Trumpists begin their attack on America's EV policies.

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
golfcart said:
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
 
rmay635703 said:
golfcart said:
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.
 
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.
 
golfcart said:
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
 
rmay635703 said:
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 said:
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.
 
golfcart said:
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.
 
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/4714911/bill-gates-elon-musk-tim-cook-jared-kushner-business-trump
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
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/4714911/bill-gates-elon-musk-tim-cook-jared-kushner-business-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 said:
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.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Indeed the executive is largely unimportant

A question of balance.

System design was stated to be based on separation of powers, and seems to work as designed. Three branches of government, none of which can override the other two. For overriding the courts, see the history of New Deal legislation in the 1930's.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
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.
I have long believed that much of the US coastline needs a Kei car system, if most of your cars take 1/3 the space and bicycles and motorcycles dominate (being smaller yet) your roads become less crowded.
Here in the middle I have many trips without seeing another car for miles.
The joy of the coast.

Tiered
Up front taxes during purchase (and exemptions thereof), parking fee systems, outright bans of certain vehicles in certain areas and god forbid tiered license and registration on bigger cars, trucks and SUVs and exceptions on smaller rigs and bikes could drive the real cost to society of larger vehicles home and slowly remove them from our cities.

It wouldn't be popular but most important legislation isn't .
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
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.
Indeed, Trump probably knows full well that coal isn't coming back and that much of his anti-climate agenda is going to get stymied by the courts. But he'll claim credit with many of his supporters for "trying", while blaming others for the lack of "success". Same story as with healthcare - I don't think Trump really wants the GOP to un-do Obamacare, but he wants to look like he tried.

I think Trump appears malleable because he lacks principles. Had he thought he'd have had a better chance of getting elected by running as a liberal Democrat like Bernie Sanders, he'd have probably done that. Instead, he rightly and cynically assessed that he had a better shot at harnessing the authoritarian, anti-science, anti-globalization, and anti-immigration strains that were regrettably growing within the GOP.

Beyond that 6-9 months (or year or so), Trump seems most likely to do whatever will get him re-elected and/or build the Trump brand. If Musk, Gates, Cook, and others can convince him that he'll be a more popular president by pushing for a "carbon dividend" policy, for example, then he may go with this.
 
abasile said:
If Musk, Gates, Cook, and others can convince him that he'll be a more popular president by pushing for a "carbon dividend" policy, for example, then he may go with this.
In doing so, DT could inadvertently influence the views of the approx 37% of Americans who don't think climate change is a threat more than Algore and Leonardo DiCaprio ever could (which is pretty much zero, so not too hard to move the needle there). Or maybe he doesn't even have to, it could just be an artifact of whatever the "White House Office of American Innovation" plants in his head.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
In doing so, DT could inadvertently influence the views of the approx 37% of Americans who don't think climate change is a threat more than Algore and Leonardo DiCaprio ever could (which is pretty much zero, so not too hard to move the needle there).

This doesn't get said enough... self-righteous, condescending, hollywood liberals do tremendous harm to these causes by acting the way they do and alienating a large swath of the population. It amazes me that they continue to act against their own self interest this way, but self-righteous indignation is a hell of a drug.

98% of people will never understand the science of climate change (or lots of other modern issues) for the simple fact that nobody can be an expert on everything these days (no matter how many Vox explainers they have skimmed over LOL), people just need to trust the leaders that do understand these probems if we want to address it democratically. If Republicans could get on board with Pigouvian taxes they could address a lot of real problems while simultaneously reducing the size and scope of regulations and government programs. I am not overly optimistic that this will happen during this administration, but Trump is a huge wildcard so you never know.
 
golfcart said:
people just need to trust the leaders that do understand these probems

The leaders also can't understand all the problems. So the leaders need to trust the people that do understand each issue.

Trust is what makes a complex society work. Republicans have won power by destroying trust. Good luck governing.
 
WetEV said:
golfcart said:
people just need to trust the leaders that do understand these probems

The leaders also can't understand all the problems. So the leaders need to trust the people that do understand each issue.

Trust is what makes a complex society work. Republicans have won power by destroying trust. Good luck governing.

I didn't mean to imply that leaders meant politicians, I meant leaders as subject matter experts in their respective fields... like the IPCC for instance. Politicians make policy, but most are grossly unqualified to make scientific assessments. People aren't gonna trust the experts on some abstract issue if they don't trust the politicians who endorse those experts.

There is plenty of blame to go around in the destruction of trust, but I agree that Republicans have been especially bad in that regard as of late. This has been hashed out on this thread already, there is no need for me to repeat them.

That said, it is not a one way street entirely. The medias biased reporting both in what it chooses to report on and how it reports on them are not doing anything to gain trust. The movement in academia to suppress free speech rather than have open and honest debates doesn't help trust. The democratic party rigging its own nomination process to put forward a seriously flawed candidate with tons of baggage didn't help trust. Shows like the Daily Show and John Oliver that consider mocking and condescending "entertainment" don't help trust. Social media bullies trying to ruin peoples careers (or lives) over one bad statement don't help trust. Physically assaulting people who are peacefully assembling does not help societal trust either. I could go on...

Why do you think polling is so suspect lately? Many people don't trust the people asking the questions or reporting on the answers.

Like I said before, self-righteous indignation is a hell of a drug, but it does little to convince people who disagree with you that they should consider your position. That is the hardest thing for people, myself included, to get through their thick skulls.

I don't claim to understand all the reasons Trump was elected, but something like that doesn't happen in a vacuum. Clearly the existing political parties had not gained the trust of a large portions of Americans... that includes the 10% of Blacks, 30% of Asians and 30% of Hispanics that voted for Trump according to exit polling which you never hear about because the media wants this to be about "racist" and "xenophobic" working class whites only.
 
golfcart said:
I don't claim to understand all the reasons Trump was elected, but something like that doesn't happen in a vacuum. Clearly the existing political parties had not gained the trust of a large portions of Americans... that includes the 10% of Blacks, 30% of Asians and 30% of Hispanics that voted for Trump according to exit polling which you never hear about because the media wants this to be about "racist" and "xenophobic" working class whites only.

I went and checked numbers... Yea, a trust issue.

8% of Blacks voted for Trump
27% of Asians voted for Trump
28% of Hispanic voted for Trump

Source Fox News, the other mainstream media.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/exit-polls

Trump wouldn't be President with these numbers. And not everyone that voted for Trump because they liked him. Mrs. Clinton has a few issues as well, and Trump did a great job in keeping these in the news, and some people vote on specific issues such as abortion. There are some that vote straight party line, some for understandable historic issues. Such as Cubans for Republicans.

There is a substantial racist and xenophobic support for the Donald. I know, as I have relatives that resemble that statement closely. Trump has excited these people, as Trump is openly xenophobic and racist. Not all people that voted for him are, of course, as I've pointed out above.

Exit polls are interesting. For example:

"Q: Do you think Hillary Clinton is qualified to serve as president? Yes = 52%"
"Q: Do you think Donald Trump is qualified to serve as president? Yes = 38%"

So how did Donald Trump win? The voters didn't think him the most qualified.
 
golfcart said:
I didn't mean to imply that leaders meant politicians, I meant leaders as subject matter experts in their respective fields... like the IPCC for instance. Politicians make policy, but most are grossly unqualified to make scientific assessments. People aren't gonna trust the experts on some abstract issue if they don't trust the politicians who endorse those experts.

There is plenty of blame to go around in the destruction of trust, but I agree that Republicans have been especially bad in that regard as of late. This has been hashed out on this thread already, there is no need for me to repeat them.

That said, it is not a one way street entirely. The medias biased reporting both in what it chooses to report on and how it reports on them are not doing anything to gain trust. The movement in academia to suppress free speech rather than have open and honest debates doesn't help trust. The democratic party rigging its own nomination process to put forward a seriously flawed candidate with tons of baggage didn't help trust. Shows like the Daily Show and John Oliver that consider mocking and condescending "entertainment" don't help trust. Social media bullies trying to ruin peoples careers (or lives) over one bad statement don't help trust. Physically assaulting people who are peacefully assembling does not help societal trust either. I could go on...

Why do you think polling is so suspect lately? Many people don't trust the people asking the questions or reporting on the answers.

Like I said before, self-righteous indignation is a hell of a drug, but it does little to convince people who disagree with you that they should consider your position. That is the hardest thing for people, myself included, to get through their thick skulls.

I don't claim to understand all the reasons Trump was elected, but something like that doesn't happen in a vacuum. Clearly the existing political parties had not gained the trust of a large portions of Americans... that includes the 10% of Blacks, 30% of Asians and 30% of Hispanics that voted for Trump according to exit polling which you never hear about because the media wants this to be about "racist" and "xenophobic" working class whites only.

I agree on all points. People have lost trust in the political system, and also in the press. I pretty much assume any politician is lying when their lips are moving, and that any information reported by the press is severely warped in truth or is heavily biased in some fashion. You can easily see it when you look at the same news story covered between CNN, RT, Fox News, and MSNBC. You have to get your news from both sides of the spectrum in order to get any idea as to what the truth might be. Thanks to the segmentation of news into preferred political slices, people are staying inside these echo chambers where they're not exposed to viewpoints outside of their own, and they're increasingly shocked and appalled when they do get exposed to these viewpoints.

Instead of analyzing them, they simply shut down their minds, or openly mock and ridicule the other side instead of trying to understand WHY the other side feels a certain way. This leads to further distrust of the system and those around them. We're experiencing our Two Minutes of Hate from 1984, where everybody gets riled up and angry about some manufactured atrocity instead of looking at what's really going around and what truly matters around them.
Anyhow.. /rant.
 
WetEV said:
Exit polls are interesting. For example:

"Q: Do you think Hillary Clinton is qualified to serve as president? Yes = 52%"
"Q: Do you think Donald Trump is qualified to serve as president? Yes = 38%"

So how did Donald Trump win? The voters didn't think him the most qualified.
Maybe the polling process was flawed.
 
Back
Top