruining the community. Stop it. This fandom was started by Tesla to sell cars, and they have successfully managed to get a bunch of people to shill for them. (Hence why in the EV community there are EV people and Tesla people, and they are not the same kind of person)
EVs are GREAT for their usecase, but they are not a one size fits all vehicle... that is, if you actually care about the environment.
If you don't, enjoy your P100D Tesla that you barely drive 60km a day, costs way too much, is less reliable than EVs people have built in their garage, is constructed like shit, and is from a manufacturer who actively punishes their owners and tries to make their cars disposable.
There's a rational middle ground here. This isn't a team sport, and it's not us vs them.
EVs are great (Score:3)
Efficiency alone is not a complete picture of why EVs are so much better; an additional critical issue is that they are power-source-agnostic. As electricity supplies transition to non-CO2 generating sources such as solar, wind, hydro, geo, tidal, nuclear, etc., EVs make less and less impact upon the world's CO2 problem. Eventually they contri
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens when everyone moves to EVs due to the subsidies and lower taxes?
Who pays for the subsidies then?
Who pays for the road maintenance?
What happens to people who have use cases for which an EV is unsuitable?
Meanwhile the fossil fuels continue to be burned in power stations instead of vehicles.
Short sighted simplistic measures will have unintended consequences, which will often be worse than the problem they were originally intending to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens when everyone moves to EVs due to the subsidies and lower taxes?
Problem solved. Everyone's on EVs, so you can practically ban gas cars and then fix the taxes.
The whole point of these subsidies is to move somewhere new. Once you arrive at your destination, you stop paying.
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens...Who pays....What happens? Short sighted simplistic measures....
AKA your entire post.
Seriously, do you not think we can change our tax laws? That they need a constitutional amendment or something?
You're here ranting and raving about something that's not a problem yet, and will be a normal legislative activity to solve. You know, the thing that legislators do day in and day out, all around the world?
I know this is scary, snowflake, but the world changes. Adults put on their pants and deal with it. Children scream and cry because change is scary and hard.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only should we not tax EVs, we should double the tax on gas-powered vehicles and use that money to fund massive tax credits on EVs.
So you want other people to subsidize someone else's choice while at the same time not funding road maintenance? Isn't this the same thing people complain about when taxpayers subsidize multi-billion dollar international companies year after year or how homeowners subsidize churches who don't pay taxes?
Here's a question. As more and more electric vehicles come on the road
Re: (Score:2)
On average, in the USA, fuel tax pays for maybe half the road repairs and maintenance, tolls add a little more, property taxes usually contribute to local roads, federal income taxes contribute to US highways / interstates and some to state roads and bridges.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that EVs use roads, and roads have to be paid for, right?
Re: (Score:2)
$150 is still cheaper than about 3-4 tanks of gas (depending on the vehicle type/weight).
A fair comparison should also include the cost of the electricity needed to charge the batteries for an equivalent amount of travel as those 3-4 tanks of gas.
Re: (Score:2)
$150 is still cheaper than about 3-4 tanks of gas (depending on the vehicle type/weight). And given that most buyers probably got EV incentives for saving on the purchase price in the first place, I think this is fair, given that right now drivers of gasoline vehicles are the only ones paying for road infrastructure being used by all vehicle types.
Fun fact: Years ago I pointed out electric cars would move from subsidized to taxed. In the Netherlands decades ago, you could pay $2000 to have your car converted to run off LPG or gasoline at the flip of a switch, LPG being much cheaper because of taxes.
So the government added an annual tax such that you had to drive 20,000 km a year or more on LPG to break even.
I used that as an example to point out how, once sufficient cars were electric instead of gas, electric cars would switch to being taxed to gen
Re: (Score:2)
I still wonder how effective people think minor 'incentives' or 'disincentives' are.
We're not talking thousands of dollars here.
I'd love to meet the person who is there wanting to buy an EV spending tens of thousands of dollars, saving thousands of dollars in gas costs, who then doesn't buy an EV over a $150 fee.
The reality is that most provinces/states will eventually adopt something like this. Gasoline taxes have paid for infrastructure. Less gas use, less tax money. They're going to make it up somehow. E
Re: (Score:2)
I still wonder how effective people think minor 'incentives' or 'disincentives' are.
We're not talking thousands of dollars here.
I'd love to meet the person who is there wanting to buy an EV spending tens of thousands of dollars, saving thousands of dollars in gas costs, who then doesn't buy an EV over a $150 fee.
The reality is that most provinces/states will eventually adopt something like this. Gasoline taxes have paid for infrastructure. Less gas use, less tax money. They're going to make it up somehow. Either that or more tolls.
Exactly - I doubt people would really balk at $150, like I said especially if they got a discount during purchase - just the usual whiners would complain.
I think if they instead moved over to mileage-based fees instead of vehicle type-specific fees (gas tax/EV fee) it would be simpler and more consistent across all vehicle types (for example hybrids use less gas, but cause as much road wear as their full gasoline equivalent).
Re: (Score:2)
So this is the state taking the margin of productivity/profit/increased efficiency for themselves, leaving everyone else in the same position.
Who pays for the highways?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Still cheaper (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know much about New Zealand, but how many diesel boats do you get on your roads and highways?
Here in Canada, I can confidently say the number is zero.
Re:Still cheaper (Score:4, Informative)
Fuel taxes were pretty much exactly that, since a heavier vehicle is going to use more fuel as is a vehicle which drives a greater number of miles.
The problem stems from new vehicle types (ie electric) which evade the existing road maintenance funding system.
Re:Still cheaper (Score:4, Interesting)
Fuel use at cruising speed is not quite proportional to weight. A vehicle twice the weight can easily use only a little more fuel.
Road damage is not proportional to weight. It is closer to being proportional to the fourth power of weight per axle. (though the exponents and proportionality are debated, it's not an exact correlation and there's a lot of other factors at work) So a vehicle twice the weight will do about 16 times as much damage to the road.
Even if we assume fuel use is proportional to weight, heavy trucks do far more damage per gallon of fuel used than regular automobiles. And the amount of fuel used at a given weight is dependent on aerodynamics, tire inflation, ICE efficiencies, and a lot of other factors. So fuel tax is not quite as fair at distributing road maintenance costs as you might think.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the cost of the roads should come form weight / miles. A heavy vehicle tears up the roads more than a light one does. Or maybe tax tires?
I really need to work on my Namronic anti-gravity drive. That'll show them.
That'll show them all.
Re: (Score:3)
That's what existing registration fees are for. This is government making up for lost taxes from some other place.
No the majority comes from fuel excise. It was convenient because in general the more you drove the more fuel you used and the more you paid towards the road infrastructure you were using, not an exact science but it worked in general. They could add an excise on electricity but that would affect everybody including those not using it for transport.
An alternative is to just raise the price of registration and eliminate the existing fuel tax.
This. The issue with raising the registration and eliminating the fuel tax is now you only collect road funds from vehicles registered in your state. Not a huge deal for normal cars or trucks, but you better bet that big rig operators would go registration shopping, setting up legal entities and registering their fleets in states with the lowest registration taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's just like the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
In this particular instance, there's separate fee structures being implemented for different vehicle types (one via gas taxes, one specifically for EVs, and one might wonder where hybrids fit in all this).
The 'fairness' I mean is that all vehicle types are all under 1 simple fee structure, and that perhaps it should be based on actual mileage traveled (because for example hybrids use less gas, but cause equal road wear as a full-gasoline equivalent). And others here have suggested also factoring in weight
Welcome to the future! (Score:4, Informative)
It's pretty obvious that most state governments will be doing this once a bunch of people have migrated to electric cars and the gas taxes aren't enough to pay for highway maintenance costs anymore. I figured that most states would add it as a tax to your electric bill, though.
Enjoy those EV tax credits while they last, because they won't for long.
Re: Welcome to the future! (Score:2)
Enjoy those EV tax credits while they last, because they won't for long.
I don't see how EV tax credits are in any way related to road maintenance. At best they're a weak government's carbon tax (or, more precisely, a weak government's attempt to compensate at least in case of cars for their inability to establish a carbon tax).
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, more EV's means fewer gasoline cars. Gasoline taxes pay for road maintenance. So fewer gas cars means less money for road maintenance.
All of which means that more EV's will eventually require more taxes on EV's to pay for road maintenance, since there won't be as many gas cars as are needed to pay for the required road maintenance....
Re: (Score:2)
$150 happens to equal the Saskatchewan province gas taxes on 1000L of gas (those silly Canadians and their fancy metric units). Converting to American that is 264 gallons or about 10000 miles per year for a car that gets 38 MPG. (YMMV)
Re:Welcome to the future! (Score:4, Insightful)
Gas taxes don't pay for highway maintenance. They go into general coffers like all other taxes. It's not a COGS scenario. Governments don't work that way. Gas taxes don't get lowered or refunded if more money is raised than spent on road maintenance.
Stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're trying to INCREASE adoption of EVs. Wait until we have enough of them on the road before worrying about lost tax revenue. They account for less than one percent of vehicle traffic at the moment, both in Canada and the US.
Re:Stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)
Both Saskatchewan and Alberta get a significant part of their revenues from the oil industry.
This is simply an attempt to try to slow down adoption of a new technology that is destroying their way of life. Petty and pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Both Saskatchewan and Alberta get a significant part of their revenues from the oil industry.
And will continue to, no matter how much you may believe otherwise.
Which is why they're squirming to tack that tax on (Score:3)
Clearly, and act of an industry strong and unafraid, not a bunch of incompetent rent seekers begging for a handout from the government, like dogs. [financialpost.com]
"You can't make money at $30 oil, actually in most places around the world," said [Tristan Goodman, president of the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada], adding that government support is needed because "you can't pay people with chocolate coins."
I.e. According to the people literally presiding the industry - they are dead in the water without a government handout and frantically struggling to stay afloat. [statista.com]
Like dogs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in Saskatchewan global warming might be a welcome change... possibly get a second cutting hay and who wouldn't want fewer days of 40 below zero.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, in the long term, once the ice at the north pole is actually all gone. In the short term, it probably just means more unpredictable and extreme winter storms. It could end up making the area uninhabitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming may make the region around the equator uninhabitable but Saskatchewan in the middle of the continent will be fine. Saskatchewan already gets high arctic temperatures in the winter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that's going to be the case. Warmer global temperatures can cause local cooling for various reasons. Consider Northern Europe. One concern about melting ice is that it will end up halting the currents that deliver the heat that keeps Northern Europe warm enough to be livable. I can't speak for Saskatchewan specifically, but a fairly basic principle of melting ice is that, when it melts, it draws heat from the air, which both creates large masses of cold air and also generates wind. Depending on
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how the rainfall works out. Warmer temperatures and no rain isn't going to help the farmers. Likewise too much rain. And the timing of that rain/snow.
Saskatchewan? (Score:2)
You didn't have to go all the way to Saskatchewan to find a road tax on electric vehicles... my progressive state of Idaho has a $140 annual surcharge on electric vehicles for several years now.
Re: (Score:3)
Trucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Following the logic of charging an extra tax for highway maintenance, when will they charge a realistic tax for the damage done to road surfaces by heavy trucks?
Almost all the maintenance that roads require is caused by heavy trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to see some of the trucks and SUVs being used as commuter vehicles. The auto industry keeps fighting and winning to keep these as being classified as trucks despite how large many of them are.
Re: (Score:2)
Following the logic of charging an extra tax for highway maintenance, when will they charge a realistic tax for the damage done to road surfaces by heavy trucks?
Almost all the maintenance that roads require is caused by heavy trucks.
Yes, you could tax heavy trucks more in line with the damage they cause. That would be passed on to the end consumer of trucking in the form of higher prices for groceries, deliveries, utilities, emergency services, and everything else that comes the last mile on trucks. Pretty much everything period. It would be a tax on everyone.
Whether that is fair or not is debatable, but don't ever think it would be a tax on truckers or trucking companies. That is funny naïve.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether that is fair or not is debatable, but don't ever think it would be a tax on truckers or trucking companies. That is funny naïve.
I think everyone gets that. It just seems more fair, overall. Why should commuters who have to drive 80 miles a day be punished more than their neighbor whose job is just down the street when both use the same amount of consumer goods and therefore contribute equally to the actual wear and tear on the roads through trucking?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should commuters who have to drive 80 miles a day be punished more than their neighbor whose job is just down the street
Because it is enlightened and trendy?
I'm fine with everyone paying for roads through general revenue actually. We all benefit from them. People who don't are exceedingly rare.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be fine as well. As you said, pretty much everyone benefits from roads. The ones that don't are probably living under a pine tree in the forest living on squirrels. Those people generally are not paying taxes anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Trucks (Score:4, Interesting)
In the us for 2014 (using 2014 because its the last year I can easily find data for), average mpg of 7.2 or better was required for semitrucks. Average passenger car mileage for 2014 was about 36.5 mpg. So the semi truck uses 5 times more gallons of fuel to go the same distance and causes 10000 times more road damage. I don't think the tax on diesel is 2000 times higher than gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably never, because it follows the same logic as corporate taxes, they're mostly pass-through to end consumers. You can charge trucking operators more taxes for their use of roads, they just raise prices to the consumers of their trucking services, and often its just consumers who pay more for goods and services.
I don't like it any better than anyone else, but I don't have a solution, either, that doesn't just raise the cost of living for everyone.
Obviously lowering road maintenance costs could be lowe
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent (Score:5, Funny)
The government takes such excellent care of the roads and highways that people will be happy to donate $150/year to continue such great care (to all those reading this, none of this statement is true).
Re: (Score:3)
Ha ha ... I use to have of friend that worked for the Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways... He would call it the Ministry of Holidays
Re: (Score:3)
Turnabout is fair play (Score:2)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi... [www.cbc.ca]
The decision was split, but the court allowed the federal carbon tax to proceed. It does not in any way change provinces existing taxation powers though, and is still being challenged by my province on other grounds.
https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/ma... [ctvnews.ca]
Saskatchewan is obviously taking a different route in their response, but that i
Re: (Score:2)
The right wing put in the carbon tax here back when the right wing was pro-carbon tax and made it revenue neutral, namely they cut the income tax by how much the carbon tax brought in. Also rebates for the low income people. Economically, BC is still doing well even after having the carbon tax since 2008 and IIRC, it is higher then the rest of Canada.
It's funny how the right have moved from having a carbon tax to encourage the market to go greener to hating it and rather then implementing it in a way that d
This does sound like an anti-electric measure (Score:2)
It would make far more sense to tax *all* cars. They can remove or reduce the gas tax if they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Or only trucks; the wear/damage to a roadway is scaled by vehicle weight to the FOURTH power.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they can leave it as it is. Part of the gas tax is spend on roads. It does not matter whether roads are paid from gas tax or special car tax. There is no significant difference.
The news is that they decided to lower the incentives provided for electric cars.
Wisconsin beat them to it (Score:2)
Commandant Walker did this years ago.
Dual purpose of tax (Score:2)
It seems these good people forgot the bit about "affecting behaviour". Not having to pay fuel tax makes them lose out on income, but it affects people's behaviour towards buying electric cars. So unless you don't want them to buy electric cars, this tax is a bad idea.
OK, Let's Make This Transactional (Score:2)
But their response is to point to the need to tax EV owners separately for this. OK, they have that authority.
The problem that I have would be if Saskatchewan were to collect these funds and not absolutely guarantee that every cent collected in this way would go to road maintenance and not once cent of it would go to any other cause.
Too man
Illogical flat tax (Score:2)
This seems very Sask, given their government and reliance on oil. There is some logic to the fact that if gas tax provides funding for road maintenance, then electric cars need another way to provide that funding. However, a flat $150 tax goes against that logic. A gas tax scales with road usage. Also, larger, heavier vehicles cause more road wear, and use more gas. You'd want the equivalent for electric vehicles - something that scales with road usage. A flat tax doesn't do that, and you can't add more
Odometer tax (Score:2)
Do not forget... (Score:2)
We'll See Changes With Non-EV Taxing Too (Score:2)
GIS Road Pricing Is Coming for Everyone (Score:2)
What a garbage argument (Score:2)
So what? EVs do slightly more pavement damage than gassers, but passenger automobiles do essentially zero pavement damage compared to heavy trucks, which do about three orders of magnitude more. A fair highway maintenance tax would be based on miles traveled, and would apply almost exclusively to heavy trucks. This would increase the cost of shipping, and the shippers would roll