More taxes on 'lectric vehicles

I have a few friends who are State and Local Gov workers and teachers. Now grant it they don't make plenty of money and managed to not live in the best zip codes because there income could not afford it. But when they retire at 80% income and full Medical Insurance and us tax payers have to suffer on City Serives because we have to divert tax income to pay benefits of people who are no longer working at there jobs and private employees are resposnible for there own retirement. Now Congress is floating reducing Social Security benefits rather than tax the top 2% income earners. I rather cut Big Oil Companies tax releif which will raise gas prices and people will buy more EV's and raise taxes if your making greater than 500K annual and raise dividend taxes for the wealthy than reduce Grandma's social security benefit which is about 30% of her income when she was working. Time for changes!

Can't believe I said raise taxes. Geez...

 

Wasn't this one of the reasons you kicked our butt just over 200 years ago? Why are you letting it happen now?

 

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

--Alexis de Tocqueville

 

Your only number 4, behind Connecticut, NJ, and NY Lots of it has to do with spending a great deal of money on stupid stuff.

My state is lower with the problem of not spending enough money on things that would help. You don't see texas talking about taxing plug-ins though. There is talk about taxing high fuel consumption SUVs, since there is not a federal guzzler tax on these things. In most of the state you can choose a time of use plan to have very low cost ev charging.

 

Apologies, I was not clear. I don't mean to tax based on pollution. My suggestion is to tax based on damage to the roads.
My thought process is that the 'road taxes' should be for maintenance of the roads.
Vehicles that cause more damage to the roads should pay more.
Damage is caused based on weight, distance traveled, and any material the vehicle emits that causes damage.
So for the toxins, how much damage does gasoline, or oil cause when it leaks onto the road surface. I am guessing it isn't that big of a factor as it doesn't happen that often.
In the north, idling autos can create slick conditions as the exhaust freezes on the roads at stoplights. Other than the immediate hazard, does this cause any long term damage, etc.

 

I'll try to refrain from the political talk here.
The most equitable tax is based on miles driven, yes. Guess why it will never get implemented in this country? Because of fearmongering about how big brother is going to be monitoring your every move even when he doesn't give a rat's nice person about it.
Grumpy cabbie, in states with pollution issues, people ARE getting paid to drive EVs and plugins. That's why discounts from dealers in CA are a couple thousand dollars less than on the east coast.
Btw, JMD, you seem to gloss over this pretty quickly but it's actually a big deal: these people intentionally made sacrifices while they were working so that they could have a comfortable retirement. If anything, I'd actually commend them for doing that, given how many people in this country are so focused on the short term that they can't be bothered to think about the consequences of their decisions even two years in advance (much less two decades).

 

I'd expect it to be adjusted at the same rate as fuel taxes.

But if it seems rather harsh ...
Maine example:
- Take a Prius that could get 50mpg.
- 49.9c/gal Federal + State tax.
- Prius ~$0.01/mi
- $100 would be ~= 10,000 Prius miles
- But ((3,354lb+200lb)/(3042+200))^4 ~= 1.444 so the LEAF should be paying more.

Right now it seems sillly given the higher price means more sales tax (e.g. state minimum 6.5% Sales Tax on just $7,500 yields $487.50). I know it'll shut up all the whingeing Subaru owners, but it could easily wait.

What's really silly, though, is not charging PHEVs. Why not simply base it on range*efficiency for all plug-ins?

 

But, Californians voted FOR that tax. While they also said "They did not want to know if thier food was GMO. As was previously said the Govt does not spend the taxes for the purpose it was created for. With all the gasoline taxes collected we should have the best roads in the world. Even tho it's only $100, the citizens of Washington State should protest as the law seems absurd and not rewarding to EV Buyers. It serves no real purpose.

 

Please don't give the legislators any more ideas.

 

Often the most equitable tax is not the best tax. If you don't force people to buy gps to monitor their driving, you can take less money from the individuals and have the same net revenue. That is unless the goal is to create the government workers to check and audit the miles, and give money to your hand picked gps company.

An oil tax is actually the most effective tax. It both gives a signal to decrease oil use and is easy to collect. Next is a flat per gallon gasoline tax. These things may not be as fair as the taxpayer in the less efficient vehicles will be charged more. But it will cause the least damage to the tax base as a whole. We expect much much less than 5% plug-ins in the next 5 years, and the costs of a "fair" program to tax them will likely cost the non-ev drivers more money if implemented through a big brother gps system. Now tracking everyone will create more government jobs, but I would rather have my state use the money for schools and roads than more beurocrats. See no fear mongering needed, just common sense.

Now some part of road and police are paid for by registration fees. Many states do have manditory inspections. There is nothing wrong with collecting some more of this money in fees instead of taxes, and these could be based uppon weight and/or miles at inspection. Since miles may be out of state miles, this isn't necessarily fair, but it is effienient and does not require people to buy extra equipment for the government to track them.

W.Va seems to have the biggest one per plug-in of $7500. Ca also has mandates that hide a little of the tax burden. I would not say people are being paid to drive these things, but they are being subsidized, which makes it all the more strange for some states to want an extra tax to take away from the federal subsidy.

 

Sorry but a well-designed system – one built in Silicon Valley, not in Sacramento, and with good money – should not need a big government overhead. You need some software engineers and a couple of managers. Everything else must be automated, and enforcement should happen through existing channels, such as DMV/CHP. But I'm not really "tied" to this idea. All I'm saying is that we can't just assume that EVs get a free ride because we still need to fund construction and maintenance of roads and one of the primary sources of funding for this is the gasoline tax. Do note that we had the federal government running out of money a year or two ago because cars were getting too efficient and revenues were not keeping up with demand.

 

No surprise that EVs are charged $100 / yr. EVs don't contribute to the gasoline taxes, so the local, state, and Feds will make it up elsewhere, hence the yearly $100 tax or fee.

You use the road, you pay taxes, if not at the pump, then each year EV owners pay $100.

Sounds fair to me. If EV owners thought they would excape fees, well "revenue enhancements" via the gov'ts take care of that.

DBCassidy

 

Correctly stated, could not have said it better myself....

 

For the life of me I just can't see living in California these days. The government taxes people
and business to near death.

I have heard that a lot of California businesses are leaving the state and heading for tax and business
friendly states like Nevada, and Texas. Can't blame them......

 

Spoken like a true Union hack. I'll be honest I save for my retirement since I first started working. Read all the investment books. Have close friends who are financial planners. Managed good decent returns. Took some risks in my life. I'm a millionaire. My home will be free and clear before i retire. I'll be the first to say I cannot retire at 55 wih a 80% of highest year income guaranteed for life and a Cadillac medical plan paid by taxpayers like my friend a retired school teacher. Oh he is complaining because our firefighter friend get 100% pay.

 

I thought about it. I live in a bubble. Great house near the beach near perfect weather. If it were not for my children and wife I would have moved a long time ago. My grandfather was Born in Italy and I can get a Italian passport and move back to Europe and live in any eu country France, etc. thinking about it but they have problems also.

 

Both say we hardly he near the cash and house near the beach you have. It's all relative.

 

AFAIK legislation comes out of Sacremento, often with lots of push by Orange County, and it rarely asks silicon valley the right thing to do. I lived in Palo Alto and am familiar with how things are done in the state,

As I said a flat per barrel oil tax is more effective and easier to administer than a gas tax. As we reduce oil use tax rates need to rise, with a little extra taken out. That extra can be used to drop oil taxes when there are price spikes. The oil tax needs to go up as use goes down. That way per capita oil taxes remain around the same amount and enough to pay. Next best is a flat gasoline tax. Both of these can be used by states along with registration fees which can be based on weight (they are in texas) and/or mileage at inspection (can include out of state miles).

THe easiest way for california to pay the registration for BEVs is to cut the credit Having a credit and an extra fee is counter productive.

I do have a problem with pay for the road you use. It does not always encourage the right result. In austin they built the bypass as a toll road instead of a free road. The legislature did this because they did not want to raise gas taxes, which are among the lowest in the nation. The result is that the trucks continue to use I35, instead of using the new road which would reduce congestion and accidents. That is one reason roads are a public good that can't afford to be "fair". Fairness really means rich people are able to pay to avoid traffic, while those with less money must sit in it.

 

Just check tax levels in Europe, especially if you earn an above average income. Then factor in the sales taxes which run around 20% and then the cost of petrol/diesel.

Some Countries are more open minded than others, but traditionally, Southern European Countries tax the richer more.

 

Wow, I said I'd stay out of the politics, and you drop right down to the level of personal attacks on your first reply? Real classy.
I love talk of businesses supposedly leaving California. Hmm, not seeing it. Actually, more like the opposite. California also has some of the lowest property taxes in the nation thanks to a fine little proposition that was passed decades ago, a proposition that's coming to bite us in the nice person.
But I'm not really sure how California came into a discussion about EV taxes in another state (Oregon?).