grandizer52
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:30 pm
Delivery Date: 27 Oct 2015
Leaf Number: 001089
Location: Pearl City, HI

Re: CA - AB1591 - $165 flat fee for zero-emission vehicles

Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:15 pm

finman100 wrote:I like the pollution tax idea. Not willing to stop spewing crud out your tailpipe? (i'm really looking at you coal-rollers) then pony up. Want to be part of the solution of clean air? Then reward me. Most all people are motivated by money. Kinda separates us from the animals. Show people there is a painful wallet grab for having ICE cars and most people will want to do the cheaper thing, regardless if they WANT to pollute less, but instead, because it ain't cheap to keep spewing when alternatives are better in all ways.

People continually tell me I'll never re-coupe my money spent on a Prius or my current Leaf, using nothing but cost. Well, I am not thinking about ONLY that. Using less and polluting less is my mantra (sp?) And electric drive is superior in smoothness and quiet compared to ICE cars.

People just want to spend less and THAT is how to motivate change from ICE to EV. buck a gallon of gasoline is not going to do it.

Hea Finman100...ever notice the oily smell when you start a ICE?

jpadc
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:25 am
Delivery Date: 20 Dec 2014
Location: Indiana & Wisconsin

Re: Gasoline May Rise Above $5 a Gallon

Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:35 pm

fooljoe wrote:What is clearly bad policy is creating a new tax that penalizes EVs while trying to incentivize them elsewhere.
And maybe the new tax is elected officials deciding its time to take the first step in correcting that error. Eliminating the subsidy should be their next.
2018 Leaf SV /w Tech & Climate Packages - Purchased in Feb, 2020
My previous car was a 2013 Leaf S /w Charge Package - Purchased new in Iowa City Dec. 2014

fooljoe
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:33 am
Delivery Date: 10 Jun 2011
Location: Seal Beach, CA
Contact: Website

Re: Gasoline May Rise Above $5 a Gallon

Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:55 pm

jpadc wrote:And maybe the new tax is elected officials deciding its time to take the first step in correcting that error. Eliminating the subsidy should be their next.
Well if you like giving more money to the government and getting less in return I guess that's a recipe for success!
RavCharge.com | 2012 Rav4-EV | 2011 Leaf SL w/QC batt replaced 11/20/15 | Clipper Creek CS-60 | EVSEupgraded 2013 Leaf EVSE | 3.84kw PV

smkettner
Posts: 7501
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: CA - AB1591 - $165 flat fee for zero-emission vehicles

Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:57 pm

Well I don't think any tax is completely fair. So maybe all taxes should be stopped until this can be figured out. :roll: ;)
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV
RAV4 traded in for I-Pace Dec 2018

grandizer52
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:30 pm
Delivery Date: 27 Oct 2015
Leaf Number: 001089
Location: Pearl City, HI

Re: CA - AB1591 - $165 flat fee for zero-emission vehicles

Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:33 pm

smkettner wrote:Well I don't think any tax is completely fair. So maybe all taxes should be stopped until this can be figured out. :roll: ;)
I second that motion....All in favor

Bufordleaf
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 8:59 am
Delivery Date: 20 Dec 2014
Location: Buford, GA

Re: Gasoline May Rise Above $5 a Gallon

Thu Feb 18, 2016 6:48 pm

TimLee wrote:
Bufordleaf wrote:... I prefer a sales tax that is dedicated to transportation infrastructure. After all, the more stuff you buy the more you are using the roads, and therefore the more you would pay. Seems like a simple and fair way to charge people based on their level of use.
That will not work for electricity because the vehicle use isn't metered separately.

And trying to charge all of it at vehicle purchase isn't fair.

To be fair it needs to be based on miles driven.
No Tim, I'm talking about a sales tax on everything you buy. Food, clothes, appliances, books...whatever you spend your money on. I prefer this because it is very transparent (appears on your receipt just like current sales tax so you see it each time you pay it) and as I said, the more stuff you buy the more you are using the roads so to me it makes sense. When you order stuff online it gets delivered to your house, using the roads. When you go out to eat, you use the roads to drive to the restaurant. When you shop at the mall, everything that you buy was delivered to the mall using trucks which use the roads.
2015 Leaf S with QC

Bufordleaf
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 8:59 am
Delivery Date: 20 Dec 2014
Location: Buford, GA

Re: Gasoline May Rise Above $5 a Gallon

Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:12 pm

fooljoe wrote:
Bufordleaf wrote:I respectfully disagree. IMO it matters because the more any gov't uses a "general fund" the more they can tax us and hide the expenditures.
Despite your opinion, the empirical evidence shows that the opposite is true (did you see the paper I linked to?) Special funds in general lead to larger government (i.e. more taxation) and have little effect on the expenditures to which they're dedicated.

Basically the whole reason these artificial constructs exist is as a sales technique to get new taxes passed. Ask Joe Sixpack if he'd like to pay a tax on his gas and he'll of course say "Hell no!" But ask him if he thinks he should pay for roads and he'll say "sure I guess, mumble mumble fair share..." The end result is he ends up paying more taxes while the government goes on paying for roads at exactly the same levels that they would have anyway, accounting gimmicks notwithstanding.

And then when the gas tax revenue inevitably falls short of what's needed to pay for roads, it gives politicians an excuse to come back and complain that they need new taxes. Case in point, AB1591 comes up now in California proposing a new tax on EVs, despite the fact that California is currently running a surplus.
Sorry I missed that link before. Just went back and read it. Interesting paper but it doesn't really apply to what I was suggesting. The paper talks about dedicated revenue sources replacing general fund sources, and how state gov'ts then re-allocate those general funds elsewhere, thus growing the size of gov't. And you mentioned gas taxes falling short and politicians then raising taxes, and of course in the case of Kansas they raid the transportation fund to cover shortfalls in the general fund.
What I support is dedicated funds that are setup so they cannot be raided, which is what we have now in Georgia thanks to last year's legislation that also added the $200 EV fee. And I also support a highway program that is ONLY funded with dedicated revenue from the gas tax and annual EV fee (or perhaps one day a dedicated 1 penny sales tax). The federal gov't gas tax revenue has fallen short of funding the program for years now, and each year the Congress moves funds from the general fund to cover the shortfall. I don't like this even though I believe we should be spending more on roads and bridges. I believe they should increase the gas tax and index it to cafe standards or inflation (again, like we do now in GA) to cover the entire program. A dedicated source of revenue is more transparent and makes it more difficult for gov't to play games and covertly grow. As long as we demand our elected officials set up dedicated, protected funds. The paper you linked talked about the problems that occur when they don't dedicate and protect them. That's a big difference and obviously does lead to problems.
OTOH, when you fund everything from one massive general fund it is much easier for gov't to hide things and move things around. The real problem is that our gov'ts at the state and federal level are far too big and do far too many things now, which makes it very difficult for any of us to hold them accountable.
2015 Leaf S with QC

fooljoe
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:33 am
Delivery Date: 10 Jun 2011
Location: Seal Beach, CA
Contact: Website

Re: Gasoline May Rise Above $5 a Gallon

Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:40 am

Bufordleaf wrote:Interesting paper but it doesn't really apply to what I was suggesting.
No, it applies to the reality of how these sorts of taxes/funds are actually administrated.
What I support is dedicated funds that are setup so they cannot be raided
"Raiding" of the funds is not a concern in practice, as transportation spending nearly always outstrips the revenues tied to these funds (as you point out). Besides, why shouldn't government be able to use these funds in the unlikely event that they're not needed? Would you rather pay for "bridges to nowhere" because legislators are legally mandated to spend money on unneeded projects? Maybe it makes more sense to actually use the money where it's needed.
what we have now in Georgia thanks to last year's legislation that also added the $200 EV fee
Yes, Georgia is really a shining example of policy achievement, as evidenced by your 90% drop in EV sales.
And I also support a highway program that is ONLY funded with dedicated revenue from the gas tax and annual EV fee
Do you want crumbling infrastructure? Because that's how you get it. Spending needs aren't so neatly predictable as you suggest. If there's an infrastructure emergency I suppose you think the fund should have to borrow money, even if there are general funds that could be allocated? So take on debt with money in the bank...

And if you keep ratcheting up taxes on gas and EVs people will naturally use less gas and buy less EVs - you can't rely on this funding source no matter what complex indexing schemes you come up with. Maybe you'll suggest there should also be a tax on the NG cars or hydrogen cars or public transportation or bikes or whatever will fill in the gaps; so now we have 20 different new taxes perpetually going up. Which brings me to this:
A dedicated source of revenue is more transparent and makes it more difficult for gov't to play games and covertly grow
What gives you this idea? So you think a complex hodgepodge of new taxes squirreled away in an infrastructure fund - probably managed by some unelected "czar" - is somehow going to be more transparent than simply paying for things through the general budget - probably the most heavily scrutinized thing any government does?

If you really think dedicated funds are a recipe for more transparency, answer me this simple question: How much total tax do you pay? Think about it - you've got federal income tax, state income tax, property tax, sales tax, vehicle registration tax, gas tax, electric utility tax, NG utility tax, water/sewer/refuse utility tax, and now a shiny new EV tax (and I'm sure plenty of others I can't think of). It would probably take an accountant a week to figure out your total tax bill, if it were even possible at all since I'm sure you don't keep every single receipt showing your sales tax. Every new kind of tax adds that much more obfuscation to government (and if you think that new taxes will be accompanied with tax cuts elsewhere I've got a bridge to sell you); in the same way every new special fund makes government spending that much harder to track. If you want transparency, keep it simple.
RavCharge.com | 2012 Rav4-EV | 2011 Leaf SL w/QC batt replaced 11/20/15 | Clipper Creek CS-60 | EVSEupgraded 2013 Leaf EVSE | 3.84kw PV

Bufordleaf
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 8:59 am
Delivery Date: 20 Dec 2014
Location: Buford, GA

Re: CA - AB1591 - $165 flat fee for zero-emission vehicles

Fri Feb 19, 2016 6:51 am

@ fooljoe - I could spend an hour replying to each and every one of your points, but I think I can sum it all up much easier by saying "agree to disagree." You said keep it simple.
2015 Leaf S with QC

TimLee
Posts: 2811
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:40 am
Delivery Date: 17 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2026
Location: Chattanooga, TN

Re: Gasoline May Rise Above $5 a Gallon

Fri Feb 19, 2016 7:09 am

Bufordleaf wrote:...
No Tim, I'm talking about a sales tax on everything you buy. Food, clothes, appliances, books...whatever you spend your money on. I prefer this because it is very transparent (appears on your receipt just like current sales tax so you see it each time you pay it) and as I said, the more stuff you buy the more you are using the roads so to me it makes sense. When you order stuff online it gets delivered to your house, using the roads. When you go out to eat, you use the roads to drive to the restaurant. When you shop at the mall, everything that you buy was delivered to the mall using trucks which use the roads.
But that is contrary to what you were advocating.

A sales tax, or value added tax, or whatever you want to call it is a general broad based tax that goes into the general revenue fund.

But you were arguing in favor of taxation based on use :?:

I understand both arguments.
Broad based versus specific use and dedicated funding based on that use.

But to argue both sides is highly inconsistent :shock: :?:

Tim Lee
Chattanooga, TN

Man. Date: 03/10/11, VIN # 2026
Delivered 05-17-2011
Blue Ocean, 2011 SL-eTec

Return to “Pacific USA”