Model 3

Other shoe about to drop on Fuel Tax?

Looks like the Feds are looking at what to do about the federal portion of the gas tax. Your state EV registration fee only covers the state portion of the gas tax (making it an even worse deal). The Feds want their piece, too.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/01/26/biden-plans-all-electric-us-government-fleet-will-reexamine-gas-tax/
«13

Comments

  • Lets hope not. Makes no sense to simultaneously incentivize and disincentivize EVs. Reduce the tax credit before adding federal registration fees to EVs. When EVs represent a significant percentage of all cars, then we should talk about how to fund federal highway taxes. Until we should be happy letting air polluters foot the bill. I do not say this out of a selfish desire to hoard money...this is what is best for the planet.
  • Plus it is not right to have a flat annual fee on EVs, and a per gallon basis on gas users. If there's an ev fee it needs to be based on mileage, not a registration fee.
  • We all know it is coming. The government does not give up taxes.

    I would rather a thorough well thought out approach like this, compared to what we have seen this far. Up to this point, it is just extremists putting up bills trying to kill EVs. That will not be the case here.
  • I’m not a real fan of the government putting a tracking device on my car to measure my mileage. But Tesla already does, and likely every EV from now on will. Maybe we just get the manufacturers to issue us a mileage statement kinda like a W-2 - “Here’s your federal mileage, and your state mileage”.
  • The simplest and most straight forward way to raise targeted roadway funds is by adding tolls. This way, those that actually use the road, EV and ICE alike, would contribute to maintenance and upkeep of the road.

    I am sure folks in New Jersey have strong opinions on whether tolls are a good thing.
  • It cost $16 dollars to cross a bridge or tunnel in NJ. How is that for insanity.
  • Not going to get into this one except for this...

    "I would rather a thorough well thought out approach..."

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thinking the government will have a thorough well thought out approach...on anything tax related...HAHAHAHAHAHA.
  • People without cars need to be taxed as well. They ride on the roads, use the roads, are benifited by the roads, yet excape the taxing.
    Stampee
  • @derotam: While I fully admit that watching sausage making progress in state or federal legislatures can make people barf, occasionally members of such bodies actually really do try to do a decent job and lock out the maniacs. Contrary to popular opinion, debate does sometime happen and changes minds.
    It's the usual bit about what attracts the eye, though: A bunch of congresscritters working through some thorny problem in a reasoned way doesn't excite the news media like publishing stores about some maniac making anti-social promises. As a result, the public thinks that everything done in congress or a state is garbage, because that's all that gets published.
  • I paid California over $600 for my M3 registration last year and drove less than 3000 miles. That's 20 cents a mile.

    I paid California over $200 for registration for a "classic" that I keep in storage. I drove it less than 50 miles last year.
    That's $4.00 a mile.

    Face it. The system is totally screwed up.
  • I think a tire tax would make more sense. Higher mileage and higher weight (more impact to roadways) replaces them more often, resulting in a more proportional spread.
  • > @Lonestar10_1999_98049184 said: > The simplest and most straight forward way to raise targeted roadway funds is by adding tolls."

    And how would the people who don't drive help pay for the transportation system then need as much as everyone else for everything? Amazon/Bezo's has made trillions using US transport system but certainly does not "pay its share" based on usage.

    Transportation system has been an important government function in US since the founding, financed with general revenue taxes.

    Best way to justify an increase in gasoline tax is as a "Pay off the oil war debt" tax. Layout why US debt of $20T is due as much to the 30 years MIddle East Oil war and military costs as Reaganomics so oil has a war debt to pay.

    The facts are clear on the debt and the cause and the climate deniers can't used theiranti-science arguments.

    And it's PATRIOTIC!!
  • > @Lonestar10_1999_98049184 said:
    > The simplest and most straight forward way to raise targeted roadway funds is by adding tolls. This way, those that actually use the road, EV and ICE alike, would contribute to maintenance and upkeep of the road.
    >
    > I am sure folks in New Jersey have strong opinions on whether tolls are a good thing.

    you cannot toll every road (city streets etc.)
  • Fck tolls
  • State and federal taxes on gasoline have traditionally gone to maintaining our roads and highways. EV owners (like myself) shouldn't expect a free ride on these roads, but we shouldn't pay any more or any less in taxes for their upkeep. I think the best solution is to track the mileage on all vehicles, then pay a certain amount per mile, plus a certain amount based on the weight of the vehicle. This would apply to all cars (BEV, EV, PHEV & ICE), and all trucks from pickups to the big semi's. However, I have no idea how to check every vehicle's mileage each year.
  • I’ve said this on other threads: some states already require mileage disclosure as a part of the registration process. PA requires your mileage to renew registration.
  • > @derotam said:
    > Not going to get into this one except for this...
    >
    > "I would rather a thorough well thought out approach..."
    >
    > AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thinking the government will have a thorough well thought out approach...on anything tax related...HAHAHAHAHAHA.

    So you think a Gas Funded politician putting up a crazy bill is a better method?
  • @hokiegir1,
    +1!
    I think you may be on to something!
    Mileage and gasoline consumption are not analogous since road wear is a function of Mileage and Mass (weight). Gasoline consumption is a function of both, although it varies more linearly with mass while road damage tends to increase non-linearly, approximately with the mass and velocity squared.
    Tire wear, however, may be the perfect solution since, being up against the road, it is impacted (literally) the same way.
  • > @"Earl and Nagin 08 RDS 359" said:
    > @hokiegir1,
    > +1!
    > I think you may be on to something!
    > Mileage and gasoline consumption are not analogous since road wear is a function of Mileage and Mass (weight). Gasoline consumption is a function of both, although it varies more linearly with mass while road damage tends to increase non-linearly, approximately with the mass and velocity squared.
    > Tire wear, however, may be the perfect solution since, being up against the road, it is impacted (literally) the same way.

    So the government can choose to increase revenue by letting the roads deteriorate to the point we loose tires to blow-outs and causes long before they wear out due to mileage.

    Bad idea.
  • Get a flat in week one and have to pay 2 more years taxes a week later :)
  • @mrburke and @Joshan,
    Good point. However, not-taxing road hazard warranty should handle that problem just fine.
    Thanks being the contrarian s. Before we know if something is a "on to something" or a "good idea", it needs to be tested from all angles. What better place to do so than a forum like this full of wise people and trolls.
  • > @"Earl and Nagin 08 RDS 359" said:
    > @hokiegir1,
    > +1!
    > I think you may be on to something!
    > Mileage and gasoline consumption are not analogous since road wear is a function of Mileage and Mass (weight). Gasoline consumption is a function of both, although it varies more linearly with mass while road damage tends to increase non-linearly, approximately with the mass and velocity squared.
    > Tire wear, however, may be the perfect solution since, being up against the road, it is impacted (literally) the same way.

    Lol, yeah tell that to people who have sport low profile tires that needs to be replaced in 2-3 years vs regular tires that can be used up to 5 years or longer.
  • > @FunnyFish said:
    > Lol, yeah tell that to people who have sport low profile tires that needs to be replaced in 2-3 years vs regular tires that can be used up to 5 years or longer.


    Well in theory, people with more money are supposed to pay more taxes. Guess who is buying low profile tires mostly?
  • Don't look for that other shoe to drop anytime soon. Biden never met a tax increase he didn't like, and I agree it's time to raise the Fed excise tax on gas and stop subsidizing the transportation account from general revenue, but raising the Fed excise tax is regressive and hurts the lower income folks who have to drive long distances to get to their job in the city because they can't afford to live there. Doubt Congress has the political will to do that.
  • @Joshan,
    That acceleration that wears the tires stresses the road more than a limo-start. It's reasonably fair.
Sign In or Register to comment.