The 53' 80k lb tractor trailers that deliver groceries to your store gets about 6mpg. As a result they pay quite a bit in road taxes today. That cost is realized in the price of peoples lettuce and tofu.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mileage based tax
- Thread starter Recoil45
- Start date
- Replies 57
- Views 7K
The 53' 80k lb tractor trailers that deliver groceries to your store gets about 6mpg. As a result they pay quite a bit in road taxes today. That cost is realized in the price of peoples lettuce and tofu.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is just more propaganda bs from apparently paid shill recoil45 (like recoil on a pistol like some kind of shooter and recoil against green- is like trucker handles so shills can identify each other) ABSOLUTELY NOTHING should be done to slow down the adoption of BEVs. Its a total non issue as long as their a still ICE cars or fossil fuel companies still allowed to do business or claim and ill gotten profit.
What exactly is propaganda?
Leave out the emotion and provide some links or references.
A politician (a quite left leaning one at that) is suggesting a mileage based tax that is fairly applied to the cars causing wear to our roads. Seems fair to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Leave out the emotion and provide some links or references.
A politician (a quite left leaning one at that) is suggesting a mileage based tax that is fairly applied to the cars causing wear to our roads. Seems fair to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Propaganda? Pot meet Kettle.
It is a conversation, I may not agree completely with Recoil, but he is not a propaganist as far as I can tell. Certainly the states that are anti EV are on the forefront of this, but in the future it will become an issue.
More on topic, even though funds get squished around tagging them for roads is a wise idea.
It is a conversation, I may not agree completely with Recoil, but he is not a propaganist as far as I can tell. Certainly the states that are anti EV are on the forefront of this, but in the future it will become an issue.
More on topic, even though funds get squished around tagging them for roads is a wise idea.
I would propose that a tax per KWhr be placed instead of per mile.
A mileage based tax favors heavier and less efficient vehicles -- those that do exponentially more damage to infrastructure.
A consumption tax addresses the actual cost drivers.
The only reason we suggest a mileage tax is because someone has already put a certified odometer or a GPS in cars. It would simply require a certified power meter to be placed on the input.
It could even be connected through telematics to simplify information collection without exposing very much privacy information or it could be read manually during annual inspections.
A mileage based tax favors heavier and less efficient vehicles -- those that do exponentially more damage to infrastructure.
A consumption tax addresses the actual cost drivers.
The only reason we suggest a mileage tax is because someone has already put a certified odometer or a GPS in cars. It would simply require a certified power meter to be placed on the input.
It could even be connected through telematics to simplify information collection without exposing very much privacy information or it could be read manually during annual inspections.
R P
Well-Known Member
People seem to forget or ignore the biggest obstacle to EV adoption. We need more and better electrical grid capacity. Instead of just penalizing, there should be a balance and also incentivize good outcomes. I proposed the following on another thread, but applies here as well.
Here's a novel idea. Should provide free charging and subsidies to buy EVs, but only in areas where near 100% of electricity is renewables and there is an excess of electricity produced. And then penalize EV buyers with extra fees and taxes in those areas where the majority of electricity is not renewables, and/or there is a shortage of grid power resulting in brown/black outs. That might incentivize govts and corps to change how electricity is produced, and push off the coming crisis where more BEVs would completely cripple the grid infrastructure. And might also incentivize other types of EVs like HFCEVs which don't just depend on the electrical grid.
Here's a novel idea. Should provide free charging and subsidies to buy EVs, but only in areas where near 100% of electricity is renewables and there is an excess of electricity produced. And then penalize EV buyers with extra fees and taxes in those areas where the majority of electricity is not renewables, and/or there is a shortage of grid power resulting in brown/black outs. That might incentivize govts and corps to change how electricity is produced, and push off the coming crisis where more BEVs would completely cripple the grid infrastructure. And might also incentivize other types of EVs like HFCEVs which don't just depend on the electrical grid.
This is a very valid point and very logical. This is exactly how it should be.
Tractor trailers weighing 80k lbs who consume diesel @ 6 mpg pay more today and this really should not change.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I do wonder if we are trying to slice it too fine here. When EVs become a big enough proportion of the fleet the mileage numbers will average out. Unless you have a collection of half a dozen EVs in your garage registered and insured, a flat rate is not going to appreciatively hurt you. Both 100k per year and 1k per year are outliers. While the proliferation of giant SUVs is a largely a result of gov't policies that pushed for cheap gasoline, I am not certain that is the same effect that will come into play with EVs.
turtleturtle
Active Member
Okay, so this is interesting. If you had a more efficient car, you’d pay less, incentivizing manufactures and consumers to buy efficient cars. The gas guzzler EV would pay more. That nearly matches current model. I like it.
Yes, like a per-gallon charge on gasoline..........except for the actual measurement and collection. How would one measure the kWh consumption of an EV in use? Gas is easy, because it's measured when the gasoline is distributed, but how would one measure the distribution of electricity into EVs, given that the "distribution" is done in a myriad of places, both public and private? Are you suggesting collecting the driving data from the EVs?
Although not completely thought through: I'm thinking of a small, tamper-sealed, certified device (comparable to the odometer), possibly like a clamp-on ammeter, that records the current going into the battery. It (like an odometer) could have a readout that could be readable by human, machine, or telemetered with similar or, perhaps, stronger consequences if frauded. I'm thinking such a device, in huge quantities could cost maybe under $50 and provided to automakers for free (possibly paid for from registration fees). Reading it would part of annual registration/inspection process.
This is absurdly backwards. If EVs are really as cheap to operate as people claim, there will be a further mass adaptation of large SUVs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This mileage tax is super dumb, its regressive it hits the poor harder and its logistics don't work without too much phone home, if people are regularly crossing state boarders or taking long trips the tax would be paid into the wrong jurisdiction. If it is a heavier vehicle and there is a flat mileage tax its shifting that wear and tax burden onto less well-off vehicles owners and in effect is subsidizing businesses but worst of all it takes the killing pressure off fossil fuels- they need to pay for the damage done and they can pay until income taxes and VLF taxes take up the slack after fossil fuel and petroleum companies are essentially extinct- we don't even really need them for the 10% of their business that provides for plastics, minerals and chemicals- an do much of that in other cleaner ways even against their in place infrastructure. And even if it were done the mileage penalty (which it must not ever be done because its lame) it would need to apply double to fossil fuel vehicles even if they have the gas tax because all the local gas taxes try to do is try to claw back some of the unnecessary federal subsidies taken out of the hides of local residents that are given over to corporate welfare case fossil fuel companies. And even if the Fed stops giving that away the states can just let it go they can re-purpose their proceeds into green and the fed can spend more money on non fossil fuel based road materials.
This is being pushed by 'recoil45'- mods why don't you ban that shill? Seriously? Are EV buyer going to want to self-flagellate to help fossil fuel companies and dissuade EV economies of scale on this total non issue? The whole premise of this thread is so insulting to the EV community. This is happening when PG&E and SCE are allowed to do Enron style rolling black out scams for their not having undergrounded in the first place with the radically excessive money taken from taken hostage public to then turn around and use the fires they caused to jack up rates to dissuade EVs purchase to protect oil companies. Really paying 21 cents per kwh in CA when its 1 cent a kwh to generate even with utility battery backed solar in the state and all to jack up prices for profit to make fossil fuel seem more competitive? This thread should be deleted. Nothing is being debated here no one that isn't a shill is interested in this.
This is being pushed by 'recoil45'- mods why don't you ban that shill? Seriously? Are EV buyer going to want to self-flagellate to help fossil fuel companies and dissuade EV economies of scale on this total non issue? The whole premise of this thread is so insulting to the EV community. This is happening when PG&E and SCE are allowed to do Enron style rolling black out scams for their not having undergrounded in the first place with the radically excessive money taken from taken hostage public to then turn around and use the fires they caused to jack up rates to dissuade EVs purchase to protect oil companies. Really paying 21 cents per kwh in CA when its 1 cent a kwh to generate even with utility battery backed solar in the state and all to jack up prices for profit to make fossil fuel seem more competitive? This thread should be deleted. Nothing is being debated here no one that isn't a shill is interested in this.
Poor people don't own cars.
This would just be a replacement for the current system which is mileage based, based on fuel usage.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Really? Ban me?
You won't see me request you to be banned. That whole conservative freedom of speech thing...
Second, it's your left leaning politician Pete Buttigieg calling for this tax not me. Maybe you can try to cancel Pete Buttigieg?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Perhaps, instead of debate this, we pool our collective knowledge, experience, and brainpower to instead work on solving it?
While some EV drivers feel entitled to not paying road tax because of their lack of stress on the environment, their quiet driving, or their general superiority as human beings /s and whether decimal 101101 or binary 45 are shills is irrelevant and petty internet bickering and name calling doesn't help.
The fact is that there are people out there, many in positions of power, who do see EVs as not paying their share of road tax and we, the EV community, can possibly help find a solution.
This thread as well as other in other EV forums is a good place to debate and seek solutions.
I tend to agree that flat mileage tax only benefits the wrong people.
I've also suggested a high level for an approach that I believe brings EV contributions on par with ICE contributions.
However, my suggestion lacks an execution or "go to market" plan to actually put it in place?
The suggestion that EV drivers don't deserve taxation would also need an action plan. Who's going to convince the politicians and bureaucrats who are depending on those proceeds to buy votes or pay for their pensions that depend on siphoning off those funds?
Does anyone have ideas for other approaches or action plans?
R P
Well-Known Member
You guys are still all missing the whole point, that I tried to explain a few times before. Instead of just talking about how to have EVs pay for roads, you should be talking about how to expand the electrical grid capacity with renewable energy to accommodate EVS. There will not be enough for all the EVs that are supposed to come in the next 10 years. I have proposed some ways I believe would work and really help the EV movement, in a good way, which is not by burning more fossil fuel.
This is not a problem. We very well know how to expand the grid and, even better, the cheapest way today is with renewables. The market will handle this. Regardless of how desperate the fossil fuel interests try to fight, they'll lose every bidding war against renewables with no downstream fuel costs.
We need to focus on solving problems not making things into problems that aren't or making enemies of those who could be our friends.