backtop


Print 115 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Apr 27 at 6:26 PM


Nissan Leaf
Washington is looking to recoup lost revenue from EV drivers

Owners of electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf (100-mile driving range) and the Tesla Roadster (211-mile driving range) have the advantage of traveling on America's roads without having to spend a penny on gasoline. And even though the Chevrolet Volt uses a gasoline engine when its battery pack is exhausted, some drivers have managed to average 1,000 miles between gas stops.

The State of Washington, however, isn't too keen on EV drivers skirting the state's gas tax, which helps to maintain the roads that EV drivers travel on every day. According to the Associated Press, Washington has a $5 billion dollar deficit, and hitting the pockets of EV owners is just one way to help close the gap. 

Washington's gas excise tax is one of the highest in the nation at 49.4 cents per gallon [PDF] -- 31 cents of the total is from the state, while the federal tax is 18.4 cents. Assuming that the average driver travels about 12,000 miles per year, a Nissan Leaf driver (EPA rated 99 mpg) would only be skipping out on $38 of the state's portion of gasoline excise tax. For a Chevrolet Volt driver (EPA rated 93 mpg on battery power), the tax revenue lost by the state would amount to $40.

Washington's proposed EV fee, however, would amount to $100 per year.

"Electric vehicles put just as much wear and tear on our roads as gas vehicles,” explained the bill's sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen. "This simply ensures that they contribute their fair share to the upkeep of our roads." 

"So the question is how do you account for those trends and begin to capture revenue that reflects the actual usage of the road?" said Republican state senator Dan Swecker. "Our state doesn't change very fast. But we thought the $100 fee was a place to start, so let's start there." 

Not surprisingly, EV owners aren't exactly thrilled with this proposed legislation. "The Legislature saw electric vehicles are coming and thought, why not just put a fee on them," quipped Dean West, a Nissan Leaf driver.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Remember...
By zozzlhandler on 4/25/2011 6:47:06 PM , Rating: 5
No good deed goes unpunished.




RE: Remember...
By Sahrin on 4/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Remember...
By SunAngel on 4/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Remember...
By nolisi on 4/25/2011 7:17:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
we both drive the same miles to work, yet because your mpg is lower than mine you buy more gasoline than me. is that fair that you pay more gasoline tax than me and we drive the same mileage?


Depends.

Cars that eat up more fuel to drive a mile are typically heavier vehicles, which applies increased wear and tear to the road. Same with people who speed, etc. So on that basis it is quite fair that people who use more gas pay more to maintain the roads. Now if you purchased a vehicle which gets worse mileage than an equivalent vehicle, either you purchased wrong, or you need to maintain your vehicle.

Either way you are still responsible for your choices. The only ones who get out of it are the EV owners. I own a hybrid and would take an EV if it were practical, but considering the state of Washington doesn't have an income tax, I would not be opposed to this fee even in the event I purchased an electric vehicle.


RE: Remember...
By nolisi on 4/25/2011 7:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would not be opposed to this fee even in the event I purchased an electric vehicle.


There is an exception to this- if the fee was so exorbitant that I ended up not saving money by going electric- then I would have a problem. In that case, I would stick with a gas vehicle.


RE: Remember...
By quiksilvr on 4/26/2011 9:05:54 AM , Rating: 4
It's all just a scam. I mean, how many EV vehicles can you possibly have in the state of Washington? Even at a million, they would get $100 million a year which wouldn't even dent the $5 billion deficit.

This is clearly oil lobbyists influence trying to get the people to turn away from EVs.


RE: Remember...
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 11:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
Well if EVs are the money savers they are touted to be, then $100 isn't bad if you are going to save much more than that per year.


RE: Remember...
By Solandri on 4/26/2011 12:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
Alternately, if the state wants an extra $100/yr from EV owners, it would be a lot easier to just reduce the subsidies they are giving to EV buyers by $500-$1000.


RE: Remember...
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 1:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. If my tax money is going towards paying for someone to purchase and EV, then why shouldn't they be helping me pay for road taxes? As it is without any type of fee outside fuel taxes to pay for roads, those of us who don't purchase EVs are not only donating tax money to the purchase of those vehicles but also footing the bill for the road repairs that those cars will drive on.


RE: Remember...
By quiksilvr on 4/27/2011 11:33:50 AM , Rating: 1
That isn't the point. It's subconsious psychological bullshit that will deter the consumers. People look at that tax and think: "If they are going to tax me $100 a year for using this car, what's next? Electricity tax? Battery insurance requirements? I'd rather just get a gas car."


RE: Remember...
By SunAngel on 4/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Remember...
By themelon on 4/25/2011 11:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Weight sometimes makes a difference. Like anything there are far more factors than just weight.

I get 17.5-19 MPG driving around town in my 2004 GMC 2500HD 6.6l turbo diesel pickup that weighs 7000lbs with nothing else in it. I get about 12 MPG pulling a 12000lb 5th wheel on the highway.

I get 15-16 MPG doing about the same type of driving in my 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4l gas with a weight of 3200lbs.

For me I use ~10% less fuel to move more than double the weight and ~35% more fuel to move 6x the weight. Weight will make a much more pronounced difference in MPG in city driving with a vehicle that is underpowered. So when looked at per pound of mass I am far more efficient in the heaver vehicle. Even with just myself in the truck it is about a wash for fuel costs.

Of course I could throw in the curve ball of a 2007 BMW F800S motorcycle that I have never seen less that 56MPG in it. It has far better gas mileage than any other bike I have had. My previous one was a 2003 Suzuki SV650s with 150cc's less displacement with low 40's.

To be fair I add in the comparison of my uncle's 2003 Chevy that is the same as my GMC, ext cab, short bed, 4wd except he has the 8.1l gas. He gets 9mpg no matter how he drives.


RE: Remember...
By slyck on 4/26/2011 1:25:23 AM , Rating: 5
Weight is THE big difference. It's the large trucks that do by far the most damage to the road.


RE: Remember...
By BZDTemp on 4/26/2011 3:33:57 AM , Rating: 4
Spot on.

The rule of thumb is road wear rises with axle weight by the POWER OF FOUR!

Rather than putting a tax on EV's they should reform the system and tax based on vehicle weight. This would also encourage the use of smaller vehicles regardless of the propulsion technology.


RE: Remember...
By mcnabney on 4/26/2011 9:31:39 AM , Rating: 2
You are both quite correct.

An SUV does far more than double the wear/tear to roads than an econobox that get twice the mileage. However, taxing gasoline has the benefit of having the vehicle operator pay the excise tax where they use it. It also allows different states to set different rates. By moving this tax away from the pump it will find itself in the weird tax issues that impact where people live, shop and work in border cities.

I don't know if it still exists, but there was once a gas-guzzler tax on the sale of new cars. It was a significant amount, a couple thousand dollars or more, on the larger SUVs and sports-cars.


RE: Remember...
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 2:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well I don't now about the SUV doing far more damage because looking up vehicle weights the Chevy Tahoe is listed at about 4500 pounds, Ford F150 at about 4600 pounds and yet the Nissan Leaf weighs about 3400 pounds and the Nissan Altima weighs about 3300 pounds.

The F150 only weighs 30% more than the Altima, yet most F150s will have tires that are wider than those of the Altima which will offset the wear and tear on the highway due to weight difference. If you look at the tires on the Leaf that are even more narrow that stock tires on an Altima the wear and tear difference between the Leaf and F150 would be even less. Put a set of extra wide mudders on the F150 and you may even bring it down below the wear and tear inflicted on the highways by the Leaf.

Too truly make the road taxes equal among drivers based on the wear and tear they do to the roads would be far too complicated to figure out on an individual basis, because you would also need to figure in driving habits like do they accelerate and decelerate quickly or slowly, do they ease into a curve of throw their vehicle hard into a curve, how fast do they make turns at intersections, ect. All of that effects the wear and tear on highways.

I am used to driving on gravel roads so I actually do take off and stop rather slowly even when on pavement, so my F150 would probably do less damage to the highway than the kids driving the tricked out economy cars that jackrabbit at every stop light.

Also you need to remember that it isn't only the excise tax on gasoline that pays for roads, but on tires also. Large tractor trailer tires have a huge tax on them just for this purpose so they probably do pay more than most cars do for highway maintenance.


RE: Remember...
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 2:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and for the heavier tractor trailers I forgot this tax also.

Federal highway use tax

This tax applies to highway motor vehicles having taxable gross weights of 55,000 pounds or more, including trucks, truck tractors and buses. Generally, vans, pickup trucks, panel trucks and the like are not subject to this tax. The tax does not apply to vehicles that are used for 5,000 miles or less (7,500 miles or less for agricultural vehicles) on public highways during a tax period. Tax for these vehicles is termed "suspended". The mileage use limit applies to the total mileage a vehicle is used during a tax period, regardless of the number of owners. The normal tax period runs from July 1 to June 30.


RE: Remember...
By DarthKaos on 4/26/2011 9:49:03 AM , Rating: 1
That is a good idea. If all vehicles had RFID chips built into them maybe near the gas cap, all pumps could automatically be told what kind of car you have and then place the appropriate type of tax on the gas you are getting. Of course there are security issues but that could be overcome with the proper integration of the VIN number of the car and the RFID.


RE: Remember...
By NaughtyGeek on 4/26/2011 11:23:48 AM , Rating: 2
Why on earth would you want to risk the privacy invasion that rfid invites when you could simply install scales at the pump to accomplish the same thing?


RE: Remember...
By Solandri on 4/26/2011 12:12:23 PM , Rating: 4
Too much trouble for too little return. Nearly all the damage to our roads and highways comes from semi-trailer trucks. Just ignore cars and tax diesel a lot higher.

If we'd had a more sensible road tax proportional to damage inflicted from the beginning, most of our long-haul rail-based transportation infrastructure might have still been intact. Basically, the trucking industry has been subsidized by fuel taxes on passenger cars for decades, which has killed off our rail system.


RE: Remember...
By augiem on 4/26/2011 12:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
Say hello to higher prices at retail! The shippers will pass the taxes on as will retailers.


RE: Remember...
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 10:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The shippers will pass the taxes on as will retailers.

From that viewpoint one could argue that there's no such thing as a corporate tax, but competition also factors into price. Perhaps overall this would promote physically closer partnerships?


RE: Remember...
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 1:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Umm, why at the pump? Better to just tax them when you renew the plates and add in recording the mileage each time to know the tax amount.


RE: Remember...
By Spuke on 4/26/2011 12:46:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The rule of thumb is road wear rises with axle weight by the POWER OF FOUR!


quote:
Rather than putting a tax on EV's they should reform the system and tax based on vehicle weight.
Axle weight, not vehicle weight has been shown to increase road wear by the power of four. Since we're on this subject, small tires have been shown to increase wear due to smaller contact patches which focuses more weight in a smaller area than larger tires.


RE: Remember...
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 1:51:08 PM , Rating: 3
Also you need to remember that the EVs are heavier than their gas powered counterparts of the same size, so EVs would be taxed at higher rates under this taxing scheme which to cover road wear they should be. So you would have to tax by the mile driven and weight, not gallons of fuel used.


RE: Remember...
By Spuke on 4/26/2011 3:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you would have to tax by the mile driven and weight, not gallons of fuel used.
I can dig this. I would substitute axle weight with vehicle weight.


RE: Remember...
By nafhan on 4/26/2011 9:38:44 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, distance driven plays a pretty big part, too...
A big truck that gets driven to the dump twice a month isn't going to put much wear on the roads (and yes, this happens).

That's the good thing about a gas tax, it essentially takes weight and distance driven into account. If we continue to shift away from gas powered vehicles, they are going to need to find a way to pay for road maintenance. A flat $100 tax on EV owners, probably isn't it, though.


RE: Remember...
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 10:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they are going to need to find a way to pay for road maintenance.

An annual inspection and the car's ECU of the miles driven should provide enough info.

10,000 miles divided by 25 MPG gives us about 400 gallons of gas used. Would the gas tax on 400 gallons be higher than $100? Most likely much more.


RE: Remember...
By themelon on 4/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Remember...
By WxDude10 on 4/26/2011 9:50:59 AM , Rating: 2
I would agree with you that a consumption tax based on the number of miles driven in conjunction with the removal of the gas tax would be fair.

I COMPLETELY disagree with adding a GPS/transponder to the cars to collect that information. I know that ALL cars, and I would think that all states (but I could be wrong) already have all the necessary pieces in place to collect this information. They are called Odometers and Yearly Inspections. The mileage on the car is recorded off of the odometer each year and you receive a bill based on the miles driven. No need for new mandated equipment to be added to a vehicle.

GPS/transponders are just another means to allow your movements to be tracked. If they need the mileage, it is already there in the odometer. If they need the GPS for it, then there is something else going on.


RE: Remember...
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 2:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure about the others but Kentucky hasn't had yearly vehicle inspections since the late 70s or early 80s.


RE: Remember...
By Denigrate on 4/26/2011 10:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
Normal everyday vehicles don't damage the road in a meaningful way. It's the Tractor Trailer truckers hauling heavy loads that do the real damage to the roads.


RE: Remember...
By FITCamaro on 4/25/2011 8:14:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
when you watching OTA tv your stealing from the cable and telephone company. why? your getting the same programming free when cable and teleco customer have to pay for it.


100% untrue.

Advertising pays for the shows on broadcast television. Not subscription fees from cable and satellite service. In reality, those who pay for cable are paying twice, not those who don't stealing it. Once when they pay the fee the station charges the cable or satellite company to carry the station. And again when they watch the commercials.

If you're going to use analogies, at least be somewhat accurate.


RE: Remember...
By SunAngel on 4/25/2011 9:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
lol. you caught me. i thought about that just after i posted. i was hoping no one would have noticed. i forgot about advertising since i don't buy all the junk that is advertised on a tv screen. hum, maybe i'm getting a free ride.


RE: Remember...
By kaoken on 4/25/2011 10:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry you are. It's subliminal.


RE: Remember...
By The Raven on 4/25/2011 10:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you don't pay attention to all the associated commercials you are stealing lol

And DVR users are the EV drivers of television ;-P


RE: Remember...
By Targon on 4/26/2011 7:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
The purpose of advertising isn't just to SELL something, but is to get the company name and/or products into the minds of the viewer. The logic is that even if YOU do not directly purchase due to the advertisement itself, your awareness of said product will go up, and you may recommend the product to others depending on what it is. Corporate sponsorship of sports stadiums/arenas follows this, where the idea is to get more public awareness of your brand/company name, just to make other advertisements more effective.

Buy one get one free...if you have heard of the product before, this sort of sale MIGHT appeal to you a bit more. Look at some of the more catchy advertisements with a song playing on them....you will pay more attention, and after watching several times, you will remember what company/product is being sold. Apple uses this VERY well when it comes to its products, and even if you hate Apple products, you will know about the product.

Commercials also work better on those with a more....limited intelligence, and this is why companies are so willing to pay millions of dollars on advertisements when there are a large number of people watching...if even one percent of the viewers buy the product advertised, that is a LOT of money.


RE: Remember...
By The Raven on 4/26/2011 11:23:35 AM , Rating: 2
Few things you need to run a search on bro:
1) lol
2) ;-P
3) DVR

;-P


RE: Remember...
By callmeroy on 4/26/2011 11:05:51 AM , Rating: 2
I avoid a lot of commercials since I DVR the few network shows I watch (Chicago Code, Blue Bloods, etc.) and I always skip the commercials but they do get me on sports (sports is boring to watch if it isn't live after all totally sucks out the "excitement" factor of how the game will end up).

I used to think it would be cool if a cable provider ever came up with a commercial free service for network shows...so all the primetime sit coms or police dramas I'd watch with zero commercials just the full episode with no interruptions until its over.

If you're thinking "yeah but what do they do with all that left over time in each time slot"....well I don't know to be honest, that would be for them to figure out how to make it work....:)

I wouldn't pay a lot for that service -- Comcast rapes me monthly as it is...but maybe an extra $5/mo I'd tolerate.


RE: Remember...
By Sahrin on 4/25/2011 11:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
really.

Yes.
quote:
you actually believe that.

Belief doesn't enter into it.
quote:
when you watching OTA tv your stealing from the cable and telephone company. why? your getting the same programming free when cable and teleco customer have to pay for it.

This example is idiotic. OTA TV is paid for by advertising dollars.
quote:
you never paid your fair share because no ones mpg is the same. we both drive the same miles to work, yet because your mpg is lower than mine you buy more gasoline than me. is that fair that you pay more gasoline tax than me and we drive the same mileage? i don't think there is anything illegal about going green.

You're confused. The intention of the tax is to pay for road maintenance, not to tax gasoline. By not paying as much as someone else (or in the case of EV's, at all) you are escaping paying the tax through a loophole. It's not illegal, but you'll notice that I never said it was. I said it was dodgy, and it is.


RE: Remember...
By Targon on 4/26/2011 7:16:43 AM , Rating: 2
Don't they already tax electric usage though? The money may come from a different place, but it still ends up in the greedy hands of stupid politicians who can't figure out how to read their mail without some aide to help them.


RE: Remember...
By chick0n on 4/25/2011 11:38:53 PM , Rating: 1
You walk on the road right? should they charge you tax too?

oh wait, you said you paid your taxes already, so did I. guess what, sooner or later they will find some way to tax you for walking. Lets see what you gonna say by then, moron.


RE: Remember...
By SeeManRun on 4/26/2011 12:03:43 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with this is you don't need to talk on paved sidewalks.. You could walk on dirt paths just the same. Freeways really have to be paved to allow for the high speed that cars travel, so they require much higher maintenance paths. Walking can't be taxed in the same way, though, your property taxes pay for the sidewalks and roads in a city. The state taxes gasoline and uses it to pay for the highways that don't fall under city jurisdiction.


RE: Remember...
By hughlle on 4/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Remember...
By YashBudini on 4/26/2011 10:26:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Since when is 'tax dodging' a good deed?

Around the time it became common to buy stuff on the Internet, even when it wasn't cheaper, just to dodge the sales tax. Along the same time it also became socially acceptable to steal intellectual property.

I'm surprised the "good deed" comment was rated up, given the number of people who disagree with EVs here.


RE: Remember...
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 1:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Brandon,

What do I have to do to get a DT logon for the horse I rode in on? I shouldn't be singled out like this.

You may want to explain to your limited vision downraters that 1% of the US population is in jail. The rest are not living a "happily thereafter" fairy tale ending. IE grow up already.


RE: Remember...
By coolkev99 on 4/27/2011 9:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
"<<The intention of the gas tax is for users of roads to pay for the roads. >>"

Come now, lets be honest. Almost everyone who is pro (insert random tax here) will always bring up one of these things as an excuse.

1) Roads
2) Bridges
3) Education (ie, "our children")

How many more billions do we need for roads bridges and schools?!?


RE: Remember...
By dxf2891 on 4/27/2011 9:37:54 AM , Rating: 2
Those fees are supposed to come from licenses and registration fees. There was also supposed to be a tax levied on insurance without rate increases. However, due to the lobbying power of the insurance companies, that will never happen.


RE: Remember...
By callmeroy on 4/26/2011 11:11:14 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

While I understand the part of no one every really wants to pay more money for something, I think its also a bit ridiculous for folks to freak out over $100 a year as well. Its $100 (that's $8.33 a month) for crying out loud.

If 8.33 a month breaks you...you have a LOT more to be upset about.

Also, its only right that everyone who drives on the roads should have to contribute to the tax dollars to maintain the roads.

But -- I like the idea I read on here before this post...the tax money should be based more on vehicle weight than anything else that would be more fair...of course that doesn't calculate how much you are DRIVING on the roads which I think is the thought behind the gas tax -- obviously if you are sucking your tank dry frequently you are doing a lot of driving.


This makes perfect sense
By hyvonen on 4/25/2011 7:03:52 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see a problem with this. EV drivers use the roads, but don't pay for them through gasoline taxes like others.

$100 at 50 cents per gallon equals 200 gallons per year... if you get 12,000 miles with 200 gallons, you're looking at 60mpg.

One could argue that EV drivers might be driving less in the first place for whatever reason, but overall I think taxing them the same as other cars driving 12,000 miles/year at 60mpg is pretty fair.

BTW, it's completely silly to use the EPA EV "mileage" numbers here as any measure of 'lost' tax revenue.. it has nothing to do with the strain these cars put on the roads.




RE: This makes perfect sense
By Kosh401 on 4/25/2011 7:16:40 PM , Rating: 1
This makes no sense at all... ?

Brandon did the basic math in the article; EV owners are only "dodging" around $40 in taxes, yet the proposed amount is $100. That's actually punishing the average (12,000mi) driver by making them pay MORE than the average non-EV driver O_o

The other poster's comments about how everyone's MPG is vastly different anyway is also a very good point; a guy who drives his 22mpg car 30 miles to work is technically paying more in taxes to maintain the roads than someone driving a 32mpg car the same exact 30 miles to work... the wear and tear on the road is the exact same in both cases , so maybe we should throw in some extra taxes on those damned 30mpg+ vehicles while we're at it since it's not fair to those driving less efficient vehicles?


RE: This makes perfect sense
By nolisi on 4/25/2011 7:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the wear and tear on the road is the exact same in both cases


No it isn't. The distance might be the same, but a heavier and/or faster travelling vehicle does put more wear and tear on the roads than a lighter vehicle. It's basic physics. Just because the wear and tear isn't immediately perceptible doesn't mean it's not there.


RE: This makes perfect sense
By Kosh401 on 4/25/2011 7:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
heh I was actually going to mention that but got caught up in the moment when I was deciding to bold that line:) sure there is a weight difference between trucks and cars or whatever, but the point remains the same - there are cars within the same weight class that get very different mpg's.


RE: This makes perfect sense
By nolisi on 4/25/2011 7:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there are cars within the same weight class that get very different mpg's.


True- but if one is concerned with saving money on gas, why would one buy a less efficient vehicle in the same weight class?

If you get more performance, that's one thing, but then that's a trade off you make, and the majority of the price you pay goes to the gas companies, not the government.


RE: This makes perfect sense
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 2:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
True- but if one is concerned with saving money on gas, why would one buy a less efficient vehicle in the same weight class?


Maybe not all people are looking so much at saving money on gas but saving money at the initial purchase. Not everyone purchases an new vehicle, most probably purchase a used vehicle to save money but it is not as fuel efficient. Therefore simply saying heavier cars use more fuel is not always correct.


RE: This makes perfect sense
By jhb116 on 4/25/2011 9:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
First off - just because a system isn't perfect doesn't mean it isn't fair. Also remember that the gas tax was set up many many moons ago when mileage was a half decent representation of vehicle size/wear and tear on the road system. They could just add this onto income tax - certainly is "not fair" to those that utilize public transportation or bikes/feet to get around.

Secondly - this was bound to happen sooner or later. The gas tax is the really reason that we are still on fossil fuels. Finding another source for revenue to replace the gas tax will be difficult across the country. Of course this point might become moot because there are proposals for turning our transportation system into a fee based system.....


RE: This makes perfect sense
By ClownPuncher on 4/26/2011 11:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
WA does not have income tax.


RE: This makes perfect sense
By FishTankX on 4/25/2011 11:20:09 PM , Rating: 1
Indeed, it makes little sense. A camaro can't weigh much more than a prius, but in reality it pays about double tax. While one could rationalize this as a sort of sin tax on low fuel economy vehicles, it's still not 'fair' in the grand scheme of things.

What I think should be done with electric vehicles, is instead of a yearly tax, when it goes in for safety inspection or whatever, pay a tax on the value of the odometer. This would be more 'fair' in all honesty.


RE: This makes perfect sense
By Pryde on 4/26/2011 3:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I think should be done with electric vehicles, is instead of a yearly tax, when it goes in for safety inspection or whatever, pay a tax on the value of the odometer. This would be more 'fair' in all honesty.


This is exactly how it is done in New Zealand ( and probly other places ) for all diesel vehicles ( but not petrol ). There are different rates depending on axles/weight and they must be pre purchased.

This should not be a fuel tax it should be a ROAD TAX . If they want to make a tax for lower MPG vehicles they should make a LOW MPG TAX. Hiding a tax within tax is a good sign of a corrupt government.


RE: This makes perfect sense
By Farfignewton on 4/26/2011 6:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A camaro can't weigh much more than a prius, but in reality it pays about double tax


Well, an SS weighs around 800 lbs more. But while a prius saves money on gas and gas tax, I can drive around with another adult and two legless children who will not hide their faces when they exit the car. ;)


RE: This makes perfect sense
By Pneumothorax on 4/25/2011 7:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize the state would only collect $0.31/gallon on a regular gas car, not $0.50? So based on your 60mpg calculation $100 would assume the EV driver goes almost 20K per year. I'm a pro-enthusiast, pro-middle eastern oil going into my V8 guy so I don't particularly like EV's, but the $100 is a major ripoff.


RE: This makes perfect sense
By yomamafor1 on 4/25/2011 9:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually not really. Assuming 12,000 miles annually, and the fact that their average mpg would be around 30 if not for the plug in feature, they'll be paying at least $124 in fuel tax per year. Of course, $24 is not a huge saving, but it is definitely not a "rip off".


RE: This makes perfect sense
By rudy on 4/26/2011 11:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
What is stupid is that people are calling it a fee or surcharge why didnt they do what other states do. MI has a registration you need to pay of a car it is more for bigger vehicles and more for older vehicles many times. They should have just rolled it into higher registration fees and no one would have blinked.


Rediculous!
By krazyderek on 4/25/2011 7:23:54 PM , Rating: 5
I don't smoke, but maybe i should pay a non-smoking fee too cause the government is losing out on the tax i would pay there too.

A flat rate fee being introduced at $100 per year sounds cheap, but i could easily see it getting jacked up the more people drive EV's. Plus it does nothing for balancing the scales, one person could drive 50,000 a year (with lots of charging), and grandma down the road could drive 2,500 a year, shouldn't the person driving more pay more? Where the hell did $100 come from?

A MUCH better idea would be for gorvernments to EMBRACE EV's and setup carging stations that charge road tax on top of the electrical rate + charging station rate.
Build good "fast charge" stations at regular intervals around, with some solar panels and small wind turbine's on the roof so they do the whole green thing.
Provide incentives for parking garages to install them and join the program, make it park of the building code and property tax for new commercial buildings.




RE: Rediculous!
By icrf on 4/25/11, Rating: 0
RE: Rediculous!
By DigitalFreak on 4/25/2011 8:25:11 PM , Rating: 3
Wrong. Farmers buy dyed diesel, which isn't taxed. It's illegal to use it in vehicles that travel public roads.


RE: Rediculous!
By krazyderek on 4/26/2011 7:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
I realize that we're talking about Washington, but in Canada, with public health care funded by the government the taxes that people pay on their cigarettes eventually ends up paying for their hospital bed they die on from lung cancer. Many other countries have public health care, it's baffling that the US still doesn't. (yet another human right with held due to profit motives)

I'm not really sure what privacy information would be compromised if you paid "road tax" based on your actual vehicle mileage. My Toyota dealer checks my mileage every time i take'r in for an oil change, it would be perfectly logical to provide mileage information when i renew my car's registration, granted there'd be a lag in collecting the taxes but it's the same way with income tax's.


RE: Rediculous!
By Spuke on 4/26/2011 12:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
yet another human right with held due to profit motives
It's not a right in the US to have public healthcare. Actually, I'm not totally against it and most Americans aren't either. What we have a problem with is handing it over to our government when they have CLEARLY demonstrated that they cannot run it efficiently nor effectively (Medicare/Medicaid, social security, welfare, etc.). There are millions of Americans with good healthcare now. We don't want that f#$ked up with a government run system just so we can SAY we have public healthcare!!!! Something like that MUST be run right!! Misery does NOT love company in this case.


RE: Rediculous!
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 4:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many other countries have public health care, it's baffling that the US still doesn't. (yet another human right with held due to profit motives)


My question is since when is something that you get by another person working a "human right"?

Free Speech is a human right, it does not require anyone else to do work for you to have it.

Freedom of Religion is a human right, it does not require anyone else to do work for you to have it.

Privacy is a human right and it also does not require anyone else to work to provide it for you.

Though someone may have to enforce laws to punish those who would try to take away a person's human rights, nobody but yourself should ever have to work to provide you with human rights.

Therefore free health care is not a "human right" because it requires others to work to provide it for you. You do have a right to access health care if you are willing to pay for it, just as you have the right to have electricity if you pay for it, running water if you pay for it, internet and telephone and television if you pay for it, clothing and food if you pay for it. You have the right to work to earn these things but why do people think they have the right to be given such things at the expense of others? Honestly if you think any service you receive is "free" then you are sadly mistaken, because somewhere along the line someone has to pay for it.

Do you expect doctors to work as slaves to provide free health care? Or the people who work in the companies making the medical supplies to work for free so that you can have free health care? The only way it can be free is if nobody along the way charges anything for their contribution to your healthcare. Are you willing to work for free in your job that others may have the fruits of your work for free? How do you feel about people who would take what you provide for free, and yet never work to provide anything for anyone else?

I don't think health care should be free, but I do believe there are many things that should be done to make health care affordable for everyone. Get rid of the duplicate, triplicate, and quadruplicate forms that must be filled out and filed just for someone to get an aspirin while in the hospital. Allow doctors to make the decisions on how to treat patients instead of paying committees who never see the patient to do it. Outlaw malpractice law suits, make it criminal instead of civil. If a doctor works with negligence and injures a patient then charge them with criminal penalties, not civil suits for money. This alone would probably cut 30% off the cost of health care by eliminating the need for malpractice insurance. Make all hospitals non profit organizations run by the physicians and staff, that would vastly reduce the overhead cost of needing to produce dividends for stock holders and high salaries for board members. It can be figured out how much to charge to cover the expense of staff and supplies and any left over at the end of the year goes towards upgrading the equipment or expanding the facility. Healthcare used to be affordable before the government stepped in back in the 60s with medicare and medicade, it can be again.


RE: Rediculous!
By Spuke on 4/26/2011 6:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
Great post and great ideas at the end there too!!!!


Road tax
By cigar3tte on 4/25/2011 6:56:20 PM , Rating: 5
Then come up with a road tax. Charging gas tax for people who don't use gas, how idiotic is that?




RE: Road tax
By hyvonen on 4/25/2011 7:07:14 PM , Rating: 3
It doesn't matter what it's called - what matters is what it's for.

Previously collecting this tax through gasoline sales was convenient, but with EVs getting popular it doesn't work that well anymore.


RE: Road tax
By Noya on 4/25/2011 9:18:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but with EVs getting popular it doesn't work that well anymore.


Getting popular? They're a drop in the bucked of the cars on the road. This is just our corrupt government screwing people again. If they can't tax it, it won't be legal (online gambling, marijuana, etc).


RE: Road tax
By Targon on 4/26/2011 7:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
Corrupt? I'd call these people stupid, not JUST corrupt.


RE: Road tax
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 4:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not popular now, but better to decide how to cover the road usage taxes now than later when you have a large group of EV owners who can lobby against it.


RE: Road tax
By bodar on 4/25/2011 7:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
CMIIW, but that's what this is: a way for the state to collect taxes for vehicles that don't use gas. Obviously, they used gas as a metric because, at the time, everyone used it. Heavy vehicles & people who drive a lot typically use more gas than others. It's not perfect, but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of "fair".

Can you think of a better system, one that doesn't overtax people who barely drive their vehicle (flat road tax) and doesn't involve GPS tracking to measure how much people are using the state's roads? Hawaii charges a pretty large vehicle registration fee which scales with vehicle weight to cover road repairs, but that really only works because it's kinda hard to drive here from out of state. ;)


Ridiculous.
By jensend on 4/25/2011 8:40:32 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, it's true that if EVs become a significant enough part of the whole traffic equation then states will need to find other ways to raise revenue for transportation infrastructure. But we shouldn't forget that a large part of the reason for the gas tax is as a way to discourage excessive fuel usage. In econ terms, the gas tax is to a large extent Pigouvian- it's there to try to correct for an externality (pollution).

We can complain about the MPG of automakers' fleets all we want, and we can keep throwing extra regulations at them, but trying to force them one direction while the market demand pulls them another direction doesn't make sense; we have to change peoples' preferences. Indeed, if auto manufacturers were to magically double their fleets' MPG, people would drive enough additional miles that the environmental benefit would likely be small and the main effect would be that the roads would be more clogged and require more maintenance.

The only thing that will actually bring people to make environmentally wise decisions about purchasing and using cars is giving them incentives to do so. The gas tax is a good way to do that- famous conservative economist N. Gregory Mankiw estimates that the gas taxes nationwide are about $1/gallon lower than the social optimum. Throwing extra fees at EV owners defeats this purpose of a gas tax and will make it so fewer people go electric than would be best for society.




RE: Ridiculous.
By krazyderek on 4/26/2011 7:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed!


RE: Ridiculous.
By Spuke on 4/26/2011 1:01:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Throwing extra fees at EV owners defeats this purpose of a gas tax and will make it so fewer people go electric than would be best for society.
I guess you didn't read anything in this thread. Gas taxes are for road maintenance not for getting people to use fuel efficient cars. A separate tax should be enacted for that purpose.


RE: Ridiculous.
By jensend on 4/26/2011 11:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hah. As though reading what the best and brightest minds in economics have to say about the subject leaves me uninformed but if I read the scribblings of random internet fora dwellers I would be enlightened.

It's true that the gas tax is normally earmarked for transportation, but unless the earmark is causing more spending on transportation than we'd spend if the gas tax money went into the general funds, there's no functional difference- all that matters as far as that goes is that the government takes in $X in total revenue and spends a total of $Y. Since transportation spending is almost always more than the state gets from the gas tax, there would be no change if all the gas tax money went to education and transportation was entirely funded from income taxes etc. So it's pointless to say "Gas taxes are for road maintenance"- rather, all taxes are "for" raising general government revenue.

All taxes also change people's incentives and behavior, and most taxes- the gas tax included- are designed with this in mind. If using gas emitted no pollutants, we wouldn't tax gasoline nearly as much as we do.

An EV tax would only raise a minuscule amount of revenue and it distorts people's incentives in a way that would hurt society. There are better ways to raise revenue.


RE: Ridiculous.
By JediJeb on 4/27/2011 5:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only thing that will actually bring people to make environmentally wise decisions about purchasing and using cars is giving them incentives to do so. The gas tax is a good way to do that- famous conservative economist N. Gregory Mankiw estimates that the gas taxes nationwide are about $1/gallon lower than the social optimum. Throwing extra fees at EV owners defeats this purpose of a gas tax and will make it so fewer people go electric than would be best for society.


An even better incentive to give to people to get them to make environmentally wise purchasing choices is to get the technology for alternatives to the point they are naturally cheaper than the less environmentally harmful choices. Electricity is cheaper than gasoline, but the cars that use electricity are more expensive so people purchase gasoline powered cars. If you make the cars less expensive that run on electricity than the ones that run on gasoline( and not by taxing or subsidizing but by making them less expensive to manufacture) then people will purchase the electric cars instead of gasoline powered ones.


But wait...
By Belard on 4/25/2011 11:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
With EV cars possibly producing less pollution (how much waste is made by the power company to recharge a car? How much $$$ does it cost to recharge your batteries - states gets TAXES from the utility companies - DUH!)

So with wind power and solar power recharging our cars, there should be allowances for making the air cleaner, etc.




RE: But wait...
By Targon on 4/26/2011 7:33:42 AM , Rating: 3
How much pollution is generated in the production of the batteries and other components in an EV? Sure the pollution is generated in China, but it is still being generated, and with far less regulation in China, so it is actually hurting "the planet" far more. China may turn into one big dust bowl due to the pollution if this trend continues...or everyone over there will drop dead at the age of 35 due to the pollution.


RE: But wait...
By ClownPuncher on 4/26/2011 11:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
Cool. We won't have to compete as much.


RE: But wait...
By YashBudini on 4/27/2011 6:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
During the Olympics China shut down soem of their industry to improve air quality.

Nothing like treating foreigners better than your own people. Or was it all about image?


Tax on electricity
By Ushio01 on 4/26/2011 6:00:00 AM , Rating: 2
Do US citizens pay tax on electricity usage? Since if you do EV owners are contributing tax so additional is just a con.




RE: Tax on electricity
By BSMonitor on 4/26/2011 9:36:04 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly right. The power being used to charge the EV is being taxed already in a person's electric bill.

So essentially, the EV drivers are being double taxed for their power.


RE: Tax on electricity
By Spuke on 4/26/2011 1:20:00 PM , Rating: 1
Except gas taxes are for road maintenance not fuel economy. EV owners still use roads so they need to still be taxed on the use of them. Electric use taxes aren't used for road maintenance.


RE: Tax on electricity
By Spuke on 4/26/2011 3:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
Rate me down all you want clowns. Gas taxes ARE used for road maintenance and NOT for encouraging people to drive more fuel efficient cars. THAT is their purpose. I challenge the rate down clowns to refute this fact.


Trucks Do the Damage... not cars
By Simozene on 4/26/2011 9:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
The real damage to roads comes from trucks, not cars. Yet it is mostly car owners that pay for the road maintenance. So no matter how you look at it this is ridiculous.




By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 3:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong, at least partially:

Federal highway use tax

This tax applies to highway motor vehicles having taxable gross weights of 55,000 pounds or more, including trucks, truck tractors and buses. Generally, vans, pickup trucks, panel trucks and the like are not subject to this tax. The tax does not apply to vehicles that are used for 5,000 miles or less (7,500 miles or less for agricultural vehicles) on public highways during a tax period. Tax for these vehicles is termed "suspended". The mileage use limit applies to the total mileage a vehicle is used during a tax period, regardless of the number of owners. The normal tax period runs from July 1 to June 30.

Also Tractor Trailer and other heavy vehicle tires have an extra excise tax on them for road maintenance. Add to that the road taxes on diesel with these trucks getting about 8mpg and they are probably paying as much or more than cars are. Just think, if gasoline and diesel are taxed at the same rate for road taxes and a semi gets 8mpg and a car gets 24mpg then the truck is paying the same tax as 4 cars do. Add to that the fact that many semi trucks travel between 100,000 and 250,000 miles per year and the tax they pay is huge. While a truck may do more damage itself, look at your typical intersection when driving to work and see what the number of cars is versus the number of big trucks. If the truck does 10x damage versus a car then overall they are not doing the most damage unless the ratio of cars to trucks falls below 10:1. If there are 15 cars for every big truck on the road then the cars do the most damage. Of course the 10x damage is just an arbitrary number I used, but you still have to do the figuring on damage multiplier versus truck to car ratio to get the true damage difference no matter what.


By SilverHair on 4/26/2011 3:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
Sure seems to me that roads on interstates close to city's are torn up pretty bad.
I have no data to back this up but....
Around city's would you say there are 10 times + as many cars zooming around compared to truck/trailers? Would you say that is a fair number?

Now, out on the open road where more truck/trailers travel than cars. Or at least equally divided. The open interstate road are generally/mostly in alot better shape than roads close/in the city.

Does weight have an impact? Sure it does, but it is NOT just the trucks tearing up roads.

One more item, without trucks would you have a 1/10th of what you have? Car, groceries, tv, cell phone well you get the picture.

Not to mention the retarded price for diesel fuel.

BTW I'm not a trucker.


By MikieTImT on 4/25/2011 7:16:17 PM , Rating: 3
The tax should be one that corresponds with the usage of the product. We have to give our odometer reading every year in my state for the registration renewal, so just use that mileage along with vehicle curb weight to figure out how much wear the vehicle causes the roads. Commercial vehicles already have to be weighed at weigh stations, so their weights would get updated regularly. It would have the side benefit of encouraging the adoption of lighter and thus more efficient vehicles.




By bodar on 4/25/2011 7:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that it should correspond with usage of the roads, but what if you do a lot of out-of-state driving? Odometer readings will be unfairly padded. And what about out-of-state cars that use the roads? No revenue would be gained from them.

At least with a gas tax, if you buy gas in the state, it's obvious that you've done some driving in it. No system is perfect without using GPS tracking or something to measure how much each car drives within the state. Do we really need to go that far? Even if you had that, you'd still only be charging state residents.


By stm1185 on 4/25/2011 11:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
I wish we could get a flat tax pushed through where you would not pay any fees. You would simply pay a % of your income to the fed, and to the state, and that % would be the same for everyone. Your tax form would be 1 page, State income x y%, Federal income x z%. Right the 2 checks, mail in the form. DONE! No deductions no right offs no waivers no fees no sales tax no estate tax. They tax you once when you earn income, and it is the same percent they tax everyone else. A completely fair system.




By jmunjr on 4/26/2011 1:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
a fair system would tax the usage of government provided services...


ridiculous
By xrodney on 4/26/2011 4:14:53 AM , Rating: 2
So instead of 38-40$ gas running cars would pay, EV drivers should pay 2.5 times more ???
That's really ridiculous, really nice promotion for new, more ecology friendly technology.
At least give EV same price, they are already more costly then regular cars and now have to pay even more.




RE: ridiculous
By JediJeb on 4/26/2011 3:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well if you do the calculations right, they are getting by with more than $38 tax savings in a Leaf. If you take the $38 in taxes paid at a tax rate of $0.31 for the states portion then you would have to have purchased 122.58 gallons of gasoline. But this is being figured at the EPA rating of the Leaf as 99mpg and driving 12,000 miles per year. Since the Leaf uses no gasoline at all, then actually you would be purchasing 0 gallons of gasoline and paying $0 in taxes.

Now if you take a very efficient gasoline powered car and drive 12,000 miles and it gets $40mpg you would have used 300 gallons of gasoline per year and paid $93 in taxes, so the fee of $100 equivalent if you compare it to the taxes paid by someone driving 12,000 miles per year and averaging 37.2mpg. So the $100 fee on EVs overall would be cheaper than the taxes paid by most motorist on the roads today since most drive more than 12,000 miles per year or average less than 37.2mpg. So really there is nothing to complain about with the $100 fee on EVs for road maintenance unless you are one who expects all other tax payers to cover the wear and tear you put on the road in your EV and help you pay for your EV with the tax rebates on it.


While $100 Might be a little high for starters
By HrilL on 4/25/2011 8:01:28 PM , Rating: 1
I think in the long run this is far. Why should these people be able to drive on the roads for free?




By DigitalFreak on 4/25/2011 8:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's not far at all. Matter of fact, it's right around the corner.


What about car registration fees?
By Zagor on 4/25/2011 10:51:31 PM , Rating: 3
No one has mentioned car registration fees? Isn't that also a tax used to pay for roads? I know it differs from state to state and it can be pretty high in some states (upwards of several hundred dollars per year). Anyway, I know I get charged for bridges repair...




Moot
By Captain Orgazmo on 4/25/2011 11:03:21 PM , Rating: 3
Electric vehicles are a conscience-soothing luxury for the modern bohemian type.

The North American electrical grid is aging, coal fired plants are being taken off-line because of the climate change hysteria, shale gas drilling is being banned due to problems both real and imagined, nuclear power has an unfairly poor reputation, wind power is a pipe dream, solar tech is still in its infancy, and far too little research is being done to commercialize fusion power.

First we need to solve our future energy problems; all else will follow.




BOHICA baby!
By Shadowmaster625 on 4/26/2011 8:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
The math on EVs already doesnt work. Yet people buy them thinking they are going to save money on gas (or save the planet). Either way, these are some truly gullible people. So why not rake them over the coals one more time with yet another fee. It is for a good cause.... to pay some public employee's fat bloated pension! You think they actually spend the money on roads? NO! They spend the money hiring 3 public union workers to stand around watching a 4th worker do a $100 job. All four of them get paid $2000 for a grand total of $8000, to do a $100 job. Plus the cost to run 2 trucks to the site. LOL. So BOHICA. STFU and pay those fees, or we'll bust ya windaz.




RE: BOHICA baby!
By greywood on 4/26/2011 4:13:09 PM , Rating: 1
BOHICA for sure! This whole idea is pure BullShit, and these guys are just arguing over flavor and testure!


Bad Precedent
By LyCannon on 4/25/2011 8:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree that everyone who use the roads should pay a part in their maintenance, by adding an arbitrary tax to EV owners is probably not the best way to go about it. Once this idea has been established, where would it stop? Will it be $200 in three years, $500? What about other states?

The oil companies have a large interest in killing EV's. Once this fee has become accepted, they will lobby like crazy to get it raised further to a point where EV's are no longer attractive.

Also a fixed tax amount is unfair.

What if I have an EV and only drive 10 miles per day to work and back. Why should I have to pay the full amount when someone who drives 100 miles a day pays the same.

I agree that the most fair way would involve some GPS system or tolls, but that isn't realistic. It's an evasion of privacy for GPS and tolls are expensive to set up. Not good with a state that already has a deficit.

I think the best compromise is for every EV model, find an equivalent weight car, get it's average MPG rate, and based on the odometer reading, charge the right tax for the amount you've driven when you renew your car registration. Even better would be to take the best and worst performing car and average them.

Simple and relatively fair.




This makes sense
By kaoken on 4/25/2011 10:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
..if you tax gasoline companies for dodging taxes 0.o




By jmunjr on 4/26/2011 1:30:08 AM , Rating: 2
Is the gas tax the only source of revenue for road maintenance and construction? If so, then I suppose this tax has some merit, but the only logical tax(if there is such a thing) is to tax tires and not gasoline since tires are responsible for most of the wear and tear on a road caused by vehicles.




Come to Washington if......
By LancerVI on 4/26/2011 3:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
You're into far left liberalism, environmentalism and progressive social policies. We didn't have Easter Egg hunts yesterday. We had Spring Orb hunts.

As for myself, a lifelong Washingtonian, I'm trying to get the hell out of here as fast as financially possible. Which is not possible with the regime that's been in power for the past 20 years. Yes......Regime.

Say Waaaaaaa!!!




The stupidity of this situation...
By Targon on 4/26/2011 7:28:29 AM , Rating: 2
The government is PUSHING people to buy EVs for environmental reasons, as well as to reduce the need for "foreign oil", so what Washington State is doing is pushing back against that encouragement. EVs are so new at this point that there are what, 7 people in that state that have an EV at this point? So, they can't have EVs catch on as being less expensive to drive(even if they cost a lot more for what you are getting). Just tax it so there is no real advantage to an EV, and no one will bother buying one.

What is the cost of the electricity needed to charge up these EVs? Isn't there a tax on electricity, and how much is it compared to the tax on gas? Unlike a regular car, you have to charge a EV every day to go a fairly short distance, and that may really throw all calculations of how much someone is paying off. How about just metering the electric supply to EVs and tax appropriately based on THAT?




why not
By nerdboy on 4/26/2011 9:38:41 AM , Rating: 2
Why not just charge everyone with a $100.00 road repair tax yearly and drop the price of gas? Since it looks like $100.00 is sometime double what they would get anyways.




Road Use Fee During Registration
By jthistle on 4/26/2011 12:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
I could see a tax hungry state like Illinois introducing a weight based flat fee for road usage to be collected when you renew your registration. While at the same time keeping the gas tax. That way they can get your money from all angles.

The gas guzzler tax is a federal tax for cars that get less than 22.5 mpg and does not apply to SUVs or Trucks.




Road tax on EV'S
By Drdon220 on 4/26/2011 4:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not opposed if it really does go to road maintenance! I just don't trust the state on their use of funds.




Incorrect :p
By LeeKay on 4/26/2011 9:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
Tesla Roadster (211-mile driving range) have the advantage of traveling on America's roads without having to spend a penny on gasoline.

its 55miles not 211. I think you will find tesla is in the process of suing the BBC for that very mistake.




I don't get it...
By jharper12 on 4/27/2011 5:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
At 12k miles the owner of a Prius pays $276.64 less in gas tax than someone driving an Escalade. The government is emphasizing this technology, and now all of a sudden they are realizing the consequences?!? Hey, buy electric cars, we have subsidies... and extra fees. Idiots.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki