New Mexico government had decided they hate electric vehicles

Oilpan4 said:

Ummm yeah the government works for me I don't work for them. Government exists to provide services that individuals and small groups of people can't.
You don't invest in government, you pay taxes, taxes are a liability.
Investing, or growing the government is a bad idea. It doesn't need to be any bigger, it's a ready too big.

Click to expand...

GRA said:

Certainly all members of society benefit, but not equally, and whether you consider a use tax medieval or not, I have no trouble at all with the idea that those who impose the highest costs on a common infrastructure should pay more than those who impose a lesser amount. As noted previously, use taxes alone have never fully paid for public roads in the U.S., and much of the time they haven't even made up a majority - the rest comes out of general funds.

Click to expand...

Nubo said:

GRA said:

Certainly all members of society benefit, but not equally, and whether you consider a use tax medieval or not, I have no trouble at all with the idea that those who impose the highest costs on a common infrastructure should pay more than those who impose a lesser amount. As noted previously, use taxes alone have never fully paid for public roads in the U.S., and much of the time they haven't even made up a majority - the rest comes out of general funds.

Click to expand...

But a gasoline tax does little to provide the equitable assessment you seek, with fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles vary by a factor of 6:1. Factor in passengers and you've got potential disparities of 50:1 or greater. And now for EVs we have miles factored out altogether. I can see a surcharge for heavy trucks that actually do significant damage but for a typical car, the cost to maintain the road is going to be practically the same whether you drive it or not. Any signal from gasoline tax is lost in the noise. It's an antiquated model from a time when cars were toys for the rich.

Click to expand...

GRA said:

...shouldn't one of the points of these taxes be to force people to confront the true costs of externalities that they'd rather ignore, and preferably have other people pay for (see my desire for a Central Command fuel tax for the same reason)?

Click to expand...

Nubo said:

Roads are an essential part of modern infrastructure; just as essential as armies, courts, police, etc... Everyone benefits whether they drive a car a little, a lot, or not at all. A use tax (essentially a toll) is medieval thinking at its finest.

Click to expand...

GRA said:

Nubo said:

GRA said:

Certainly all members of society benefit, but not equally, and whether you consider a use tax medieval or not, I have no trouble at all with the idea that those who impose the highest costs on a common infrastructure should pay more than those who impose a lesser amount. As noted previously, use taxes alone have never fully paid for public roads in the U.S., and much of the time they haven't even made up a majority - the rest comes out of general funds.

Click to expand...

But a gasoline tax does little to provide the equitable assessment you seek, with fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles vary by a factor of 6:1. Factor in passengers and you've got potential disparities of 50:1 or greater. And now for EVs we have miles factored out altogether. I can see a surcharge for heavy trucks that actually do significant damage but for a typical car, the cost to maintain the road is going to be practically the same whether you drive it or not. Any signal from gasoline tax is lost in the noise. It's an antiquated model from a time when cars were toys for the rich.

Click to expand...

Please note that I'm not suggesting a gas tax by itself, I want a weight x mileage annual registration fee plus a fuel (carbon) tax. The weight x mileage fee handles the road wear and tear, the fuel tax takes care of differences in (fossil-fuel) efficiency as well as air pollution effects. It's not perfect, as weights can vary widely especially with commercial vehicles, but it's workable and a lot more equitable than a flat annual fee for EVs. Making the reg. fee weight-based encourages people to buy a smaller, lighter and AOTBE more efficient car, especially if we base the reg. fee on the GVWR instead of empty or curb weight (which should cut down on people choosing to commute solo in what cwerdna refers to as "Battering Ram of Death"-class SUVs), and multiplying that by mileage encourages people to drive less. I went over to Pay-as-you-drive mileage-based insurance for just that reason, because it causes me to think on every trip about what it will cost me to drive over and above fuel costs, or use my bike or public transit for that trip. Granted, many people don't want to make that calc or would consider it not worth their time, but shouldn't one of the points of these taxes be to force people to confront the true costs of externalities that they'd rather ignore, and preferably have other people pay for (see my desire for a Central Command fuel tax for the same reason)?

Click to expand...

powersurge said:

GRA said:

Nubo said:

But a gasoline tax does little to provide the equitable assessment you seek, with fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles vary by a factor of 6:1. Factor in passengers and you've got potential disparities of 50:1 or greater. And now for EVs we have miles factored out altogether. I can see a surcharge for heavy trucks that actually do significant damage but for a typical car, the cost to maintain the road is going to be practically the same whether you drive it or not. Any signal from gasoline tax is lost in the noise. It's an antiquated model from a time when cars were toys for the rich.

Click to expand...

Please note that I'm not suggesting a gas tax by itself, I want a weight x mileage annual registration fee plus a fuel (carbon) tax. The weight x mileage fee handles the road wear and tear, the fuel tax takes care of differences in (fossil-fuel) efficiency as well as air pollution effects. It's not perfect, as weights can vary widely especially with commercial vehicles, but it's workable and a lot more equitable than a flat annual fee for EVs. Making the reg. fee weight-based encourages people to buy a smaller, lighter and AOTBE more efficient car, especially if we base the reg. fee on the GVWR instead of empty or curb weight (which should cut down on people choosing to commute solo in what cwerdna refers to as "Battering Ram of Death"-class SUVs), and multiplying that by mileage encourages people to drive less. I went over to Pay-as-you-drive mileage-based insurance for just that reason, because it causes me to think on every trip about what it will cost me to drive over and above fuel costs, or use my bike or public transit for that trip. Granted, many people don't want to make that calc or would consider it not worth their time, but shouldn't one of the points of these taxes be to force people to confront the true costs of externalities that they'd rather ignore, and preferably have other people pay for (see my desire for a Central Command fuel tax for the same reason)?

Click to expand...

These propositions are ridiculous... As a citizen, anyone who is "asking for" - Registration x weight x miles x type of car x gas (and carbon) x ???? taxes is looking to let the government tax people into oblivion. This is asking for the government to intervene and find clever ways to know your every move, to the point of knowing how many breaths you take.. Do you want them to do that too?

Since the beginning, our taxes were collected from all citizens so as to provide the national infrastructure,... and it has worked. We are paying too many taxes every year, for every service that used to be free. Phone, cell phone, light, water, tv, internet, mail.. ad infinitum.. We do not need people offering to add more ways for the government to control us..

Click to expand...

powersurge said:

Since the beginning, our taxes were collected from all citizens so as to provide the national infrastructure,... and it has worked. We are paying too many taxes every year, for every service that used to be free. Phone, cell phone, light, water, tv, internet, mail.. ad infinitum.. We do not need people offering to add more ways for the government to control us..

Click to expand...

Oilpan4 said:

If the government wants money, raise the federal Reserve interest rate.
But they have to get rid of all the nonsense subsidies and taxes that they use to attempt to control certain sectors of the economy, then just allow money to flow freely and take a little off the top like a crooked board of directors.

Click to expand...

powersurge said:

GRA said:

Nubo said:

But a gasoline tax does little to provide the equitable assessment you seek, with fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles vary by a factor of 6:1. Factor in passengers and you've got potential disparities of 50:1 or greater. And now for EVs we have miles factored out altogether. I can see a surcharge for heavy trucks that actually do significant damage but for a typical car, the cost to maintain the road is going to be practically the same whether you drive it or not. Any signal from gasoline tax is lost in the noise. It's an antiquated model from a time when cars were toys for the rich.

Click to expand...

Please note that I'm not suggesting a gas tax by itself, I want a weight x mileage annual registration fee plus a fuel (carbon) tax. The weight x mileage fee handles the road wear and tear, the fuel tax takes care of differences in (fossil-fuel) efficiency as well as air pollution effects. It's not perfect, as weights can vary widely especially with commercial vehicles, but it's workable and a lot more equitable than a flat annual fee for EVs. Making the reg. fee weight-based encourages people to buy a smaller, lighter and AOTBE more efficient car, especially if we base the reg. fee on the GVWR instead of empty or curb weight (which should cut down on people choosing to commute solo in what cwerdna refers to as "Battering Ram of Death"-class SUVs), and multiplying that by mileage encourages people to drive less. I went over to Pay-as-you-drive mileage-based insurance for just that reason, because it causes me to think on every trip about what it will cost me to drive over and above fuel costs, or use my bike or public transit for that trip. Granted, many people don't want to make that calc or would consider it not worth their time, but shouldn't one of the points of these taxes be to force people to confront the true costs of externalities that they'd rather ignore, and preferably have other people pay for (see my desire for a Central Command fuel tax for the same reason)?

Click to expand...

These propositions are ridiculous... As a citizen, anyone who is "asking for" - Registration x weight x miles x type of car x gas x ???? taxes is looking to let the government tax people into oblivion. This is asking for the government to intervene and find clever ways to know your every move, to the point of knowing how many breaths you take.. Do you want them to do that too?

Since the beginning, our taxes were collected from all citizens so as to provide the national infrastructure,... and it has worked. We are paying too many taxes every year, for every service that used to be free. Phone, cell phone, light, water, tv, internet, mail.. ad infinitum.. We do not need people offering to add more ways for the government to control us..

Click to expand...

WetEV said:

powersurge said:

Since the beginning, our taxes were collected from all citizens so as to provide the national infrastructure,... and it has worked. We are paying too many taxes every year, for every service that used to be free. Phone, cell phone, light, water, tv, internet, mail.. ad infinitum.. We do not need people offering to add more ways for the government to control us..

Click to expand...

Nothing is free, somebody pays for it. One way or another.

Phone tax to provide service to rural areas used to be done by having a single company handle nearly all phones. Profit for a single phone company is maximized when as many people as possible have phones. Great... Sort of... Well, not really. And the Bell system was fairly well behaved for a monopoly. Some of extra profits (meaning higher phone bills paid by consumers) went into research at Bell Labs, which eventually did pay a return in improved technology. Yet the customers paid for this, and more. The phone company didn't have to care, and didn't. Unlike a government, you can't vote the phone company out, unless the government breaks up the phone company, which it eventually did. With multiple phone companies, profit is maximized if someone else provides service to high cost rural areas. So now we pay a tax to subsidize phone service to rural voters. The alternative would would be very high cost or no service for rural areas. If you minimize government, you give power to corporations that you can't vote out of office. Corporations are very willing to control you in ways that government wouldn't be allowed to as any government that tried such would be voted out.

So which would you really prefer? A fairly small tax, or a much larger total phone bill? A phone company that doesn't have to care or a government that had better care or will lose the next election?

Click to expand...

powersurge said:

I am against ever-creeping infringement of government control of our lives. They think that they have a right to legislate into law, without our permission, controls and tell us what we cannot do (for our own good)? In NY, the had a law that you could only buy a pint sized soda and only be able to have a certain size of soda in restaurants because more than that was BAD for us... If they can push such BS on us, then sky is the limit...

Click to expand...