Republicans In Congress Want a Flat $200 Annual EV Tax (arstechnica.com) 196
New submitter LDA6502 writes: The Republican chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is proposing a new annual federal vehicle registration fee of $200 for full EVs, $100 for hybrid EVs, and $20 for combustion vehicles. The tax would be tied to inflation, would be collected by the states, and would expire in 2035. Critics of the proposal note that it could result in low mileage EVs paying a far higher tax rate than heavy ICE trucks and SUVs. Ars Technica notes that the bill "exempts commercial vehicles, which should see a rush from tax avoiders to register their vehicles under their businesses [...]." Farm vehicles will also be exempt from the tax.
"The Eno Center for Transportation calculates that this new tax will contribute an extra $110 billion to the highway Trust Fund by 2035 but that cuts to other taxes and more spending mean that the fund will still be $222 billion short of its commitments -- assuming that this added fee doesn't further dampen EV adoption in the U.S., that is."
"The Eno Center for Transportation calculates that this new tax will contribute an extra $110 billion to the highway Trust Fund by 2035 but that cuts to other taxes and more spending mean that the fund will still be $222 billion short of its commitments -- assuming that this added fee doesn't further dampen EV adoption in the U.S., that is."
Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just tax the wealthiest’s income at 50%
That's far too low. Tax brackets should function to effectively prevent anyone from obtaining the type of wealth that the wealthiest Americans enjoy. The highest tax bracket should be a 99% tax.
The reason most people agree with Republicans that this is unfair is because they don't actually understand how tax brackets work. It doesn't mean that you get taxed 99% on all of your income. Each bracket represents a certain portion of your income (if you're lucky enough to have income that exceeds the lowest brack
Re: (Score:3)
I think the best would be to just take the top 1%, seize their property and send them to Siberia. Oh, this is the US, well, I'm sure there are some empty places in the US where you could put some unwanted people.
Do that every few years and you will have paradise.
When CEOs can't just give themselves and all the other executives absurd salaries and bonuses, all of a sudden paying their employees decent salaries with decent benefits makes sense. Investing in R&D makes sense. Long term thinking makes sense.
Not really, the stock holders will still want their returns and the stock holders will be moving to some other country that would not have this law.
Re:Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:4, Interesting)
Take Musk, for example, whose current wealth is ~330B. If you confiscated 99.9999% of it in a one time tax, he would be left with ~330k in wealth, which is enough to live on comfortably if he also gets a job like the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need to send people to Siberia (Trump would have to beg Putin for access).
I am sure there are some empty places in the US that would be suitable for this purpose.
Take Musk, for example, whose current wealth is ~330B. If you confiscated 99.9999% of it in a one time tax, he would be left with ~330k in wealth, which is enough to live on comfortably if he also gets a job like the rest of us.
Or he would just leave before the law went into effect. I know I would. Why the hell would I stay in a country that threatened to take most my money, then evict me from my house (houses usually cost more than 330k) for the crime of having too much money legally?
So, yeah, I would not approve of that, even if the proposal would be changed so there was no risk to me and it only applied to the real bourgeoisie. My country wa
Re: (Score:2)
I assume this could be facilitated with an executive order, since it would be stupid to give people time to flee the country with very large amounts of their own personal wealth. Although, with a sufficiently reduced state apparatus, that might not be very practical to police effectively.
I don't think you have to worry that this will happen in the ne
Re: (Score:3)
The good thing is that politicians are rich, so they would not want to do that to themselves and their friends.
I am sure people like Musk could make at least some of the money back, but it would be after leaving the US. The socialist-US, much like the USSR would eventually run out of other people's money and collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
I would also suggest that Musk, if "reduced" to an ordinary person's circumstances, would find it difficult to recreate that wealth through his own means. His reputation as someone who knows what he's doing has taken a very public beating in recent years, even Tesla has been looking to get rid of him. [cnn.com] That's not what a heal
Re: (Score:3)
I would also suggest that Musk, if "reduced" to an ordinary person's circumstances, would find it difficult to recreate that wealth through his own means.
He still has friends in high places and abilities. I don't think it would take him too long to go back to at least a billion.
Especially since others would likely be similarly "reduced" and looking for ways to rebuild what they lost in another country. I am also sure that multiple countries would want them and at least offer tax breaks if not even subsidies.
I do not live in the US, so I would not be voting there anyway, but if something like that happened in my country, those politicians would be on a perman
Re: (Score:2)
That was done in Sweden:
https://freedomandprosperity.o... [freedomandprosperity.org]
It didn't last.
Re: Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ronald Reagan told the story about how he got around the aggressive income tax rates when he was in Hollywood as an actor. Once his income approached the highest tax level, he simply stopped working for the rest of the year.
So you're buying into that bit of propaganda.
Reagan made up that story in order to justify tax cuts for the wealthy. Reagan wasn't near the top income tax bracket even at the height of his movie career. After a blockbuster film in 1943, Regan decided to go freelance, which pissed off the studios. He spent the next 20 years doing B movies and not making all that much (though he was comfortable due to past earnings and investments).
The story intentionally leaves out the fact that making $100 over the highest income bracket only results in $100 being taxed at the highest rate. There is no benefit to avoiding the highest tax bracket. Even at the highest tax bracket, it still means you get more money.
I remember when one rich person left NJ and moved to Florida - the state of New Jersey had to re-adjust the state budget to account for the lost tax revenue from just the one taxpayer.
That lasted four years and he moved back because the tax that was being talked about was never enacted. A bigger factor was his recent separation from his wife in New Jersey and his mother and sister both living in Florida. You can't blame a non-existent tax for his separation from his wife and temporary move to be closer to his family.
Re: Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:4, Informative)
The "95%" tax rate worked just fine, thanks.
It wasn't actually 95%. The way it worked, starting in the 1951/52 tax year, was that any income over a certain threshold was subject to a "surtax", which was 50%. That was in addition to the 40% top rate of income tax.
When The Beatles released that song, it had been in effect for 15 years already. The only thing that changed for the 65/66 tax year was that the government dropped the threshold from £20,000 to £15,000, equivalent to £333,000 and £250,000 today. To put those numbers in context, there was less wealth inequality back then too, so those really were massive incomes. An MP was on £3,250 and that was considered very good.
It wasn't just a Labour (left leaning) government thing either, the right wing Conservatives re-introduced the same thing in the 1970s (after buggering up the economy as usual), although they did slightly reduce the top rate of income tax.
It was actually the norm for a long time in the UK, before the burden got shifted onto middle and low income people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:2)
Re: Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Despite Trump's promised cuts, U.S. spent more than $200 billion more in first 100 days than last year"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t... [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the details about this tax, but a vehicle tax is reasonable. Roads need to be paid for, and a gas tax it's the way to do it as more and more vehicles become electric.
Re: (Score:3)
The gas tax was a 'good' solution because it reflected use. The more gas you used either indicated you did more driving or likely were driving something heavier.
Now it is true that in space of passenger cars vs commerical trucks and what not the amount of extra wear on road ways your SUV creates vs a Geo Metro or something is marginal however. But hey consider the bigger gas tax burden a pressure to cut your carbon emissions. My point is in principle gas taxes at least when the money is earmarked for driv
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:4, Informative)
>"Asking EV owners to pay costs related to roading is fair, but this proposal is not. The charges should be based on mileage and axle weight and be the same for all vehicles. Where I live it is almost that way, BEVs pay road user charges at under the same scheme used for diesel vehicles i.e. based on mileage."
Bingo.
The problem is that there is no way they will implement this without being horribly creepy and invasive. Virginia is an example. They slapped this large registration tax fee on EV's because of lack of gas tax and made everyone pay the "average Virginian travel" mileage of 11,000 miles. Well, what about people like me who drive only 1,800 miles? Too F****ING bad! They end up paying tremendously more.
So they implemented a scheme where you could sign up to put a F***ING GPS-tracker in your EV, CONTINUOUSLY, that monitors your movements, acceleration, speed, etc. AND link that to your phone. If you do that, then you can pay based on actual annual mileage. And did this with some third-party that "promises" not to abuse all that unnecessary data (yeah right).
Now you might be thinking, VA has a state inspection where they ALREADY gather the odometer reading and ALREADY have to key it into a State system. So why not just use that? Well, isn't that a very good question. I asked that question and got the response "unfortunately that is not an option." (And this invasive scheme was courtesy of a Democrat legislature, in case people want to continuously make all this about Republicans.)
Re:Regressive republican tax policy. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the USA, vehicle taxes are done at the State level. This new proposal would be like the EU adding a vehicle tax on top of your country's vehicle tax.
Tax policy (Score:2)
Five dimensional chess (Score:3)
a rush from tax avoiders to register their vehicles under their businesses
The word they were looking for is "evaders", not "avoiders". Personal use of a "company" vehicle has been a red flag that gets IRS audit attention for more than 50 years, and it got stepped up [automotive-fleet.com] more recently. Anybody trying that "one weird trick" better have really good mileage and expense logs to back up their tax claims.
Re: (Score:2)
That article is 12 years old. Today, the IRS is a shell of itself since they cut everything Biden did to expand it. Sure, if you get audited you might get busted, but the chance of getting busted is incredibly slim at this point.
Re: Five dimensional chess (Score:2)
Uh, the IRS performs plenty of audits, it's not really a problem.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/I... [fas.org]
Re: (Score:3)
12 years old and still relevant. From https://www.investopedia.com/r... [investopedia.com]:
[CPA Deb Camp] indicates that automobile expenses tend to be wildly overstated, with little documentation to verify them. "I've seen returns audited only for that deduction because it's ridiculous in its amount."
Is a $200 write-off worth figuratively grabbing the IRS's attention and yelling "audit me"?
How much the Republicans have cut the IRS (Score:5, Interesting)
Firing all those workers and refusing to implement the laws they are legally required to have saved about $150 billion. But the cuts to the IRS is going to cost about 1 trillion. Not billion, trillion with a t.
Of course that's the whole point but still.
I wouldn't be surprised though if in a year or two the IRS doesn't get some funding to go after low-level tax dodgers. It won't bring in very much money but it makes good television to have the IRS going around shaking down small time taxpayers instead of the big billionaires. It's a good way to make everybody fear paying taxes instead of looking at it as a positive good where you're paying for civilization.
Re: How much the Republicans have cut the IRS (Score:2)
The IRS audits low-income tax filers because that's where the money is. Middle income filers generally just pay the right amount, and high-income filers hire accountants to give them every legal advantage and to ensure they can pass an (expected) audit.
Trump was routinely audited before he ran for office - funny thing is, he never had a problem - it just took a long time to do each audit. (If he was caught cheating on his taxes, we would have heard about it in 2016, but we didn't)
No that is not true (Score:2)
The IRS audits poor people because the Democrats are reckless and incompetent and I say that as a member of the Democratic party. So years ago we got out maneuvered by the Republicans and they put a rider into one of the bills that had the past to keep the countrie
so the federal trumps the state and I just need to (Score:2)
so the federal trumps the state and I just need to pay the fed. Ok I will take the $20/year only
Re: so the federal trumps the state and I just nee (Score:2)
Do your federal income taxes trump your state and local income taxes so you don't have to pay them?
No.
Hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're going to be taxing damage done then why fuck aren't were taxing pollution? Also, why tax EVs when it's heavy trucks that do the most damage? Once again, Republicans are acting in bad faith.
Tax based on remediation costs, not just to the road but also the environment and STOP SUBSIDIZING THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY.
I keep hearing about how "the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers" and how important the "free market" from Republicans but then they ooze hypocrisy, EVERY FUCKING TIME.
"You can't do that, it will destroy the economy." - every far-right dipshit
Hey, dipshit and thanks for your lack of thinking. Not all policies need to be implemented in an all-or-nothing fashion but can instead be ramped up to provide people time to adapt.
Re: (Score:2)
ICE vehicles get tax breaks for doing "road maintenance"—their smoke helpfully tars the roads. EVs? Just freeloaders rubbing the asphalt raw.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think trucks don't pay taxes
From 2021
A typical 5-axle truck pays $4,454 in annual federal diesel and heavy-vehicle use taxes alone, whereas a car pays $93 in annual federal gas taxes on average. In other words, trucks already pay 48 times more in federal highway user fees than do cars
That's from a trucking lobby group opposing a 25c/mile tax, arguing it would cost truckers earning $53k per year an average of $25k in additional taxes
Trucks already pay taxes. Granted, they do more than 48x the damage compared to a car.
The trucking industry is core to the rest of the economy. Goods need to be transported, everywhere. Especially food. Trains aren't going to deliver stock to your local supermarket.
No surprise, you're wrong. (Score:2)
You seem to think trucks don't pay taxes
From 2021
A typical 5-axle truck pays $4,454 in annual federal diesel and heavy-vehicle use taxes alone, whereas a car pays $93 in annual federal gas taxes on average. In other words, trucks already pay 48 times more in federal highway user fees than do cars
That's from a trucking lobby group opposing a 25c/mile tax, arguing it would cost truckers earning $53k per year an average of $25k in additional taxes
Trucks already pay taxes. Granted, they do more than 48x the damage compared to a car.
The trucking industry is core to the rest of the economy. Goods need to be transported, everywhere. Especially food. Trains aren't going to deliver stock to your local supermarket.
You seem to think trucks don't pay taxes
Incorrect. I think they don't pay enough taxes.
Trucks already pay taxes. Granted, they do more than 48x the damage compared to a car.
45x the tax is almost nothing when you realize they do 37,000 times the damage. [wikipedia.org]
The fourth power law was made in the 1950s, we aren't breaking new ground here.
That's from a trucking lobby group opposing a 25c/mile tax, arguing it would cost truckers earning $53k per year an average of $25k in additional taxes
Do they not believe in the free market? Are they Marxists that want to do away with free enterprise? According to the theory of free market capitalism, the market will self-correct. However, I'm sure a lot of business will be moved to using trains which are more environmentally friendly, so it's a win for
Also a $20 a year tax on all other cars (Score:3, Insightful)
They gave out so much money to billionaires during covid, somewhere around 12 trillion on top of the 63 trillion we had given them in the last 40 years, that the bond market is starting to get spooked. So at this point if they want more of your money to go to billionaires they need to take it from you directly.
I don't think they're planning on having real elections anymore. It won't be anything as dramatic as what they do in Russia let alone North Korea. I think their plan is just to use classic voter suppression tactics to make certain demographics unable to vote. Basically extremely long lines on election day, and challenging voter registrations and signatures.
If you're one of those kind of people that makes a plan you'll still be able to vote but your vote won't matter because so many of your neighbors vote casually and it's easy to stop them. And with gerrymandering maps and demographics and Big Data it's easy to figure out which voters you need to stop and which ones you need to let vote.
I suspect when people's taxes double or triple in the next few years they will notice it but by then it's going to be too late
Virginia already does this for hybrids and 4-cyl (Score:2, Offtopic)
Virginia already does this for hybrids and highly-efficient 4-cylinder cars and has for years.
Or a $0.005 Gas tax increase? (Score:2)
Similar article on Electrek points out that the revenue raised would be equivalent to a 1/2-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase (a tax which hasn't been raised in over 30 years).
Remember when gasoline was $1.20/gallon? Inflation has eroded the dollar by ~120% since then, FWIW.
https://electrek.co/2025/04/30... [electrek.co]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about generating more tax revenue, it's about hurting the right people. It's about playing to the base.
NZ charges per kilometre (Score:2)
Until recently, EVs were exempt from road user charges, but in the past couple of years they have been phased in.
Basically, for petrol vehicles the taxes are built into the fuel costs - but because diesel vehicles are used a lot for non-taxable purposes (eg farm use off of public roads), there is no road user charges on diesel fuel. Instead, NZ has the concept of a Road User Charge fee that you have to buy per 1000KM of usage on the public road - the fee varies depending on type of vehicle and weight of ve
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel is tax-free because diesel vehicles are charged higher rates based on GVM
It's only a matter of time before petrol is tax free and everyone pays RUC
They should update the weight classes though, to encourage smaller vehicles that damage the road less.
Like move the 3500kg class down to 3000kg. That would put large SUV's in the higher bracket, while keeping most cars in the lowest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that partial RUC charge for PHEV means if you always drive in EV range, you pay less road tax than everyone else.
How about a weight mile tax for everyone instead? (Score:3)
Since usage damage to roads is directly connected to vehicle weight, why not eliminate the fuel tax and replace it with a pure weight mile tax? Meaning that you pay a cost per mile driven, per pound of gross vehicle weight. Odometers would be checked during annual or biannual vehicle inspections, and the tax would be assessed as part of vehicle registration.
The state of Oregon has a version of this for EVs currently. You can either pay an EV registration surcharge or you can opt to pay per mile. Last time I checked, if you drive less than about 6,000 miles a year, the pay per mile option was cheaper. If you only drive in Oregon, you can use the odometer, if you drive out of state and don't want to pay for non-Oregon miles, you sign up with a tracking service that monitors if you are driving in or out of state.
We already do a version of this for big trucks
Yes, there would be privacy concerns with various implementations of a weight mile tax in cases where the tax rate might vary based on where you were -- such system would require tracking. But if you drive around with a cell phone, you are being currently being tracked, and many (most?) modern cars are already collecting and reporting location information.
A weight mile tax (as a replacement for all other fuel or other "special" vehicle class based taxes), would be fair and appropriately spread the cost of road maintenance out to those who use the roads. It eliminates politics about fuel sources (at least with respect to taxing for road maintenance).
Re: (Score:3)
Since usage damage to roads is directly connected to vehicle weight, why not eliminate the fuel tax and replace it with a pure weight mile tax? Meaning that you pay a cost per mile driven, per pound of gross vehicle weight. Odometers would be checked during annual or biannual vehicle inspections, and the tax would be assessed as part of vehicle registration.
Thankfully vehicle inspections are not a thing in many US states. There is no evidence they have measurable impacts on road safety.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao... [gao.gov]
The state of Oregon has a version of this for EVs currently. You can either pay an EV registration surcharge or you can opt to pay per mile. Last time I checked, if you drive less than about 6,000 miles a year, the pay per mile option was cheaper. If you only drive in Oregon, you can use the odometer, if you drive out of state and don't want to pay for non-Oregon miles, you sign up with a tracking service that monitors if you are driving in or out of state.
No thanks.
Yes, there would be privacy concerns with various implementations of a weight mile tax in cases where the tax rate might vary based on where you were -- such system would require tracking. But if you drive around with a cell phone, you are being currently being tracked, and many (most?) modern cars are already collecting and reporting location information.
I don't agree with or support the contention because there is already one hole below the water line filling up the boat this somehow magically serves as an excuse for drilling more holes below the water line and ignoring the obvious consequences.
People can elect to leave their phones at home or turn off cellular radios. They can buy
Re: (Score:2)
I see no reason such taxes need be fair or in any useful way reflect cost of individual contributions to road wear.
From this comment and your others, I see we significantly disagree, and that's okay. I am curious however, if you don't feel that the cost for road maintenance should be proportionality paid for by those causing use/damage to the roads, how do you feel road maintenance should be paid for?
Cars will eventually become unaffordable (Score:2)
This along with the ever rising costs to acquire, maintain, and insure cars will drive the middle class out being able to afford a car.
I believe it is going to happen gradually over the next 10-15 years starting with the lower middle class, and progressing to the middle class.
Will we be become like India/Indonesia/Vietnam with tons of electric bikes, scooters and motorcycles?
Will the republicans require electric bikes to be registered like motorcycles so they can be taxed for having an electric motor?
President Musk could have stopped this /s (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
President Musk could have stopped this /s
I know you're just trying to be funny, but I can't imagine Musk is thrilled about this. This isn't like the tax credit going *poof*, where with the right sort of mental gymnastics he might be able to convince himself that Tesla will somehow weather the storm better than traditional auto manufacturers. This is Republicans giving the middle finger to the entire EV industry, and guess who stands to be the biggest loser?
Costs (Score:2)
if you want to get road users to pay for the roads they use you need to consider weight, miles, where and when driven. That six lane freeway in the middle of a city is expensive and only necessary a few hours of the day.
If you want to consider public costs like emissions then you need to consider how to monetize those costs. If you want to discourage anti-social behaviors you need to increase the cost of vehicles that do those things.
My favorite idea is an initial registration deposit based on a vehicle's g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No fuel tax (Score:2)
ICE cars use a fuel that is taxed, but as far as I am aware the electricity used for cars isnâ(TM)t taxed in the same way. This means that the government will likely suffer a tax shortfall from electric cars. Given this, as much as Iâ(TM)m not a fan of the current Republican government, this tax may actually make sense.
The problem is more likely the reasons they are giving for the new tax and therefore doesnâ(TM)t work in their favour.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of a flat fee for each EV, wouldn't it make more sense to charge a tax on the electric usage of EV chargers? That way, you're getting tax revenue proportional to the mileage driven.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of a flat fee for each EV, wouldn't it make more sense to charge a tax on the electric usage of EV chargers? That way, you're getting tax revenue proportional to the mileage driven.
Quire possibly, but right now I don't think anyone has presented a proper path forward.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because most people will charge at home.
The only actual "fair" way is to tax based on vehicle weight and annual odometer reading, and in a way that doesn't require some privacy-invading tracking crap.
4th power law (Score:2)
While I don't support this tax if they are going to do it the tax should be calculated by per axle weight and include heavier ICE vehicles beyond a certain threshold with relative tax amounts in line with 4th power law.
Personally I think cars EVs in particular are too damn heavy. This contributes to added road wear, increased tire and brake wear, associated particulate pollution, increased BOM costs. Additional kinetic energy is an added source of avoidable danger during accidents and poor road conditions
Fair for EVs not ICE vehicles (Score:2)
ICE vehicles pay based on mileage and weight today - itâ(TM)s called the gas tax. Heavier vehicles that drive more miles pay more, and lighter more fuel efficient vehicles pay less. This is how we pay for road maintenance. EVs need to pay their fair share towards road upkeep, preferable by the mile like everyone else.
Cool (Score:2)
Sure, if they implement an $800 ICE tax simultaneously, I'm good.
My 1969 Mustang Grandé with an Edelbrock intake and a Holley double-pumper drinks a bit more than the original 4 barrel carb and factory intake. It takes Premium only, but hey - build a viable EV infrastructure and I'll drive a slot-car too.
Consider it a loan? (Score:2)
From your federal EV tax write off?
Read My Lips (Score:2)
READ MY LIPS ...
New taxes, lots and lots of beautiful new taxes!
Republicans bitch about taxes. . . (Score:2)
⦠when they are not in power, and then when they are in power, they raise them.
Here come the tax and spend Republicans! (Score:2)
Here's a whacky idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Impose a tax on all vehicles. It can be calculated based on CO2 / NOX emissions (lifetime including manufacturing), and/or by vehicle weight, and/or vehicle length and/or other metrics with punitive levels for vehicles that pollute more or occupy more road space. Electric vehicles won't be exempt but the tax should be a statement that roads do not pay for themselves and cars that pollute should pay more. Thus not only does the tax raise revenue it also incentivizes changes in consumer patterns over time.
Just like happens in any sane country. But the US is not sane and the paranoid conspiracy dribble over EVs and electrification is a manifestation of that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's bullshit though, tax revenues are fungible. EV owners pay taxes, too, and the difference is negligible.
The gasoline tax is levied because the people tolerate it and "road maintenance" is just the story politicians tell.
Besides, reduction in gasoline tax is something we would actually want. There would be no better outcome than for everyone to stop paying gasoline taxes.
In the long run, everyone converting to electric would be something to be celebrated and lost gas tax revenue would not even need t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the biggest two hurdles to that are
1) states can't tax for miles outside of their state, so it requires GPS monitoring
2) people like big cars and the damage to the road is the 4th power of the axle weight. Charging based on road damage would make shipping expensive and people would wine.
Re: GOP (Score:2)
In the long run, everyone converting to electric would be something to be celebrated and lost gas tax revenue would not even need to be replaced.
Because driving all those much heavier EVs on public roads wouldn't be an issue, the roads wouldn't need to be repaired? Or are you pretending that everyone would be happy to fund road maintenance and construction thru property, income, and sales tax revenue?
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you pretending that everyone would be happy to fund road maintenance and construction thru property, income, and sales tax revenue?
Actually, here in Florida we have a shitload of toll roads. Granted, putting up paywalls on infrastructure comes with its own mess of problems, but at least you're only charged for what you actually use. It's still regressive, but slightly less regressive than making everyone with an EV pay a flat $200 regardless of driving habits.
Re: (Score:2)
While this i
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot: "always in snowy conditions".
Re:GOP (Score:4, Informative)
In the Netherlands, you'll pay road tax, no matter if your drive your car or not. This amount is based on class of car, it's engine displacement, the fuel the engine needs and overall weight of the car. So if you have a small 4-seater with a puny ICE engine that runs on standard petrol that is around 25 Euro per month. Pick up trucks, common in the USA, easily cost you 100+ Euro per month. As those are large, have a lot of weight and usually engines with a lot of displacement.
Add 25 to 50 Euro on top of that amount if you drive a car with a diesel engine or one that runs on natural gas.
For simplicity's sake, lets assume 1 gallon is 3 liters. Fuel sets you back 2+ Euro per liter of petrol. More than 50% of that is also taxes. A gallon would be 7 Euro. Which is around 8 USD. Diesel is less expensive, but also more than 1,5 Euro per liter. Natural gas is the cheapest, but usually has a lower MPG than a petrol car which have a lesser MPG than cars with diesel engines.
Any car that is located on any type of public road, must be insured. That is also a monthly fee and based on car class, engine displacement, age of driver, gender of driver and amount of time the driver has driven without receiving/dealing any damage or other claimed costs. For a lot of people that ends up around 100 Euro a month too.
Any car that is located on any type of public road must be checked if the car is safe. If the car you own is older than 3 years, you'll need to subject your car to a yearly test. This test isn't free. If this test reveals problems, you'll need to fix those within 2 weeks and re-submit your car, else you will need to pay again a fee for testing. Usually you'll need to change 2 to 4 tires, maybe some work on the engine to get it to burn fuel more cleanly etc. Which usually ends up to be 300 to 400 Euro per year.
If you don't think the car is worth it to fix it, you'll need to get rid of the car at a yard. That isn't free either. Prices vary wildly. And there are yards that may not even accept your car, so you'll need to drive it to another yard.
Cars from the USA have a MPG that is not affordable for most people. And cars from the USA tend to get larger in size/volume with each new model. Great if you live in the USA, not great at all when such a car needs to drive in Europe. Parking such a car is an even bigger problem as there is simply not enough room to fit them anymore anywhere.
Trump was complaining the EU isn't buying a lot of USA cars. Now you'll have an idea why. No-one is buying those, because these do not fit on lots of roads, cannot park in too many places, are therefore hard (and expensive) to insure, have very high road taxes, because of large V6 or V8 engines, can only undergo yearly testing in a very limited amount of garages, consume lots of much more expensive fuel and tires cost a fortune, if those are even available. It is not that the EU doesn't like USA cars, they are too much hassle to deal with.
Because if the police sees, or traffic camera's spot your car on the public road without insurance or a valid safety test, you'll get a pretty hefty fine. If it was a traffic camera, which are ff-ing everywhere nowadays, you'll get your fine automatically by mail. If the police catches you, you can lose your car right then and there. On highways there are traffic cameras that time you. if you pass one with the correct speed and pass the second one, also at the correct speed, but at an interval that does not match the interval of the correct speed in between those cameras, you still get a fine. The amount of time-difference determines the height of the fine you'll receive automagically by mail.
Fail to pay on time? you'll get a new fine that is 125% of the original fine. Fail to pay that one too, the next fine is 150%. Fail that again, and the police are allowed to take your car too.
The car situation in the USA may seem dire to those driving in the USA. Rest assured, I'm not denying you your feelings of misery about that. Hopefully this post makes you unde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can always choose to go live in some other successful society where no one has any requirement to pay for the common good.
Admittedly I'm unaware of any such, and they may not exist, because the game-theory of such a society causes it to collapse rather quickly.
Re:GOP (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, so all that pollution done to us by those nice corporations is, what, a user fee? Or how about the periodic financial meltdowns given to us by the business community, you know the ones, the ones that threaten to put us all out of work? Or how about the natural disasters that can wipe an entire state's economy?
Or how about those product defects that kill an actuary's maximum number - 1 of people who had the misfortune to trust the company producing the defects? How about those nice airline companies that are prevented from having an embarrassing number of planes exhibit spontaneous failure to fly in mid air while in mid air and prevented from this sort of behavior by fed. regulatory agencies? You know the agencies, the ones the Republicans think are unnecessary because they surely won't affect them.
Can you be any more stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
as long as you repay the oil subsidies that you enjoy. And fire subsidies, LOL. You can pay those too, gasoline cars also catch fire
Re: (Score:2)
ICE vehicles get tax breaks for "road maintenance"—their smoke helpfully tars the roads. EVs? Just freeloaders rubbing the asphalt raw.
Re: Charge by the mile or pound-mile (Score:2)
Just charge your Tesla off a diesel generator.
You can put red dye in it and technically it's not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
"Either way, ditch taxes that are specific to "motor vehicle fuels" - they are no longer fair."
They are as fair as they've ever been. Claiming they have become unfair is assuming a purpose.
European countries have always had higher gas taxes, along with higher vehicle taxes. It's not about fairness, it's part of social engineering, a vital function of government.
Gasoline taxes, should get raised. Benefits for EV use should increase. That's why they won't happen, because Republicans.
Taxes should be raised
Re: (Score:2)
So you think a user-pays tax system is not fair?
Road taxes should be taxed based on road use and how much your vehicle damages the road - distance and GVM/(axle)
You can't tax electricity to pay for roads - why should I pay road taxes for turning on the lights in my home?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So what! (Score:4, Interesting)
The lawmakers had three choices:
A) A flat tax,
B) A mileage/usage-based tax, or
C) Ignore the issue.
C is not an option, and B is a bear to calculate, so they went with option A, and just picked $200 for EV, $100 for Hybrid, and $20 for ICE.
The vast majority of vehicle owners will pay $20/car per year.
Re: (Score:2)
"B" is not difficult to calculate if the state already has an inspection system, because an odometer reading is already captured each year (and can be true-uped at sale or other time needed). But there are states that don't, so you are correct it could be a problem.
One solution for EV's would be to simply allow the VIN and odometer reading to be available through the charging communication. If you charge at home, you would only need to visit a charging location once a year (even if you only charge for 1 m
Re:Won't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
They're going to spend the money and there's not shit we can do about it.
I'm confused. Do they work for you or you work for them? Vote them out.
Re:Won't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Won't matter (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not like magically they don't need to repair roads just because they're not getting the car tab.
That means to balance the budget they'll either need to borrow, tax something else, or cut something.
Money is (pretty much) fungible, so they raise it, cut spending, borrow, or increase taxes.
Re:Won't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Fees are the most regressive form of taxation. Put a $100 fee on all cars? That eats up FAR more % of income for people who are in poverty than for the rich.
Sales taxes? 2nd most. Those who are lower on the economic ladder spend month-to-month.
Property taxes are the 3nd most regressive - they just get passed down in rent costs.
A FAIR tax system is a graduated income tax system. But that's been fucked over because the rich are fucking retard bastards who won't pay their fair share.
Re:Won't matter (Score:4, Informative)
The "rich" are already paying the vast majority of income tax in the US while about half of the country pays virtually no income tax at all. The top 1% of earners pay nearly 50% of income taxes.
https://usafacts.org/articles/... [usafacts.org]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t... [cbsnews.com]
Re: Won't matter (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah you know why they pay 40%? Because 1% of people earn 23% of all wealth. (and 20% control 70%). Frankly they could stand to pay more or those numbers need to even out a bit.
And to be fair the poor and middle class will have to pay a little more as well, we do need to broaden the tax base.
Also the point isnt so much the $0.40 a week as an extra $200 bill does hurt when you don't have that money to spare, you're putting aside something else for that $200 and you said yourself, it's probably staples. Most of us here could eat the two-hundo and yes it's annoying but really our week to week wouldn't change. Is that a good enough reason not to do it? Not quite but it is a mark in the negatives column.
Also the argument wasn't "no property taxes" but that they are regressive and that seems to be correct
https://www.philadelphiafed.or... [philadelphiafed.org]
Among single-family homes that enjoy the same set of property tax-funded amenities and pay the same statutory property tax rate, owners of inexpensive houses pay almost 50% higher eective tax rates than owners of expensive houses.
Re: (Score:2)
The poor drive ICE vehicles, if they drive anything, and if they can't swing $0.40/week, maybe car ownership isn't for them?
You've clearly not been keeping up with used EV prices the last two years or so. I've already started to see low income folks buying very old Leafs as beaters. Granted, it must really suck driving a car that has about the same range as a Bird scooter, but at least you get air conditioning and it keeps you out of the rain.
Re: (Score:3)
The vast majority of purchases made by the poor are for staples - food, clothing, etc which is tax-exempt.
That depends on where you live. None of that is tax-exempt where I live.
Re: Won't matter (Score:4, Informative)
The poor drive ICE vehicles, if they drive anything, and if they can't swing $0.40/week, maybe car ownership isn't for them?
That's a nice privileged point you made. From your post I take it you're American? Do I need to point out there is a significant percentage of your population living paycheck to paycheck and actually depending not only on government aid to make it through the year (so yes $0.40 / week is significant when your balance is below zero), but your country has also been built to demand you own a car in order to function.
Car ownership is not something optional in America. You're outright fucked without it. The problem doesn't exist in some other countries.
the top 1% of income earners pay almost 40% of all collected income taxes,
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. This one falls under the last category. 1% is a great number to choose since it allows the actual wealthy to hide in the statistics of the middle class. The top 1% of earners in your country are well and truly working middle class. The major complaint has always been about the actual wealthy not paying their fair share. Go read up how much tax the top 0.1% of earners pay.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not like magically they don't need to repair roads just because they're not getting the car tab.
We keep building the roads. We just cut funding for schools when car tabs don't get paid.
It's one big pot of money. And the people that get screwed are the people least able to defend their programs. Kids don't vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Won't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
In Texas, registering an EV is already $200/yr. The excuse was because we're not paying the states gas tax, but it's clearly punitive, most people do not drive their ICE cars even a fraction of the distance it would take to add up to $200/yr over the base automobile registration.
I wonder if republicans have considered that since we do not currently have a federal car vehicle registration, that they're creating a new tax. And yes, right now they're in control and they can make this favor the gas lobby. But when democrats get control again, and they will, they're going to flip this. The loser here is every single individual who owns a vehicle. The winner are rich people who both will get a) lower income taxes and b) will probably not have to pay vehicle taxes (if they don't want to).
I hope the one thing that comes out of Trump v2 is that his base learns that billionaires are never your friend. Suffering one to live is tying a noose around your own neck.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hope the one thing that comes out of Trump v2 is that his base learns that billionaires are never your friend.
Contradiction in terms, if they were capable of learning such things, they'd have figured it out long ago. Otherwise I agree with everything you said.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In Texas, registering an EV is already $200/yr. The excuse was because we're not paying the states gas tax, but it's clearly punitive, most people do not drive their ICE cars even a fraction of the distance it would take to add up to $200/yr over the base automobile registration.
And now they want you to pay an additional $200 p/a federally. That's the downside of giving a lot of power to individual states.
It's going to happen, regardless of how much the EV fanboys whine for the simple reason is that the infrastructure EVs drive on and around still costs money. Previously that money was paid for by a consumption tax based on a crude method of usage (fuel taxes). Without a fuel tax, a flat per year tax is the simpler, cheaper and less invasive method. Alternatives include electric
Re: Won't matter (Score:4, Informative)
But 1000/52=19.23