rmay635703
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:43 pm

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Tue Mar 28, 2017 10:28 am

golfcart wrote:At the end of the day I think it points to a weakness is using the gas tax to fund roads. As fuel efficiency increases the funds dry up but there is still the need to maintain the infrastructure. It seems like a flat fee per vehicle across the board (like we pay with EV's), or even a miles driven fee to fund road maintenance would make more sense and any taxes on gas should be used to mitigate the issues caused by using gas...


No it doesn't

Those that damage the roads should pay for the roads. That is the gap that isn't covered.

Car traffic alone (under 3000lbs) would take centuries to damage a modern road.

Should car owners pay for the privilege to use a road they don't damage, subsidizing farmers and trucks?
Yes but that access is easily covered by gas taxes, no reason to charge more taxes to an individual driving a car;
(trucks, vans , SUVs maybe)

If we charge individual fees up to half of the tax will be lost to beuracracy , it costs our country billions of dollars to collect taxes from individuals already, gas tax on the other hand is the most efficient tax program to date , a small fraction of a percent of the tax is lost to maintaining collections. In Wisconsin it is estimated that an incrimental cost of $20,000 a year is needed to run the gas tax program which collects an inordinate amount of money.
Compare that to license plate fees which costs millions to administer and only collects a marginal amount more.

In my mind yearly plates and fees for individual cars, should be banned, the lost revenue should be piled into the gas tax. (Aka expanding Wisconsin's non expiring plate system would be a good start)
The amount spent to collect the tax would shrink and you would get more bang for your buck.

The system of taxing truckers should then be simplified and more aligned with reality.

The above changes would likely close the funding gap by spending less while collecting the same amount

golfcart
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:42 am

rmay635703 wrote:
golfcart wrote:At the end of the day I think it points to a weakness is using the gas tax to fund roads. As fuel efficiency increases the funds dry up but there is still the need to maintain the infrastructure. It seems like a flat fee per vehicle across the board (like we pay with EV's), or even a miles driven fee to fund road maintenance would make more sense and any taxes on gas should be used to mitigate the issues caused by using gas...


No it doesn't

Those that damage the roads should pay for the roads. That is the gap that isn't covered.

Car traffic alone (under 3000lbs) would take centuries to damage a modern road.

Should car owners pay for the privilege to use a road they don't damage, subsidizing farmers and trucks?
Yes but that access is easily covered by gas taxes, no reason to charge more taxes to an individual driving a car;
(trucks, vans , SUVs maybe)

If we charge individual fees up to half of the tax will be lost to beuracracy , it costs our country billions of dollars to collect taxes from individuals already, gas tax on the other hand is the most efficient tax program to date , a small fraction of a percent of the tax is lost to maintaining collections. In Wisconsin it is estimated that an incrimental cost of $20,000 a year is needed to run the gas tax program which collects an inordinate amount of money.
Compare that to license plate fees which costs millions to administer and only collects a marginal amount more.

In my mind yearly plates and fees for individual cars, should be banned, the lost revenue should be piled into the gas tax. (Aka expanding Wisconsin's non expiring plate system would be a good start)
The amount spent to collect the tax would shrink and you would get more bang for your buck.

The system of taxing truckers should then be simplified and more aligned with reality.

The above changes would likely close the funding gap by spending less while collecting the same amount


It is well documented that increases in average vehicle efficiency has caused shortfalls in federal and state funding for roads. I don't think that needs to be rehashed here. That is the weakness of the gas tax I am referring too. You think that a strength of the gas tax is that it is cheap to administer, fair enough... the your response to me is probably just to raise the gas tax... fair enough. I still call that a weakness of the gas tax as it is currently structured, especially when politicians don't seem to have the support to ever raise it.

Certainly large trucks with high axle weights do the bulk of the damage, and the costs associated with that damage should be bore by the offending parties... but that is not what this discussion is about (at least not the one I'm having). It is about whether or not people driving EV's should be able to drive on roads that they don't pay comparable fees to build and maintain while similarly sized cars pay the gas tax and similarly sized hybrids pay a smaller gas tax (and I do realize that gas taxes don't cover all of the roads, no need to point that out). My point is simply that whatever it should cost a 3000lb focus to use the road should be similar to a 3000lb prius and a 3000lb leaf because they all take up the same amount of space, do the same amount of damage, and require the same access. If you want to incentivize low emissions then tax carbon and use that revenue to mitigate the issues that carbon emissions cause.

Since we already pay a registration fee how much additional revenue would it cost to implement a road maintenance fee? It all comes in one bill, I pay my regular registration with an EV fee. There is probably some software that just spits it out automatically. Sure, if we can get rid of registration altogether then I might be persuaded to agree with your overall point but I don't know if that is even a realistic prospect.
2015 S with Charge Package

User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4559
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Central FL

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:18 pm

The biggest impact cars have on roads is not damage to pavement but rather the space they take up. Unclear what effect if any DT has had on that.
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue
2016 SV-adjacent May 2016 lost 4th bar March 2018

rmay635703
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:43 pm

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:12 pm

golfcart wrote:
It is well documented that increases in average vehicle efficiency has caused shortfalls in federal and state funding for roads.

I don't think that needs to be rehashed here. That is the weakness of the gas tax I am referring too. You think that a strength of the gas tax is that it is cheap to administer, fair enough... the your response to me is probably just to raise the gas tax... fair enough. I still call that a weakness of the gas tax as it is currently structured, especially when politicians don't seem to have the support to ever raise it.

Certainly large trucks with high axle weights do the bulk of the damage, and the costs associated with that damage should be bore by the offending parties... but that is not what this discussion is about (at least not the one I'm having). It is about whether or not people driving EV's should be able to drive on roads that they don't pay comparable fees to build and maintain while similarly sized cars pay the gas tax and similarly sized hybrids pay a smaller gas tax (and I do realize that gas taxes don't cover all of the roads, no need to point that out). My point is simply that whatever it should cost a 3000lb focus to use the road should be similar to a 3000lb prius and a 3000lb leaf because they all take up the same amount of space, do the same amount of damage, and require the same access. If you want to incentivize low emissions then tax carbon and use that revenue to mitigate the issues that carbon emissions cause.

Since we already pay a registration fee how much additional revenue would it cost to implement a road maintenance fee? It all comes in one bill, I pay my regular registration with an EV fee. There is probably some software that just spits it out automatically. Sure, if we can get rid of registration altogether then I might be persuaded to agree with your overall point but I don't know if that is even a realistic prospect.


Some states including my own have had varying degrees of non expiring plates; aka you only buy the plate when you buy a car. Those systems work but get backlash on a "jobs" standpoint when wide spread.

Next if an EV is rated say 98mpge is it really fair to charge them the same as a 35mpg gas car?
That will only encourage folks to drive 8mpg v12 3000lb cars since there would be minimal cost penalty to drive a Maserati VRS a 50mpg Prius for example.

Individual electric bills are already 50-90% tax depending on how many municipalities (power sub stations) your power flows through as each one gets a penny or two of tax.
So you are paying tax on your electricity already just not road tax.

Like it or not gas taxes punish those who use the most fuel, which in my mind is a critical point.

If my state would have implemented its Alternative fuel tax and related wheel tax I would have sold my EV because my other car (a gen 1 insight) uses about the same amount of fuel yearly $$$ as the yearly cost of registration would become for the EV.

I'm likely not the only one who would see that.

You need to leave folks an out and a reason to be efficient or you will kill adoption of the cars (which is already dismal)

Given that gas tax punishes those who waste gas (which is polluting) isn't it fair that EVs get excluded from it? Further there are so few EVs that taxing them specially has no affect on the budget crisis.
My state literally has 5000 evs period.
Even charging a very high nominal rate won't even pay for a single mile of highway.

We shouldn't even be having this discussion until there is more than 5% EV adoption, today it's around 0.1%

My states budget review board found the cost to update software, identify , mail and tax EVs was nearly equal to the first year and a half of revenue and not worthwhile.

I think that will continue to be the case for many years.

In the end is it worth charging an EV a special mail in fee when most all of it will go to admin costs just so people thinks it's fair?

We don't live in a fair world, farmers get mostly tax free fuel for example, forestry and mine equipment does as well

Maybe close other loopholes first before we add another ineffective tax

golfcart
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:05 am

rmay635703 wrote:
Next if an EV is rated say 98mpge is it really fair to charge them the same as a 35mpg gas car?
That will only encourage folks to drive 8mpg v12 3000lb cars since there would be minimal cost penalty to drive a Maserati VRS a 50mpg Prius for example.

Individual electric bills are already 50-90% tax depending on how many municipalities (power sub stations) your power flows through as each one gets a penny or two of tax.
So you are paying tax on your electricity already just not road tax.

Like it or not gas taxes punish those who use the most fuel, which in my mind is a critical point.


This is where we are talking past each other. My point is that a gas tax to fund roads is not a tool to moralize about emissions it is to fund roads. That is why I said, if you want to curb emissions then tax carbon and use the money to address the issues caused by emissions... if you want to fund roads then figure out a stable source of revenue to fund roads paid for by users of roads and people who benefit from the roads being there.

All these incentives for EV's have ended up being are upper-middle class subsidies because you have to make at least $60k or so to owe enough tax to even take advantage of the full credit. What you are talking about is eliminating those same people from paying for the roads like everyone else.

I paid $15.5k net for my brand new leaf in 2015, can charge for free at all the local Nissan dealerships, can charge for free at the library or multiple shopping centers, can use the HOV lane anytime I want (for now), get to park up front at most any LEED certified building, and can charge at a discounted rate (5c/kWh) between 1-5am. I am in no way suffering by driving this car... how many more incentives should people need?

rmay635703 wrote:We shouldn't even be having this discussion until there is more than 5% EV adoption, today it's around 0.1%


That is probably a fair point, the EV specific fees are just a drop in the bucket at this moment in time. But it does not address the overall need to secure stable funding for roads. I am comfortable leaving it at that, I feel like I have said my piece and don't want to take this thread to much further off topic.
Last edited by golfcart on Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
2015 S with Charge Package

golfcart
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:08 am
Delivery Date: 21 Nov 2015
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:06 am

LTLFTcomposite wrote: Unclear what effect if any DT has had on that.


Point taken, I have started going way off topic. My bad...
2015 S with Charge Package

User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4559
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Central FL

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:01 am

golfcart wrote:Point taken, I have started going way off topic. My bad...

Meh, these "water cooler threads" are mostly entertainment with a little enlightenment sprinkled in, so that's hardly an issue, but we should keep the conversation focused on how horrible everything is now with DT.
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue
2016 SV-adjacent May 2016 lost 4th bar March 2018

User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4559
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Central FL

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:54 am

With all the gnashing of teeth as DT rolls back CAFE and environmental regulations (all of which will have zero impact but that's another subject) this went largely unnoticed:
http://amp.timeinc.net/time/money/47149 ... ness-trump
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue
2016 SV-adjacent May 2016 lost 4th bar March 2018

WetEV
Posts: 2369
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:04 am

LTLFTcomposite wrote:With all the gnashing of teeth as DT rolls back CAFE and environmental regulations (all of which will have zero impact but that's another subject) this went largely unnoticed:
http://amp.timeinc.net/time/money/47149 ... ness-trump


Unnoticed as is largely unimportant.

The EO can't change laws, with CAFE and environmental regulations are based on. Yes, Trump can try to change the regulations, but only within the limits of the laws in question. Impact might be zero. Expect epic litigation.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4559
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Central FL

Re: Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:42 am

WetEV wrote:Unnoticed as is largely unimportant.

The EO can't change laws, with CAFE and environmental regulations are based on. Yes, Trump can try to change the regulations, but only within the limits of the laws in question. Impact might be zero. Expect epic litigation.

Indeed the executive is largely unimportant, as we are governed by the judiciary. Executive only matters when it comes to passing or blocking legislation, but even then it doesn't matter all that much when activist judges ignore the laws, which you can do pretty much whenever you want just by saying something is discriminatory or whatever. I can bring my therapy horse on a plane and American Airlines better not say anything about it or I'll have the ACLU all over them. Of course the executive can shape the courts, but that's a slow process.

What's interesting about the involvement of people like Musk and Gates is the potential for influence on DT. IMO DT is quite malleable. Once the initial lip services to campaign narratives like digging coal fades from the news cycle the world will keep doing whatever it was going to do anyway... then the question of what happens next becomes interesting. I see that time frame being in about 6-9 months.
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue
2016 SV-adjacent May 2016 lost 4th bar March 2018

Return to “Environmental Issues”